New Multipolar World

Pepe Escobar: Neocons Want War With China, Sputnikglobe.com 07.21.2023.

It was a photo op for the ages: a visibly well-disposed President Xi Jinping receiving centenarian "old friend of China" Henry Kissinger in Beijing.

Mirroring meticulous Chinese attention to protocol, they met at Villa 5 of the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse – exactly where Kissinger first met in person with Zhou Enlai in 1971, preparing Nixon’s 1972 visit to China.

The Mr. Kissinger Goes to Beijing saga was an "unofficial", individual attempt to try to mend increasingly fractious Sino-American relations. He was not representing the current American administration.

There’s the rub. Everyone involved in geopolitics is aware of the legendary Kissinger formulation: To be the US's enemy is dangerous, to be the US's friend is fatal. History abounds in examples, from Japan and South Korea to Germany, France and Ukraine.

As quite a few Chinese scholars privately argued, if reason is to be upheld, and “respecting the wisdom of this 100-years-old diplomat”, Xi and the Politburo should maintain the China-US relation as it is: “icy”.

After all, they reason, being the US's enemy is dangerous but manageable for a Sovereign Civilizational State like China. So Beijing should keep “the honorable and less perilous status” of being a US enemy.

The World Through Washington’s Eyes

What’s really going on in the back rooms of the current American administration was not reflected by Kissinger’s high-profile peace initiative, but by an extremely combative Edward Luttwak.

Luttwak, 80, may not be as visibly influential as Kissinger, but as a behind the scenes strategist he’s been advising the Pentagon across the spectrum for over five decades. His book on Byzantine Empire strategy, for instance, heavily drawing on top Italian and British sources, is a classic.

Luttwak, a master of deception, reveals precious nuggets in terms of contextualizing current Washington moves. That starts with his assertion that the US – represented by the Biden combo – is itching to do a deal with Russia.

That explains why CIA head William Burns, actually a capable diplomat, called his counterpart, SVR head Sergey Naryshkin (Russian Foreign Intelligence) to sort of straighten things up “because you have something else to worry about which is more unlimited”.

What’s “unlimited”, depicted by Luttwak in a Spenglerian sweep, is Xi Jinping’s drive to “get ready for war”. And if there’s a war, Luttwak claims that “of course” China would lose. That dovetails with the supreme delusion of Straussian neocon psychos across the Beltway.

Luttwak seems not to have understood China’s drive for food self-sufficiency: he qualifies it as a threat. Same for Xi using a “very dangerous” concept, the “rejuvenation of the Chinese people”: that’s “Mussolini stuff”, says Luttwak. “There has to be a war to rejuvenate China”.

The “rejuvenation” concept - actually better translated as “revival” - has been resonating in China circles at least since the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in 1911. It was not coined by Xi. Chinese scholars point out that if you see US troops arriving in Taiwan as “advisors”, you would probably make preparations to fight too.

But Luttwak is on a mission: “This is not America, Europe, Ukraine, Russia. This is about ‘the sole dictator’. There is no China. There is only Xi Jinping,” he insisted.

And Luttwak confirms the EU’s Josep “Garden vs. Jungle” Borrell and European Commission dominatrix Ursula von der Leyen fully support his vision.

Luttwak, in just a few words, actually gives away the whole game: “The Russian Federation, as it is, is not strong enough to contain China as much as we would wish”.

Hence the turn around by the Biden combo to “freeze” the conflict in the Donbass and change the subject. After all, “if that [China] is the threat, you don’t want Russia to fall apart,” Luttwak reasons.

So much for Kissingerian “diplomacy.”

Let’s Declare a “Moral Victory” and Run Away

On Russia, the Kissinger vs. Luttwak confrontation reveals crucial cracks as the Empire faces an existential conflict it never did in the recent past.

The gradual, massive U-turn is already in progress – or at least the semblance of a U turn. US mainstream media will be entirely behind the U turn. And the naïve masses will follow. Luttwak is already voicing their deepest agenda: the real war is on China, and China “will lose”.

At least some non-neocon players around the Biden combo – like Burns – seem to have understood the Empire’s massive strategic blunder of publicly committing to a Forever War, hybrid and otherwise, against Russia on behalf of Kiev.

This would mean, in principle, that Washington can't just walk away like it did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yet Hegemons do enjoy the privilege to walk away: after all they exercise sovereignty, not their vassals. European vassals will be left to rot. Imagine those Baltic chihuahuas declaring war on Russia-China all by themselves.

The off-ramp confirmed by Luttwak implies Washington declaring some sort of “moral victory” in Ukraine – which is already controlled by BlackRock anyway - and then moving the guns towards China.

Yet even that won’t be a cakewalk, because China and the about-to-expand BRICS+ are already attacking the Empire at its foundation: dollar hegemony. Without it, the US itself will have to fund the war on China.

Chinese scholars, off the record, and exercising their millennia-old analytical sweep, observe this may be the last blunder the Empire ever made in its short history.

As one of them summarized it, “the empire has blundered itself to an existential war and, therefore, the last war of the empire. When the end comes, the empire will lie as usual and declare victory, but everyone else will know the truth, especially the vassals.”

And that brings us to former national security adviser Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s 180-degree turn shortly before he died, aligning him today with Kissinger, not Luttwak.

“The Grand Chessboard”, published in 1997, before the 9/11 era, argued that the US should rule over any peer competitor rising in Eurasia. Brzezinski did not live to see the living incarnation of his ultimate nightmare: a Russia-China strategic partnership. But already seven years ago – two years after Maidan in Kiev - at least he understood it was imperative to "realign the global power architecture".

Destroying the “Rules-Based International Order”

The crucial difference today, compared to seven years ago, is that the US is incapable, per Brzezinski, to “take the lead in realigning the global power architecture in such a way that the violence (…) can be contained without destroying the global order.”

It’s the Russia-China strategic partnership that is taking the lead – followed by the Global Majority – to contain and ultimately destroy the hegemonic “rules-based international order”.

As the indispensable Michael Hudson has summarized it, the ultimate question at this incandescent juncture is “whether economic gains and efficiency will determine world trade, patterns and investment, or whether the post-industrial US/NATO economies will choose to end up looking like the rapidly depopulating and de-industrializing post-Soviet Ukraine and Baltic states or England.”

So is the wet dream of a war on China going to change these geopolitical and geoeconomics imperatives? Give us a -Thucydides – break.

The real war is already on – but certainly not one identified by Kissinger, Brzezinski and much less Luttwak and assorted US neocons. Michael Hudson, once again, summarized it: when it comes to the economy, the US and EU "strategic error of self-isolation from the rest of the world is so massive, so total, that its effects are the equivalent of a world war.”

https://sputnikglobe.com/20230721/pepe-escobar-neocons-want-war-with-china-1112033985.html

Pepe Escobar: Geopolitical Chessboard Shifts Against US Empire, 07.29.2023.

The geopolitical chessboard is in perpetual shift – and never more than in our current incandescent juncture.

A fascinating consensus in discussions among Chinese scholars – including those part of the Asian and American diasporas – is that not only Germany/EU lost Russia, perhaps irretrievably, but China gained Russia, with an economy highly complementary to China's own and with solid ties with the Global South/Global Majority that can benefit and aid Beijing.

Meanwhile, a smatter of Atlanticist foreign policy analysts are now busy trying to change the narrative on NATO vs. Russia, applying the rudiments of realpolitik.

The new spin is that it’s “strategic insanity” for Washington to expect to defeat Moscow, and that NATO is experiencing “donor fatigue” as the sweatshirt warmonger in Kiev “loses credibility”.

Translation: it’s NATO as a whole that is completely losing credibility, as its humiliation in the Ukraine battlefield is now painfully graphic for all the Global Majority to see.

Additionally, “donor fatigue” means losing a major war, badly. As military analyst Andrei Martyanov has relentlessly stressed, “NATO ‘planning’ is a joke. And they are envious, painfully envious and jealous.”

A credible path ahead is that Moscow will not negotiate with NATO – a mere Pentagon add-on – but offer individual European nations a security pact with Russia that would make their need to belong to NATO redundant. That would assure security for any participating nation and relieve pressure on it from Washington.

Bets could be made that the most relevant European powers might accept it, but certainly not Poland – the hyena of Europe – and the Baltic chihuahuas.

In parallel, China could offer peace treaties to Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and subsequently a significant part of the US Empire of Bases might vanish.

The problem, once again, is that vassal states don’t have the authority or power to comply with any agreement ensuring peace. German businessmen, off the record, are sure that sooner or later Berlin may defy Washington and do business with the Russia-China strategic partnership because it benefits Germany.

Yet the golden rule still has not been met: if a vassal state wants to be treated as a sovereign state, the first thing to do is to shut down key branches of the Empire of Bases and expel US troops.

Iraq is trying to do it for years now, with no success. One third of Syria remains US-occupied – even as the US lost its proxy war against Damascus due to Russian intervention.

The Ukraine Project as an existential conflict
Russia has been forced to fight against a neighbor and kin that it simply can’t afford to lose; and as a nuclear and hypersonic power, it won’t.

Even if Moscow will be somewhat strategically weakened, whatever the outcome, it’s the US – in the view of Chinese scholars – that may have committed its greatest strategic blunder since the establishment of the Empire: turning the Ukraine Project into an existential conflict, and committing the entire Empire and all its vassals to a Total War against Russia.

That’s why we have no peace negotiations, and the refusal even of a cease fire; the only possible outcome devised by the Straussian neocon psychos who run US foreign policy is unconditional Russian surrender.

In the recent past, Washington could afford to lose its wars of choice against Vietnam and Afghanistan. But it simply can’t afford to lose the war on Russia. When that happens, and it’s already on the horizon, the Revolt of the Vassals will be far reaching.

It’s quite clear that from now on China and BRICS+ - with expansion starting at the summit in South Africa next month – will turbo-charge the undermining of the US dollar. With or without India.

There will be no imminent BRICS currency – as noted by some excellent points in this discussion.  The scope is huge, sherpas are only in the initial debating stages, and the broad outlines have not been defined yet.

The BRICS+ approach will evolve from improved cross border settlement mechanisms – something everyone from Putin to Central Bank head Elvira Nabiullina have stressed – to eventually a new currency way further down the road.

This would probably be a trade instrument rather than a sovereign currency like the euro. It will be designed to compete against the US dollar in trade, initially among BRICS+ nations, and capable of circumventing the hegemonic US dollar ecosystem.

The key question is how long the Empire’s fake economy – clinically deconstructed by Michael Hudson - can hold out in this wide spectrum geoeconomic war.

Everything is a 'national security threat'

On the electronic technology front, the Empire has gone no holds barred to impose global economic dependency, monopolizing intellectual property rights and as Michael Hudson notes, “extracting economic rent from charging high prices for high-technology computer chips, communications, and arms production.”

In practice, not much is happening other than the prohibition for Taiwan to supply valuable chips to China, and asking TSMC to build, as soon as possible, a chip manufacturing complex in Arizona.

However, TSMC chairman Mark Liu has remarked that the plant faced a shortage of workers with the “specialized expertise required for equipment installation in a semiconductor-grade facility.” So the much lauded TSMC chip plant in Arizona won’t start production before 2025.

The top Empire/vassal NATO demand is that Germany and the EU must impose a Trade Iron Curtain against the Russia-China strategic partnership and their allies, thus ensuring “de-risk” trade.

Predictably, US Think Tankland has gone bonkers, with American Enterprise Institute hacks rabidly stating that even economic de-risking is not enough: what the US needs is a hard break with China.

In fact that dovetails with Washington smashing international free trade rules and international law, and treating any form of trade and SWIFT and financial exchanges as “national security threats” to US economic and military control.

So the pattern ahead is not China imposing trade sanctions on the EU – which remains a top trade partner for Beijing; it’s Washington imposing a tsunami of sanctions on nations daring to break the US-led trade boycott.

Russia-DPRK meets Russia-Africa

Only this week, the chessboard went through two game-changing moves: the high-profile visit by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to the DPRK, and the Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg.

Shoigu was received in Pyongyang as a rock star. He had a personal meeting with Kim Jong-Un. The mutual goodwill leads to the strong possibility of North Korea eventually joining one of the multilateral organizations carving the path towards multipolarity.

That would be, arguably, an extended Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). It could start with an EAEU-DPRK free trade agreement, such as the ones struck with Vietnam and Cuba.

Russia is the top power in the EAEU and it can ignore sanctions on the DPRK, while BRICS+, SCO or ASEAN have too many second thoughts. A key priority for Moscow is the development of the Far East, more integration with both Koreas, and the Northern Sea Route, or Arctic Silk Road. The DPRK is then a natural partner.

Getting the DPRK into the EAEU will do wonders for BRI investment: a sort of cover which Beijing does not enjoy for the moment when it invests in the DPRK. That could become a classic case of deeper BRI-EAEU integration.

Russian diplomacy at the highest levels is going all out to relieve the pressure over the DPRK. Strategically, that’s a real game-changer; imagine the huge and quite sophisticated North Korean industrial-military complex added to the Russia-China strategic partnership and turning the whole Asia-Pacific paradigm upside down.

The Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg, in itself, was another game-changer that left collective West mainstream media apoplectic. That was nothing less than Russia publicly announcing, in words and deeds, a comprehensive strategic partnership with the whole of Africa even as a hostile collective West wages Hybrid War – and otherwise – against Afro-Eurasia.

Putin showed how Russia holds a 20% share of the global wheat market. In the first 6 months of 2023, it had already exported 10 million tons of grain to Africa. Now Russia will be providing Zimbabwe, Burkina Faso, Somalia and Eritrea with 25-50 thousand tons of grain each in the next 3-4 months, for free.

Putin detailed everything from approximately 30 energy projects across Africa to the expansion of oil and gas exports and “unique non-energy applications of nuclear technology, including in medicine”; the launching of a Russian industrial zone near the Suez Canal with products to be exported throughout Africa; and the development of Africa’s financial infrastructure, including connection to the Russian payment system.

Crucially, he also extolled closer ties between the EAEU and Africa. A forum panel, “EAEU-Africa: Horizons of Cooperation”, examined the possibilities, which include closer continental connection with both the BRICS and Asia. A torrent of free trade agreements may be in the pipeline.

The scope of the forum was quite impressive. There were “de-neocolonialization” panels, such as “Achieving Technological Sovereignty Through Industrial Cooperation” or “New World Order: from the Legacy of Colonialism to Sovereignty and Development.”

And of course the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) was also discussed, with major players Russia, Iran and India set to promote its crucial extension to Africa, escaping NATO littorals.

Separate from the frantic action in St. Petersburg, Niger went through a military coup. Although the end-result remains to be seen, Niger is likely to join neighboring Mali in reasserting its foreign policy independence from Paris. French influence is also being at least “reset” in the Central African Republic (CAR) and Burkina Faso. Translation: France and the West are being evicted all across the Sahel, one-step at a time, in an irreversible process of decolonization.

Beware the Pale Horses of Destruction

These movements across the chessboard, from the DPRK to Africa and the chip war against China, are as crucial as the coming, shattering humiliation of NATO in Ukraine. Yet not only the Russia-China strategic partnership but also key players across the Global South/Global Majority are fully aware that Washington views Russia as a tactical enemy in preparation for the overriding Total War against China.

As it stands, the still unresolved tragedy in Donbass as it keeps the Empire busy, and away from Asia-Pacific. Yet Washington under the Straussian neocon psychos is increasingly mired in Desperation Row, making it even more dangerous.

All that while the BRICS+ “jungle” turbo-charges the necessary mechanisms capable of sidelining the unipolar Western “garden”, as a helpless Europe is being driven to an abyss, forced to split itself from China, BRICS+ and the de facto Global Majority.

It doesn’t take a seasoned weatherman to see which way the steppe wind blows – as the Pale Horses of Destruction plot the trampling of the chessboard, and the wind begins to howl.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20230729/pepe-escobar-geopolitical-chessboard-shifts-against-us-empire--1112240929.html

This subject belongs in this thread.

Putin's Valdai speech affirmed the trend to "civilizational centers" forming the poles of the multi-polar new order. He highlighted how the
western pole has been using colonialism to pillage the other poles and these days are drawing to a close. The exceptionalism claimed
by the west about being the only model for humanity is total BS.

I think this explains the woke spasm in the west orchestrated by the power elites. They are using wokeness to trigger an anti-woke
backlash and give the western population a hard core fascist make over. This includes total hate for the concept of multi-polarity since
it sounds a lot like the woke wailing about oppressive whitey and exploitation of the non-whites applied to current situations in the
west where it simply does not apply. Whitey does not own colonialism. The mixed elites do.

The woke spasm is clearly staged since it came out of nowhere in the last 15 years when it became increasingly evident to those with
a clue that the west was losing its dominant position. The current war on Russia and soon China shows that the western elites are
going to go down fighting.

I do not think that polarizing the western proles will save the west's dominant position. It is likely to prevent sane political evolution in the
west if people are triggered into rejecting multi-polarity. But there was never enough freedom for such sanity to take hold since the west is
a elite run theater. Imposing fascism is just elite insecurity.

The current war on Russia and soon China shows that the western elites are
going to go down fighting.

On a positive note the cuts to aid and the internal dissent suggest support for the war in Europe is waning despite every effort by the US and UK and France and Germany to double down and commit more resources to the losing side. (western morality or nazism)

We'll see if the western public can exert real influence on its fate. It does not look like the western elites are giving up their fight.
They are really advancing the lunatic plan to have a war with China using Taiwan like another Ukraine.

The western elites appear to want to use proxy conflicts in place of total war to achieve the same goal: to bring Russia and China
to heel and terrorize the rest of the planet into submission. I do not see this being a successful strategy. They are losing badly
with their Ukria operation and I just don't see why they will succeed with Taiwan. I suppose China is more exposed to economic
damage since it has large trade with the west. If a Taiwan war severs this trade, then that is not good for China. But it is
not enough to bring it down. China's economy has been driven by domestic demand for last 20 years at least. It is not a
banana republic dependent on the western market. Just like Russia isn't one either. But the western elites love their caricature
images such as "gas station posing as a country". This just shows that they are lunatic morons.

So the big risk is that the west will spasm into a nuclear attack when its attempt at proxy war fails. If they were rational, then
they would be adapting to live in a multi-polar world instead of trying to preserve colonial supremacy. The notion that Russia
will not fight back with nukes is pervasive in much of the noise that comes out of think tanks and western politicians. We
have covered this topic before.

EU residents may not like the Ukria war but they still froth at the mouth with hate for Russia. For now they don't have the
same hate for China.

Pepe Escobar: Five Variables Defining Our Future, 01.25.2024.

In the late 1930s, with WWII in motion, and only months before his assassination, Leon Trotsky already had a vision of what the future Empire of Chaos would be up to.

“For Germany it was a question of ‘organising Europe’. The United States must ‘organize’ the world. History is bringing mankind face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism…Under one or another pretext and slogan the United States will intervene in the tremendous clash in order to maintain its world dominion.”

We all know what happened next. Now we are under a new volcano that even Trotsky could not have identified: a declining United States faced with the Russia-China “threat”. And once again the entire planet is affected by major moves in the geopolitical chessboard.

The Straussian neocons in charge of US foreign policy could never accept Russia-China leading the way towards a multipolar world. For now we have NATO’s perpetual expansionism as their strategy to debilitate Russia, and Taiwan as their strategy to debilitate China.

Yet in these past two years, the vicious proxy war in Ukraine only accelerated the transition towards a multipolar, Eurasia-driven world order.

With the indispensable help of Prof. Michael Hudson, let’s briefly recap the 5 key variables that are conditioning the current transition.

Losers Don’t Dictate Terms

1. The stalemate: That’s the new, obsessive US narrative on Ukraine – on steroids. Confronted with the upcoming, cosmic NATO humiliation in the battlefield, the White House and the State Dept. had to – literally - improvise.

Moscow though is unfazed. The Kremlin has set the terms a long time ago: total surrender, and no Ukraine as part of NATO. To “negotiate”, from the Russia point of view, is to accept these terms.

And if the deciding powers in Washington opt for turbo-charging the weaponization of Kiev, or to unleash “the most heinous provocations in order to change the course of events”, as asserted this week by the head of the SVR, Sergey Naryshkin, fine.

The road ahead will be bloody. In case the usual suspects sideline popular Zaluzhny and install Budanov as the head of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the AFU will be under total control of the CIA - and not NATO generals, as it’s still the case.

This might prevent a military coup against the sweaty sweatshirt puppet in Kiev. Yet things will get much uglier.

Ukraine will go Total Guerrilla, with only two objectives: to attack Russian civilians and civilian infrastructure. Moscow, of course, is fully aware of the dangers.

Meanwhile, chatterbox overdrive in several latitudes suggest that NATO may even be getting ready for a partition of Ukraine. Whatever form that might take, losers do not dictate conditions: Russia does.

As for EU politicos, predictably, they are in total panic, believing that after mopping up Ukraine, Russia will become even more of a "threat" to Europe. Nonsense. Not only Moscow couldn’t give a damn to what Europe “thinks”; the last thing Russia wants or needs is to annex Baltic or Eastern European hysteria. Moreover, even Jens Stoltenberg admitted “NATO sees no threat from Russia toward any of its territories.”

2. BRICS: Since the start of 2024, this is The Big Picture: the Russian presidency of BRICS+ - which translates as a particle accelerator towards multipolarity. The Russia-China strategic partnership will be increasing actual production, in several fields, while Europe plunges into depression, unleashed by the Perfect Storm of sanctions blowback against Russia and German de-industrialization. And it’s far from over, as Washington is also ordering Brussels to sanction China across the spectrum.

As Prof. Michael Hudson frames it, we are right in the middle of “the whole split of the world and the turning towards China, Russia, Iran, BRICS”, united in “an attempt to reverse, undo, and roll back the whole colonial expansion that’s occurred over the last five centuries.”

Or, as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov defined at the UN Security Council this process of BRICS leaving Western bullies behind, the changing world order is like “a playground scuffle – which the West is losing.”

Bye Bye, Soft Power

3. The Lone Emperor: The “stalemate” – actually losing a war - is directly linked to its compensation: the Empire squeezing and shrinking a vassalised Europe. But even as you exercise nearly total control over all these relatively wealthy vassals, you lose the Global South, for good: if not all their leaders, certainly the overwhelming majority of public opinion.

The icing in the toxic cake is to support a genocide followed by the whole planet in real time. Bye bye, soft power.

4. De-dollarisation: All across the Global South, they did the math: if the Empire and its EU vassals can just steal over $300 billion in Russian foreign reserves – from a top nuclear/military power – they can do it to anyone, and they will.

The key reason Saudi Arabia, now a BRICS 10 member, is being so meek on the genocide in Gaza is because their hefty US dollar reserves are hostage to the Hegemon.

And yet the caravan moving away from the US dollar will only keep growing in 2024: that will depend on crucial crossover deliberations inside the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and BRICS 10.

5. Garden and jungle: What Putin and Xi have essentially been telling the Global South – including the energy-rich Arab world - is quite simple. If you want improved trade and economic growth, who’re you gonna link to?

So we’re back to the “garden and jungle” syndrome – first coined by imperial Britain orientalist Rudyard Kipling. Both the British concept of “white man’s burden” and the American concept of “Manifest Destiny” derive from the “garden and jungle” metaphor.

NATOstan, and hardly all of it, is supposed to be the garden. The Global South is the jungle. Michael Hudson again: as it stands, the jungle is growing, but the garden isn’t growing “because its philosophy is not industrialization. Its philosophy is to make monopoly rents, meaning rents that you make in your sleep without producing value. You just have a privilege of a right to collect money on a monopoly technology that you have.”

The difference now, compared to all those decades ago of an imperial free lunch, is “an immense shift of technological advance”, away from North America and the US, to China, Russia and selected nodes across Asia.

Forever Wars. And No Plan B

If we combine all these variants – stalemate; BRICS; the Lone Emperor; de-dollarisation; garden and jungle – in search of the most probable scenario ahead, it’s easy to see that the only “way out” for a cornered Empire is, what else, the default modus operandi: Forever Wars.

And that brings us to the current American aircraft carrier in West Asia, totally out of control yet always supported by the Hegemon, aiming for a multi-front war against the whole Axis of Resistance: Palestine, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraqi militias, Ansarullah in Yemen, and Iran.

In a sense we’re back to the immediate post-9/11, when what the neocons really wanted was not Afghanistan, but the invasion of Iraq: not only to control the oil (which in the end they didn’t) but, in Michael Hudson’s analysis, “to essentially create America’s foreign legion in the form of ISIS and al-Qaeda in Iraq.” Now, “America has two armies that it’s using to fight in the Near East, the ISIS/al-Qaeda foreign legion (Arabic-speaking foreign legion) and the Israelis.”

Hudson’s intuition of ISIS and Israel as parallel armies is priceless: they both fight the Axis of Resistance, and never (italics mine) fight each other. The Straussian neocon plan, as tawdry as it gets, essentially is a variant of the “fight to the last Ukrainian”: to “fight to the last Israeli” on the way to the Holy Grail, which is to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (copyright John McCain) and provoke regime change.

As much as the “plan” did not work in Iraq or Ukraine, it won’t work against the Axis of Resistance.

What Putin, Xi and Raisi have been explaining to the Global South, explicitly or in quite subtle ways, is that we are right in the crux of a civilisational war.

Michael Hudson has done a lot to bring down such an epic struggle to practical terms. Are we heading towards what I described as techno-feudalism – which is the AI format of rent-seeking turbo-neoliberalism? Or are we heading to something similar to the origins of industrial capitalism?

Michael Hudson characterizes an auspicious horizon as “raising living standards instead of imposing IMF financial austerity on the dollar block”: devising a system that Big Finance, Big Bank, Big Pharma and what Ray McGovern memorably coined as the MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) cannot control. Alea jacta est.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240125/pepe-escobar-five-variables-defining-our-future-1116381887.html

Not just a conflict of interest: the fate of the world is being decided in Ukraine, by Alexander Dugin for RiaNovosti. 05.14.2024.

The inauguration of President Putin marks a new stage in Russian history. Some lines from previous periods will certainly be continued. Some will reach a critical threshold. Something will be rolled up. But something new must come.

I would like to draw attention to the ideological aspect, which can become a fundamental vector for the further development of Russia in the international context.

In our fierce confrontation with the West, teetering on the brink of a nuclear conflict and a third world war, the problem of values ​​is becoming increasingly visible. The war in Ukraine is not just a conflict between states with their completely rational national interests, but a clash of civilizations fiercely defending their value systems.

Today we can say with certainty that Russia has finally placed its bet on protecting traditional values ​​and it is with them that it associates the fundamental processes of strengthening its own civilizational identity and geopolitical sovereignty. We are talking not just about the different interests of individual subjects within the same - Western - civilization, as until recently it was still a stretch, but one could interpret the increasingly flaring conflict between Russia and the collective West. It is now obvious that two value systems have collided with each other.

The modern collective West stands strongly for:

• absolute individualism;
• LGBT* and gender politics;
• cosmopolitanism;
• cancel culture;
• posthumanism;
• unrestricted migration;
• destruction of all forms of identity;
• critical race theory (according to which previously oppressed peoples have every right to in turn oppress their former oppressors);
• relativistic and nihilistic philosophy of postmodernism.

The West mercilessly censors its own history, bans books and works of art, and the US Congress is preparing to remove entire blocks from the Holy Scriptures that allegedly offend certain groups of people on ethnic and religious grounds. Moreover, the development of digital technologies and neural networks has put on the agenda the transfer of the initiative of government on a global scale from humanity to artificial intelligence - and a number of Western authors are already extolling this as an incredible success and the long-awaited arrival of the moment of singularity.

Contrary to all this, Putin’s Russia directly opposes a completely different set of values, many of which are legislated in Decree No. 809 of November 9, 2022. Russia firmly defends:

• collective identity versus individualism;
• patriotism versus cosmopolitanism;
• a healthy family against the legalization of perversion;
• religion against nihilism, materialism and relativism;
• human versus posthumanistic experiments;
• organic identity against its erosion;
• historical truth versus cancel culture.

There are two opposing orientations, moreover, two antagonistic ideologies and worldview systems. Russia chooses tradition; the West, on the contrary, chooses everything non-traditional and even anti-traditional.

This makes the conflict in Ukraine, where these two civilizations faced each other in a bitter, decisive battle, something much more than a simple conflict of interests. Of course, it is here, but it is not the main one. The main thing is that two models for the further development of humanity have come into conflict - along the liberal, globalist, anti-traditional path of the modern West or along an alternative, multipolar, polycentric path with the preservation of tradition and traditional values, for which Russia is fighting.

And here is the time to note that the multipolar world, to which Russia declared allegiance at the previous stage of Putin’s rule, makes sense only if we recognize each pole, each civilization (today clearly represented in the BRICS ) the right to its own identity, its tradition, its value system. Multipolarity becomes meaningful and justified if we proceed from the pluralism of existing cultures and recognize their right to preserve their identity and develop based on internal principles. This means that the poles of a multipolar world, in contrast to the globalist unipolar model, where by default Western values ​​dominate as universal ones, to one degree or another follow the path of Russia, but only by taking on board their own - each time different - traditional values.

We see this clearly in modern China . Not only does it reject globalism, liberalism and world capitalism as a dogma, preserving many features of the socialist structure, it is increasingly turning to the eternal values ​​of Chinese culture, reviving on a new level the political and social ethics of Confucius , which inspired and regulated society for several millennia . It is no coincidence that one of the leading theories of international relations in modern China has become the ancient idea of ​​Tianxia, ​​where China is conceived at the center of the world system, and all other nations surround the Celestial Empire on the periphery. China is its own absolute center, open to the world, but strictly guarding its sovereignty, uniqueness and originality.

Modern India (Bharat) is moving in the same direction , especially under the rule of Narendra Modi . And again, deep identity, Hindutva, dominates here, reviving the foundations of the ancient Vedic culture, religion, philosophy, and social structure.

The Islamic world even more categorically rejects the value system of the collective West, which is in no way compatible with Islamic laws, rules and guidelines. And in this case, the emphasis is on tradition.

The peoples of Africa are moving in the same direction , entering a new round of decolonization - this time of consciousness, culture, way of thinking. More and more African thinkers, politicians and public figures are turning to the origins of their autochthonous cultures.

Latin America , too, is gradually discovering these new horizons of traditionalism, religion, and cultural roots, coming into more and more direct conflict with the policies of the United States and the collective West. Moreover, the specificity of Latin America is that the anti-colonial struggle for a long time took place mainly under left-wing slogans. Now the situation is changing: the left is discovering the traditional and conservative origins of its struggle (for example, in “liberation theology”, where the Catholic factor dominates) and the conservative anti-colonial front is increasingly growing (for example, “theology of peoples”).

But so far none of the civilizations that focus on multipolarity and prefer tradition have entered into a direct armed conflict with the West, except Russia. Many are hesitating, waiting for the end of this dramatic confrontation. And although potentially the majority of humanity rejects the hegemony of the West and its value systems, no one other than us is ready to enter into a direct clash with it.

This gives Russia a unique chance: to take the lead in the global conservative turn. The moment has come to directly declare that Russia is at war with the claim of Western civilization to the universality of its values ​​and stands entirely for tradition, both for its own (Russian folk, Orthodox-state) and for all others. After all, they too, in the event of the triumph of globalism and the preservation of Western hegemony, are threatened with inevitable destruction.

All civilizations of the world are conservative, this is their identity. And they are increasingly aware of this. Only the postmodern West decided to radically break with its classical Christian roots and began to build a culture of degeneration, perversion, pathology and technical replacement of people with posthuman organisms (from AI to cyborgs, chimeras and products of genetic engineering). And in the West itself, a significant part of society rejects this path and increasingly vehemently opposes the course of the ruling postmodernist liberal elites towards the final abolition of the cultural and historical identity of Western societies themselves.

In his new presidential term, it would be quite logical for Putin to proclaim the defense of tradition - in Russia and throughout the world, including the West itself - as his main ideological mission. Vladimir Putin is already, in the eyes of all mankind, the greatest leader playing precisely this role, heroically resisting Western hegemony. Now is the time to announce Russia’s global mission, which is to protect civilizations and their traditional values. Stop playing along with the West and using its strategies, terms, protocols and criteria. Civilizational sovereignty lies in the fact that every people has the full right to accept and reject any external guidelines, to develop in their own, special way, regardless of the fact that someone from the outside may be dissatisfied with this.

Thus, recently, on May 7, the British newspaper Mirror declared nine words from President Putin’s inaugural speech a “terrible threat to the West.” These words were: “Russia itself and only itself will determine its destiny!” That is, the West perceives any hint of sovereignty as a declaration of war against it. Russia agreed to this and is ready to support everyone who stands up for their sovereignty as decisively as she does.
Of course, each civilization has its own traditional values. But today they are all under attack from one aggressive, intolerant, deceitful and perverted civilization, which is waging a merciless war with any tradition - with tradition as such. In such a situation, Putin’s Russia can openly declare itself the bearer of the opposite mission - to become the defender of tradition and norms, continuity and identity.

Previously, in the twentieth century, Russia's influence in the world relied primarily on the leftist movement. But today it has gradually faded away - either it was absorbed by liberalism, or it was exhausted on its own (with rare exceptions, most often having entered into an alliance with anti-colonial conservative tendencies). Now it’s worth betting on conservatives, supporters of civilizational identity. And so a new slogan is born: traditionalists of all countries, unite!

And we should not be embarrassed, ashamed or hide it. The more confidently we take this path, the faster and more securely our influence in the world will grow. Since we have chosen to focus on multipolarity, we must be consistent in this.
Everyone already considers Putin a key figure in the conservative revival. It's time to proclaim it openly. In any case, criticism from the West cannot be avoided, but now the decisive factors in relations with it are completely different. And our allies - current and potential - will take up supporting Russia with renewed vigor. After all, now our far-reaching goals and objectives will be clear to them. They will believe us and will begin, without any mistrust or hesitation, to build with us a fair and balanced world in the interests of the greater humanity.

* Extremist organization banned in Russia.

https://ria.ru/20240514/interesov-1945681879.html

"Absolute individualism". BS. Conformity is the main feature of the west. That is why the mass media has such control over public opinion.

Driving a car with a broken muffler or keeping a yappy dog in your backyard is not individualism. I remember clowns pointing to the fact that
Soviet police would stop cars with obvious maintenance issues as some sort of violation of human rights. I guess the "right" to annoy other
people is the main human right. For sure, having a chance at a good job and assorted other quality of life issues are not related to any rights
in the precious west.

Why does Russia need friendship between China and India?, by Gevorg Mirzayan for VZGLYAD. 05.14.2024.

There are new signs that two giant countries with long-standing mistrust of each other - India and China - have a new chance for rapprochement. What exactly are we talking about, why is what is happening globally important - and especially for Moscow, which is friends with both Beijing and New Delhi?

China is considered India's main adversary in the east. There are several territorial disputes between the countries (regularly leading to border clashes - such as the battle in the Galwan Valley in 2020, which claimed the lives of 20 Indian border guards and three Chinese). In addition, Indian authorities are very concerned about the growth of Chinese influence in Southeast Asia.

And now there are reports that in 2024 Beijing has taken another leading position in the Indian system of external coordinates - China has overtaken the United States and has become India's main trading partner. In fiscal year 2024 (that is, from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024), bilateral trade amounted to $118.4 billion—about $100 million more than India traded with the United States. These are not just dry accounting numbers. And some experts began to say that this economic relationship could lead to a reduction in conflict between the two countries.

This position is logical. It is based on the Western thesis that economic relations help smooth out political tensions (as is the case in Chinese-American relations), as well as on the objective disinterest of New Delhi and Beijing in the escalation of the conflict.

Indeed, China has already signaled a possible political rapprochement with India. Thus, the Chinese publication The Global Times, traditionally reflecting the point of view of the PRC leadership, wrote that “Asia and the whole world are large enough to accommodate the simultaneous rise of China and India. China's wishes for India's development are sincere...the two countries can achieve mutual success."

Russia maintains a very delicate balance in relations with China and India. As is known, Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing are partners in the BRICS unification. Moreover, there are sometimes even suggestions that Russia, India and China may unite into a new political-economic bloc. And this will happen precisely if Moscow helps New Delhi and Beijing overcome contradictions in bilateral relations.

In other words, the rapprochement of India and China is in the interests of Russia.

“Recently, there have been individual, still very timid steps towards testing the relationship and each other’s positions. Perhaps this is a step towards normalizing relations or at least returning them to their usual course (before the clashes in the Galvan River valley),” Alexey Kupriyanov, head of the Center for the Indian Ocean Region of the IMEMO RAS, confirms to the VZGLYAD newspaper. For example, after 18 months of waiting, China finally appointed a new ambassador to India - former Deputy Foreign Minister Xu Feihong.

On the other hand, New Delhi and Beijing have always separated economics and politics. “Over the past 20 years, even during the most politically difficult periods of bilateral relations, economic ties have only grown. So the increase in trade turnover does not help reduce conflict,” says Alexey Kupriyanov.

If we talk about economic dependence, then the situation for India looks ambiguous.

The lion's share of Chinese-Indian trade turnover (just over 100 billion out of 118.4) will be exports from China. And these imports largely drive Indian economic growth. Thus, China accounts for 44% of Indian imports of equipment for the telecommunications industry and smartphones, 77% of imports of laptops and PCs, and 75% of lithium-ion batteries. A significant share of precursors for the Indian pharmaceutical industry is also imported from China.

Indian authorities tried to turn the situation around. Numerous import substitution programs were launched and protectionist measures were introduced. However, without results - over five years, India's trade deficit in the Chinese direction grew from 53.5 to 85 billion dollars.

Therefore, to some extent, such a trade imbalance contributes to the growth of conflict, and not to its quenching. Moreover, the Chinese are trying to put New Delhi on their technological needle, partly because they are seriously afraid of Indian economic growth.

“The economic gap between the two countries will narrow, and as this happens, China's position on the economic, diplomatic, political and even military front will change. India's presence will become more visible, forcing Beijing to look over its shoulder more often. Especially when he looks at the Pacific region and builds his economic, diplomatic and military position against the United States,” Forbes writes .

Thus, although the Indian-Chinese confrontation is becoming more controlled, it is not disappearing anywhere. Which suits Russia's main geopolitical rival, the United States.

According to US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti, the Chinese threat is “gluing” India and the US together. The Americans manage to integrate their Indian colleagues into various formats to contain Chinese expansion in South and East Asia (for example, in the so-called quadripartite dialogue, where in addition to India the USA, Japan and Australia participate).

Moreover, Garcetti says that New Delhi is taking an even tougher line against China than the current administration of Joseph Biden. “When I come to Congress and hear the words that “India must be with us against China,” I am reminded that it was India that banned Chinese TikTok four years ago. It was India who lost soldiers on the front line in 2020 (talking about the border clash in the Galwan River Valley). It is India that confronts and interacts with China every day,” Garcetti assures . This, of course, looks like only a grain of truth; Washington is wishful thinking - and thereby trying to shape this wishful thinking.

For Russia, the rivalry between two giant Asian countries is unprofitable. “Moscow benefits from the intensification of Chinese-Indian cooperation within the framework of BRICS and the SCO. Russia has a strategic partnership relationship with both Beijing and New Delhi, and we cannot afford to support one side against the other,” says Alexey Kupriyanov.

However, it is possible that New Delhi and Beijing will still be able to bring their political positions closer. Yes, as noted above, Indians clearly separate economics and politics, but political conditions for rapprochement also exist.

The emergence of a multipolar world, the growth of threats from the Central Asian region and (taking into account the expansion of the SCO) the need for cooperation with China in creating a Eurasian system of collective security can automatically lead to a reduction in conflict. And the disappearance of a much needed motive for the United States to confront the two most populous countries in the world.

https://vz.ru/world/2024/5/13/1267911.html

“The economic gap between the two countries will narrow, and as this happens, China's position on the economic, diplomatic, political and even military front will change. India's presence will become more visible, forcing Beijing to look over its shoulder more often. Especially when he looks at the Pacific region and builds his economic, diplomatic and military position against the United States,” Forbes writes .

Forbes being an American propaganda rag that looks out for US interests and of course the threat of two nuclear powers going to war in Asia pales into comparison of the democratic and freedom benefits of the Chinese and Indian economies getting blown to bits by a full scale war that would help the west and the US immeasurably in its relentless campaign to destroy all rivals and competition.

The US claims to be a force for good spreading peace and democracy around the globe but if you have a look at its actions... HATO in Europe was supposed to cause stability and peace and instead created war in Kosovo and Georgia and Ukraine, while AUKUS is supposed to create peace and stability in Asia... do we think it will be as successful as HATO in Europe?

The US is a source for evil on this planet... and will gleefully admit the conflict in Ukraine was all about weakening Russia for the price of ammo and weapons... it is lend lease where Soviets are taking the losses again but this time instead of Nazis in Europe they are fighting nazis in the former Soviet Union which they funded and supported since WWII via the CIA.

The "Third Force" of the Global South, by Vladimir Mozhegov for VZGLYAD. 07.05.2024.

Seeing that the alliance between Russia and China (and now the DPRK) is creating a real alternative to the American world, the Global South is beginning to move “perpendicular” to the Washington vector, looking for its place in the newly emerging configuration of the world, where it will have new degrees of freedom and new opportunities.

The signing of the alliance treaty between Russia and the DPRK has become the most important event of the current political season. An event that, as some commentators write, changes literally everything.

In terms of global geopolitical confrontation, this is true. For example, strategic missiles that could hypothetically be deployed in the DPRK: by blocking Japan, threatening California, they would fundamentally change the situation in the Pacific Ocean in general and around Taiwan in particular. Or disciplined, ideologically motivated North Korean migrants, who are quite capable of replacing the current Central Asian flow. These are just a couple of examples of changes in the current reality associated with the historic treaty. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

For example, Vladimir Putin's visit to Vietnam after his historic visit to the DPRK was discussed much less. However, this diplomatic activity of Russia in the Southeast Asian region is fraught with no less serious changes.

It is no coincidence that the renewal of the level of contacts between Russia and Vietnam is so irritating to the US. Washington today sees Vietnam not just as its new "assembly shop" to replace China (for example, Apple is actively expanding here, and the total trade turnover between the two countries is approaching $140 billion). But Washington hopes to use this country to exert political pressure on China, seeing it as a proxy (like Taiwan and the Philippines) against China. But here the US is clearly stalling: Vietnam clearly does not see itself in such a role.

This also explains Washington's reaction to the Russian president's visit: literally three days after Vladimir Putin's visit, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink arrived here to attest to Washington's "strategically important partnership" with Hanoi.

But now Russia is concluding its first military agreement in its history with Cambodia, a country closely linked to Vietnam. The connection between these events is obvious.

The general goals of Russian activity are also obvious: systematic work is underway to prevent the creation of a belt of American proxies around China and Russia, as well as to oust the Atlantists from Eurasia in principle.

And seeing that the alliance between Russia and China (and now the DPRK) is creating a real alternative to the American world, the Global South is beginning to move “perpendicular” to the Washington vector, looking for its place in the newly emerging configuration of the world, where it will have new degrees of freedom and new opportunities.

It is worth remembering that back in 2022-2023, the same Cambodia was actively in contact with Ukraine, Zelensky awarded the Prime Minister of this country Hun Sen with an order and thanked him for his support. And now everything is changing: an obvious result of the work of Russia and China in the foreign policy field.

The same is shown by the "world summit" in Switzerland on Ukraine, which predictably ended in literally nothing (so as not to call its results a complete failure). Eleven countries, including six members of the "Big Twenty": India, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico - the largest countries by population and regional leaders, for whose sake, in fact, all the action was started, refused to sign the final memorandum. Thus, instead of the unity of the world against Russia, the summit shows the same polarization of the world: someone (in fact, only the West) continues to follow in the wake of Washington, someone (almost the entire non-Western world) is looking for their own paths.

The globalist publication Bloomberg draws a disappointing conclusion from these trends: “Xi and Putin are winning as more Asian leaders seek to join BRICS.”

Indeed, BRICS has doubled in size this year, with countries from the Global South interested in a financial and trading platform independent of Washington. Iran, the UAE, Ethiopia, and Egypt joined the club in January 2024. Even Thailand, a longtime US ally, has expressed interest in joining. And at the recent BRICS dialogue in Russia, Vietnam (as well as Cuba, Venezuela, Turkey, Laos, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Kazakhstan) were among the 12 countries that would be potential members.

“But BRICS membership is also a way to express growing dissatisfaction with the U.S.-led international order and key institutions that remain under the control of Western powers, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,” Bloomberg concludes .

Indeed, in addition to the already existing New Development Bank, created in 2015 on the model of the World Bank, the club members have decided to pool $100 billion in foreign exchange reserves as a common “mutual assistance fund.”

Thus, real alternative financial institutions to globalism are already beginning to operate.

It is hardly a coincidence that, at the end of his historic visit, Vladimir Putin makes a statement in Hanoi that probably makes an even greater impression on the Western public than the Moscow-Pyongyang strategic alliance: “In the West, they are also saying that they want to achieve a strategic defeat for Russia on the battlefield. What does this mean for Russia? For Russia, this means the end of its statehood. This means the end of the thousand-year history of the Russian state. I think this is clear to everyone. And then the question arises: why should we be afraid? Wouldn’t it be better for us to go to the end? This is elementary formal logic”…

Of course, this is not said just to scare the West with the alternative of “the whole world going to pieces,” but so that the big players on that side understand: the formation of a new, more just world for everyone cannot be stopped; it is already underway, and is happening quite rapidly.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/7/5/1274952.html

India and China vow to stabilize bilateral ties, 07.26.2024.

New Delhi and Beijing have resolved to improve relations amid an ongoing border dispute.

The foreign ministers of India and China have spoken in favor of stabilizing ties at a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Laos.

“It is hoped that China and India will work in the same direction and explore how the neighbouring countries can get along,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said after speaking with his Indian counterpart Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on Thursday.

Wang said China-India relations have an important impact beyond just the two nations, according to a statement released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. “It is in the interests of both sides to get China-India relations back on track,” he stressed.

Earlier this month, the two diplomats met at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, where they agreed to “redouble efforts through diplomatic and military channels” to find an “early resolution” to long-standing border disputes.

Ties between the two powerful neighbors soured in 2020, when troops clashed in the disputed Galwan Valley, resulting in casualties on both sides. Since then, there have been over a dozen of rounds of talks aimed at resolving the dispute.

According to Jaishankar’s remarks after the latest meeting, posted on X (formerly Twitter), stabilizing ties is in the “mutual interest” of the two nations and they should approach the “immediate issues” with a sense of “purpose and urgency.”

He clarified, however, that while the countries agreed to give “strong guidance” to the disengagement process in the disputed eastern Ladakh region, full respect for the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and past agreements needs to be ensured.

Jaishankar also stated that ties between India and China hold “an exceptional significance” as they are the two most populous nations and among the five largest economies globally. “Our ability to ensure that [ties] are stable and forward looking is essential both for the prospects of Asia and that of the multipolar world,” he noted.

Shortly after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected for a third consecutive term this year, Jaishankar insisted that New Delhi would focus on finding solutions to its border disputes with China and Pakistan. Modi himself also said that New Delhi and Beijing had to “urgently address” their border disputes and resolve the “abnormality” in their bilateral ties.

Despite continuing friction, China emerged as India’s top trading partner in the last fiscal year, with two-way trade reaching $118.4 billion. Meanwhile, Beijing has also expressed a willingness to work with India to improve ties. In May, Xu Feihong arrived in Delhi to assume office as the 17th ambassador to India after 18 months without a Chinese envoy.

https://www.rt.com/india/601719-india-and-china-border-ties/

Americans will have to get used to the rules of the "Concert of Powers", by Gevorg Mirzayan for VZGLYAD. 09.12.2024.

Denying Yalta 2.0 would be absolutely correct and true – if not for one big “but”. The US no longer has a choice – sooner or later they will have to accept this new system and sit down at the negotiating table with other great powers.
New Yalta. This is how a number of Russian experts call the future Russian-American (or Russian-American-Chinese – as it goes) agreements that will end the conflict in Ukraine and spell out the rules of a new world. A multipolar world built on respect for the interests of the great powers – which was spelled out (to one degree or another) in the Yalta agreements of 1945 – and they worked more or less successfully for almost half a century.

However, not everyone in the US agrees with this point of view. Thus, former Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland – one of the most vocal American hawks on the Russia issue – believes that Yalta was a mistake for the United States. “It was not a good deal for us, and we should not have made it. It led to 70 years of the Cold War,” she said. According to Nuland, Yalta created “a bad, unstable world,” and “any similar attempt by great powers to divide the world and tell smaller countries what they can and cannot do will lead to the same instability, including for Russia.”

Of course, there is a temptation to explain her skepticism as banal Russophobia, short-sightedness and unwillingness to admit her own mistakes (and Nuland bears her fair share of responsibility for the fact that the US refused to negotiate with Moscow on the rules of the game in the post-Soviet space, as a result of which it was drawn into a conflict with Russia and thereby called into question its global leadership). However, in reality, Nuland is the spokesman for the point of view of a significant part of the American establishment, and her rejection of Yalta as a concept has entirely objective grounds.

Firstly, they are connected with the strategic culture of the American state. These European countries (including Russia) have been developing and conflicting for centuries on a relatively small and certainly not elastic patch of territory from the Dnieper to the Atlantic Ocean. This means that they have learned to negotiate with each other on the basis of equality and mutual consideration of interests. The most striking manifestation of this skill was, of course, the "Concert of Powers" following the Vienna Congress of 1814-1815 - almost half a century of balance of interests of five European powers (until the emergence of the German Empire, which broke this balance).

The US did not have this culture. The Americans were accustomed to constant expansion and to solving all problems by force. When they came to Europe after the First World War, they did not negotiate with anyone. And after the Second World War, there was no one to negotiate with - with the exception of the Soviet Union, with which they had to temporarily (as it was believed at the time) share influence in Europe. And only the appearance of a nuclear bomb in the USSR forced Washington to accept the balance of interests - as a result of which the temporary agreements in Yalta lasted until the end of the 80s.

After which, the natural order of things, in the opinion of the American elite (including Nuland, who was brought up at the time), came into being – the return of that same unbridled American expansion, based on force and ideological dominance. An order in which there is no need to negotiate with anyone, share, and, moreover, respect interests. And it is quite natural that Nuland, the Biden administration and others are doing everything possible to preserve this order. That is, they are demonizing the concept of Yalta.

Secondly, the United States does not want to create a precedent now. If Moscow and Washington go to a new Yalta, the whole world will think that Russia managed to impose its will on America by force. It began to resist – and achieved the fact that Washington began to negotiate with it. And if the Kremlin succeeded in this, why can’t the Chinese (who have enough leverage over the US) pull off the same trick? Or the Iranians? Or even the most sovereign of the current American allies, whose interests Washington regularly ignores – the Turks and the Saudis?

At the same time, even if they do not find the resolve to challenge, then – and this is third – their interests will still have to be included in the final list. It is obvious that in the current situation, the new Yalta will not create a formally multipolar (but in fact bipolar) world, but a truly multipolar one. And the number of poles will be much more than five – approximately 10-15. By signing this Yalta, the United States will be forced to recognize these 10-15 countries as having spheres of influence (that is, in the words of Victoria Nuland, the right to “tell small countries what they can or cannot do”) and thereby cease to be a global hegemon or even a leader.

And therefore, her point of view, her denial of Yalta 2.0 (which is also shared by the American authorities) would be absolutely correct and true – if not for one big “but”. The US no longer has a choice – sooner or later they will have to accept this new system and sit down at the table. In the 2000s or even early 2010s, Washington still had the opportunity to form a multipolar world on its own terms – on the principle of “regional sheriffs”, to whom the Americans would delegate rights and powers in their regions in exchange for recognition of the US role as a global leader. However, the Americans instead relied on maintaining hegemony and suppressing any players who asked to share (Russia, China, even the European Union). As a result, they came to a situation where they will have to share – and not at all on American terms.

And the strategic culture will have to change. After all, thanks to Nuland and other globalists/neocons, the US will no longer have the opportunity to conduct constant expansion through ideological dominance. It will have to get used to the rules of the "Concert".

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/9/12/1286807.html

Washington’s new plan to control the Global South, by Anna Belkina, RT’s deputy editor in chief and head of communications, marketing and strategic development, for RT. 09.20.2024.

Not satisfied with banning RT in most Western countries nearly three years ago, the US and its allies have unveiled a new plan to bully the rest of the world into following suit.

When US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced a new “joint diplomatic campaign” to be implemented in concert with Canada and the UK last week, he clearly set out the initiative’s goal – “to rally allies and partners around the world to join us in addressing the threat posed by RT and other machinery of Russian disinformation and covert influence.”

Make no mistake: there is nothing diplomatic in this latest US effort to silence any voice that does not adhere to the Washington- and London-dictated narratives about the world.

The point of all news media is to inform. Any information has the potential to influence people. Thus, the collective West has set out to curtail all potential influence that is not theirs.

Helping hand

James Rubin, the coordinator for the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center, elaborated on how this plan would work in an interview with his ex-wife, Christiane Amanpour, on CNN.

“Other countries will make decisions for themselves,” of course, but the charitable, the always-benevolent, the never self-interested American hand will be “helping other governments come to their own decisions about how to treat” RT.

Ah, all those poor, hapless “other governments” that clearly cannot read, watch, think, and decide for themselves. They were just waiting for Big Brother to help them.

What Rubin was really doing was scapegoating RT – and by extension, all other independent voices in what is supposed to be a free and diverse global information space, reflecting a diverse, very complicated, multipolar world – for the increasingly diminishing buy-in of much of the world into Washington’s foreign policies, and propaganda campaigns that accompany them.

As Rubin admitted during his press conference, “one of the reasons […] why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be […] is because of the broad scope and reach of RT – where propaganda, disinformation, and lies are spread to millions if not billions of people around the world.”

Which countries refused to jump on board with the US and NATO support of the Kiev regime and the continuous escalation of the conflict? In reality, it is most of the world, including such geopolitical giants as India and China, who preferred to leave regional issues to the region in question.

Where official positions are concerned, it’s mostly NATO and its cohorts’ one billion vs our planet’s other seven. And while in those seven not everyone in the general population is of the same mind, neither is everyone in the US and other NATO countries.

Yet, due to the decades-long domination of the international information space by American and European mainstream news media (can you believe the BBC is over 100 years old?), many have been conditioned to think of the world – in the sense of who defines the global order, its rights and its wrongs – as the US and its vassal states, er, allies.

Notably, Mr Rubin specifically referred to Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa as regions where RT must be stopped. In other words, the so-called Global South. What’s got the US State Department so worried there?

https://www.rt.com/news/604357-us-plan-control-global-south-rt/

I love it... even just 30 years ago the western media dominated the western markets... but then there was some depth to their reporting in the sense that some had one view and the others had a slightly different but still western view.

Then RT and Sputnik came along and then Al jizz and now other media groups are gaining position... including Indian media...

What is great is that the west can ban what we see on TV... our local Sky TV company stopped RT in 2022, but they can't block the internet so I can still watch it when I like and that is what upsets the west.

The west used to dominate western markets for the supply of news and information and now they don't... their soft power is weakening... because it doesn't make sense if you think about it. RT news offers a different perspective and it makes sense when it blames this or that on the west.

Western media seems more geared to distract you from problems in the west than to try to talk about them and solve them in a way that the majority of people are happy about.

In my opinion RT spends rather too much time pointing out what hypocrites the west are... would like to see more about what Russia is doing to make things better in Russia and internationally to make things better in Russia and other countries.

With the internet the west is now fighting a war they can't win... when you tell people they can't watch this or that you make them curious as to why and so they will have a look for themselves... the opposite of what the Pentagram wants.

The US has lost control over its allies, by Gevorg Mirzayan for VZGLYAD. 10.03.2024.

The failure of globalization (or rather, its discrediting by the United States), coupled with the sharp weakening of international institutions (again, due to their discrediting by the Americans) led to states beginning to rely on their own resources and capabilities to achieve their goals.

America is no longer being listened to. This is the conclusion reached by Bloomberg, analyzing the steps of American enemies.

For example, the United States asks Iran not to send ballistic missiles to Russia – and it does (few people believe the words of the President of the Islamic Republic Masoud Pezeshkian that this is not the case). The United States asks China not to supply Russia with industrial goods and technologies that help Moscow cope with sanctions and conduct strategic military operations – and China does. Moreover, these two countries (along with North Korea, which the United States could have asked, but initially understood that it was pointless) in company with Russia, as Bloomberg writes , “are deepening ties to challenge American dominance, despite the fact that they face some of the most sweeping sanctions ever imposed by the West.”

And the examples of insubordination do not end there. Venezuela is rebelling, with President Nicolas Maduro winning the election and ignoring demands from the United States to review the results. Yemen’s Houthis are rebelling, ignoring attempts by the US Navy to deprive them of the ability to interfere with shipping in the Red Sea. The countries of the Black Continent are rebelling, thanks to which “Washington and its allies have been forced out of their bases in Africa amid the growing influence of Russia and China.” Finally, even allies such as Israel are rebelling, pursuing their policies without regard for Washington’s interests – and sometimes even causing serious harm to those interests.

Why does this happen? There are three reasons.

Firstly, this is a sharp tilt of national states towards national sovereignty. The failure of globalization (or rather, its discrediting by the United States) coupled with the sharp weakening of international institutions (again, due to their discrediting by the Americans) led to the fact that states began to rely on their own resources and capabilities to achieve their goals. And, accordingly, they began to more actively defend their national interests - realising that no one else would defend them except them.

Secondly, they very quickly appreciated that protecting these national interests is not as difficult as it might seem at first glance. Many were at one time hampered by various fears of American coercion methods – sanctions, humanitarian interventions, bombings and even “isolation”. However, Russia has shown that these sanctions are not as scary as they are painted by Western media and NGOs. That even a developed state integrated into the world economy (and not just the conditional DPRK, which has nothing to lose except its kimchi and nuclear weapons) is quite capable of withstanding the most powerful Western sanctions in history. All that is needed for this is the political will of the leadership, as well as the unity of the people. Unity that is achieved primarily through confidence in the rightness of one’s own actions, multiplied by national pride. And now, looking at Russia, the same China (which had previously constantly tried to avoid conflict with the Americans) is gathering political courage for direct confrontation.

And finally, the third reason is that American politicians, to put it mildly, have become dramatically dull. The rise to power of a generation of globalist fantasists, the absence of global political competition, the specifics of domestic political selection at primaries (when radicals are brought to the top) - all this has led to the fact that for at least the fifth election cycle, people in power in the United States are incapable of managing global processes. Incapable of creating what some Russian conspiracy theorists call "controlled chaos." Chaos (be it the "Arab Spring," attempts to contain Russia through the concept of color revolutions, or the desire to regain control of Africa and Latin America drifting toward China) very quickly turned into uncontrollable, creating new opportunities and combinations for more thoughtful and savvy politicians from the same China, Russia, Iran, etc.

However, the main problem for the US now is not even that its strategic opponents are rebelling. Washington is also losing control over its allies – those whose resources it is accustomed to using to ensure global dominance and whom it is accustomed to using as regional instruments.

It is not only Turkey (led by the long-time winner of the Two Chairs Award, Recep Erdogan) that is rebelling, but also the once loyal Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of the Two Holy Mosques, having soberly assessed the possibilities and, most importantly, the desire of Washington to ensure its security, has taken a course on diversifying contacts. In particular, it has transferred oil trade with China to yuan. In addition, Riyadh is actively cooperating with Moscow in controlling global oil prices, and is also looking with interest at Russian-Chinese global initiatives (like BRICS).

Israel is rebelling. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has effectively taken America hostage – with his brutal operation in the Gaza Strip, which was not coordinated with the Americans, he has dealt a serious blow to US relations with the Arab world (after all, Washington was simply forced to support Israel due to the specifics of US-Israeli relations). Moreover, Netanyahu is now effectively trying to drag America into a direct military conflict with Iran (which, in the opinion of the Israeli prime minister, will save both himself from resignation and Israel from the deadly Iranian nuclear threat).

Weaker countries are also rebelling. Hungary is constantly putting a spoke in the wheel of the general Western sanctions policy towards Moscow. It is preventing the adoption of the toughest anti-Russian (and the most suicidal for Europe itself, which is what the US needs) sanctions like the hydrocarbon embargo. Even Georgia is making a statement, with its leadership directly threatening Washington with a revision of bilateral relations because the Americans are pressuring Tbilisi to open a second front against Russia and impose LGBT values ​​on the local population. It has come to the point that the Georgian authorities are testing the waters with a view to restoring relations with Moscow.

However, the most dangerous rebellious ally is Ukraine. Zelensky's regime, which does not receive the necessary weapons from Washington and at the same time feels the weakness of the American leadership (especially during the transition period), is trying to do approximately the same as Netanyahu - to drag the US into the war on its side. But a war with Iran is one thing, and with a nuclear Russia - quite another. At the same time, the Americans are unable to prevent the head of the Kyiv regime from organizing the most inhuman provocations to achieve his goals - up to and including nuclear productions.

In theory, in this situation, the Americans should minimize the damage. Try to diplomatically regulate relations with those allies with whom it is still possible to do so, and also allow the opponents to deal with those who have finally gotten out of control. However, for such a geopolitical solution to be possible, the US must be led by sober, pragmatic leaders – and where can they be found?

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/10/3/1289920.html