This conflagration is swelling into a greater conflict.Those are American mercenaries, speaking ENGLISH.
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation published footage of the transfer of armored vehicles, artillery and personnel to the Kharkiv direction. BTR-82A armored personnel carriers, army trucks, “Msta-B” howitzers moving along the highway are being dismantled. Heavy helicopters are also involved in the transfer.
The transfer of forces is apparently taking place in connection with the latest actions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. According to some reports, our military had to leave at least part of the previously liberated town of Balakleia. It is also confirmed that the Ukrainian Armed Forces occupied Shevchenkovo and Senkovo on the right bank of the Oskol River.
The situation in the Kupyansk region is dire, but the military is holding it together. Residents of the Kharkiv region have been evacuated to the LPR and Russia due to shelling by the armed forces of Ukraine, the head of the region said. According to him, the military is trying to push Ukrainian forces out of the suburbs of Balakleia.
According to Zakhar Prilepin, our fighters have mastered the Kupyansk-Izyum road, and are also on the defensive in the central direction of the front towards Slavyansk. “Mood: Calm. Men work. Thank you for the visible help that has begun to appear,” he wrote.
Earlier, Prilepin complained that Moscow was not using all the power it has: “We are asking you not to turn Izyum into the Brest Fortress. The people will stand, but behind them is Russia, which has 150 million people and an army of two million. I would like to see all of this from Raisin.
As the commander of the Sherwood Forest volunteer battalion explained, the most obvious plan of the VSU is the complete encirclement of the Izyum Group of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation with the withdrawal of the VSU to the Oskolsky Reservoir simultaneously from the north and south. It is easier to do this from a southern direction from Slavyansk (via Svyatogorsk or Raigorodok) than by fighting for Balakleya, he noted.
There can be no talk of any “breakthrough” by the Ukrainian Armed Forces during their “counter-offensive”, Vasyl Nebenzya said at a meeting of the UN Security Council last night. He explained that in the run-up to the latest meeting of NATO defense ministers in Ramstein, Germany, VSU activity increased to “beg” for new weapons.
At the same time, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said that Ukraine had achieved some success near Kherson and Kharkiv.
In the meantime, information appeared about the first mini-cell, where the units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces were deployed. The territory around Sinikha, Senkovo, Vorontsovka, Fedorovka, Lesnaya stenka, where the forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were previously broken through, was captured by the fighters of the 60th unit of the OMSB “Veterans” and the forces assigned to them are encircled.
Watching from the DPR, military commander Dmitry Seleznyov shared his impressions of the ongoing events:
It has long been known that the National Guard of Ukraine, as well as tank units from Chernihiv, were transferred in the direction of Kharkiv. There are also mercenaries. Although they try to fight not on the front line, but where they are sure that they will be able to retreat, sometimes they are killed – corpses are found. There are also Western military instructors. The HIMARS MLRS now hitting Kupyansk are controlled by the US military, not Ukrainians.
All these movements of VSU did not go unnoticed. Analysts talked about the danger of encirclement of our Ryzyum Group two months ago. Of course, this is not a disaster, but it is definitely an emergency. The armed forces of Ukraine have already reached the Oskol dam and the cities of Kupyansk and Izyum are under threat.
There is a version that this is a kind of “bait” for the armed forces of Ukraine. For example, now that their units have advanced 20-30 kilometers deep into our defenses and communications have stretched, our military will be able to “cut the boilers”. The consequences can be like at Kherson…
Dmitry Seleznev: I don’t believe much in cunning plans. It is clear that the front line that our military has to guard is very long. The breakthrough can happen anywhere. Judging by what is happening, we are moving units from one sector to another, strengthening the front in one place, but exposing it in another. It is fortified near Kherson, exposed near Kharkiv. We don’t have enough reserves. So it is necessary to introduce new reserves, to change something. Time to start getting serious.
It is no longer a secret that Russia is actually at war with the West. All the weapons that Ukraine had were almost gone. Now there is a kind of “depreciation” of the spent military reserves of Ukraine by the Western arsenals. The Armed Forces have American and French howitzers, armored personnel carriers, drones, ammunition, means of communication. Only the military, the “smoke meat”, are Ukrainian there. We defeated the Ukrainian army a long time ago. We are now at war with NATO. Everything is run by NATO generals.
It is necessary to take measures so that Kyiv does not get weapons. I would completely cut off Europe’s gas. They fight against us. Maybe this is planned, just waiting for winter to get more painful. It is necessary to destroy the bridges, power plants, communications and all infrastructure of the enemy. By the way, we have already given enough reasons for this. I don’t even want to talk about the notorious “decision centers”.
The head of the Center for the Study of Social-Applied Problems of National Security, retired colonel Alexander Zhilin, is also sure that Russia is at war with the West:
Now Ukraine’s military potential is growing every month, if not every week. Supplies from the West are colossal, instructors are employed in the military units. As far as I understand, according to a number of signs of intelligence, strategic planning, and even tactical planning, is already carried out not only by the Pentagon, but also by NATO structures. They act, unfortunately, very sensibly.
The combined grouping of more than 40 nations supplies Kyiv with all the intelligence it needs, from satellite to data to help with planning and munitions delivery. In fact, they fight with common, and we only with our resources.
The Anglo-Saxons did what was requested. Today, Ukraine is an instrument of a heated battle between the West and Russia. Ukrainians die there, not Englishmen and Americans. They only supply them with ammunition, equipment and so on. The ideal scheme for war with Russia. Couldn’t we have calculated this beforehand? It was obvious.
And looking at what is happening near Balakleia, in the region of Kupyansk or Izyum. This is no longer of any fundamental importance. Most importantly, the hot phase is organized and launched. And what was built as a project “Ukraine – anti-Russia” is already cemented with blood, mutual hatred. That’s how they bastards work.
I fear we may now declare a mobilization in the hope of winning by manpower. But in our time it is impossible to act like in the Second World War. If Marshal Zhukov could operate in large formations, now they will be immediately swept away by these American HIMARS. Some other solutions are needed. Conflict can be brutal, but it doesn’t have to be long.
The financial war between Russia with China’s tacit backing on one side, and America and her NATO allies on the other has escalated rapidly. It appears that President Putin was thinking several steps ahead when he launched Russia’s attack on Ukraine.
We have seen sanctions fail. We have seen Russia achieve record export surpluses. We have seen the rouble become the strongest currency on the foreign exchanges.
We are seeing the west enter a new round of European monetary inflation to pay everyone’s energy bills. The euro, yen, and sterling are already collapsing — the dollar will be next. From Putin’s point of view, so far, so good.
Russia has progressed her power over Asian nations, including populous India and Iran. She has persuaded Middle Eastern oil and gas producers that their future lies with Asian markets, and not Europe. She is subsidising Asia’s industrial revolution with discounted energy. Thanks to the west’s sanctions, Russia is on its way to confirming Halford Mackinder’s predictions made over a century ago, that Russia is the true geopolitical centre of the world.
There is one piece in Putin’s jigsaw yet to be put in place: a new currency system to protect Russia and her allies from an approaching western monetary crisis. This article argues that under cover of the west’s geopolitical ineptitude, Putin is now assembling a new gold-backed multi-currency system by combining plans for a new Asian trade currency with his new Moscow World Standard for gold.
Currency developments under the radar
Unreported by western media, there are some interesting developments taking place in Asia over the future of currencies. Earlier this summer, it emerged that Sergei Glazyev, a senior Russian economist and Minister in charge of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EAEU), was leading a committee planning a new trade currency for the Eurasian Economic Union.
As put forward in Russian and EAEU media, the new currency is to be comprised of a mixture of national currencies and commodities. A weighting of some sort was suggested to reflect the relative importance of the currencies and commodities traded between them. At the same time, the new trade settlement currency was to be available to any other nation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the expanding BRICS membership. The ambition is for it to become an Asia-wide replacement for the dollar.
More specifically, the purpose is to do away with the dollar for trade settlements on cross-border transactions between participants. It is worth noting that any dollar transaction is reflected in US banks through the correspondent banking system, potentially giving the US authorities undesirable economic intelligence, and information on sanction-busting and other activities deemed illegal or undesirable by the US authorities. Furthermore, any transaction involving US dollars becomes a matter for the US legal system, giving US politicians the authority to intervene wherever the dollar is used.
As well as removing these disadvantages, through the inclusion of a basket of commodities there appears to be an acceptance that the new trade currency must be more stable in terms of its commodity purchasing power than exists with that of the dollar. But we can immediately detect flaws in the outline proposal. The mooted inclusion of national currencies in the basket is not only an unnecessary complication, but any nation joining it would presumably trigger a wholesale rebalancing of the currency’s composition.
Including national currencies is a preposterous suggestion, as is any suggestion that the commodity element should be weighted by trade volumes transacted between participating states. Instead, an unweighted average of energy, precious metals, and base metals makes more sense, but even that does not go far enough. The reasons are illustrated by the two charts in Figure 1.
The upper chart shows baskets of different categories of commodities indexed and priced in dollars. Between them, they represent a wide range of commodities and raw materials. These baskets are considerably less volatile than their individual components. For example, since April 2020 oil has risen from a distorted minus figure to a high of $130, whereas the energy basket has risen only 6.3 times, because other components have not risen nearly as much as crude oil and some components might be rising while others might be falling. Agriculture raw materials are comprised of cotton, timber, wool, rubber, and hides, not raw materials liable to undesirable seasonality. But the average of the four categories is considerably more stable than its components (the black line).
We are moving towards price stability. However, all commodities are priced in US dollars, which being undesirable, cannot be avoided. Pricing in gold, which is legal money, eventually resolves this problem because it can be fixed against participating currencies. The result of pricing the commodity categories in gold and the average of them is shown in the lower chart.
Since 1992, the average (the black line) has varied between 0.37 and 1.66, and is currently at 0.82, or 18% less than in January 1992. This is as stable as it gets, and even this low volatility would probably be less if the dollar wasn’t itself so volatile and the gold price manipulated by nay-saying western authorities. To further illustrate these points, Figure 2 shows the dollar’s volatility in terms of crude oil.
Before the abandonment of Bretton Woods in 1971, the price of oil hardly changed. Since then, measured by gold the dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power. Furthermore, the chart shows that it is the dollar which is extremely volatile and not oil, because the price of oil in gold is relatively constant (down only 20% from 1950), while in dollars it is up 33.6 times with some wild price swings along the way. Critics of measuring prices in gold ignore the fact that legal money is gold and not paper currencies or bank credit: attempts by governments and their epigones to persuade us otherwise are propaganda only.
Therefore, Glazyev should drop currencies from the proposed basket entirely and strive to either price a basket of non-seasonal commodities in gold, or alternatively simply reference the new currency to gold in a daily fix. And as the charts above confirm, there is little point in using a basket of commodities priced in dollars or gold when it is far simpler for the EAEU nations and for anyone else wishing to participate in the new trade currency to use a trade currency directly tied to the gold price. It would amount to a new Asian version of a Bretton Woods arrangement and would need no further adjustment.
Attributing them to excessive credit, from recent statements by President Putin it is clear he has a better understanding of currencies and the west’s inflationary problems than western economists. Intellectually, he has long demonstrated an appreciation of the relationship between money, that is only gold, and currency and credit. His knowledge was further demonstrated by his insistence that the “unfriendlies” pay for energy in roubles, taking control of the media of energy exchange into Russia’s own hands and away from those of his enemies.
In short, Putin appears to understand that gold is money and that the rest is unreliable, weaponizable, credit. So, why does he not just command a new trade currency to be created, backed by gold?
Enter the new Moscow gold standard
Logic suggests that a gold-backed currency will be the outcome of Glazyev’s EAEU committee’s trade currency deliberations after all, because of a subsequent announcement from Moscow concerning a new Russian bullion market.
In accordance with western sanctions, the London Bullion Market refused to accept Russian mined and processed gold. It was then natural for Russia to propose a new gold market based in Moscow with its own standards. It is equally sensible for Moscow to set up a price fixing committee, replicating that of the LBMA. But instead of it being the basis for a far larger unallocated gold deposit account offering by Russian and other banks, it will be a predominantly physical market.
Based in Moscow, with a new market called the Moscow International Precious Metals Exchange, the Moscow Gold Standard will incorporate some of the LBMA’s features, such as good delivery lists with daily, or twice daily fixings. The new exchange is therefore being promoted as a logical replacement for the LBMA.
But could that be a cover, with the real objective being to provide a gold link to the new trade currency planned by Glazyev’s EAEU committee? Timing suggests that this may indeed be the case, but we will only know for sure as events unfold.
If it is to be backed by gold, the considerations behind setting up a new trade currency are fairly straightforward. There is the Chinese one kilo bar four-nines standard, which is widely owned, has already been adopted throughout Asia, and is traded even on Comex. Given that China is Russia’s long-term partner, that is likely to be the standard unit. The adoption of the Chinese standard in the new Moscow exchange is logical, simplifying the relationship with the Shanghai Gold Exchange, and streamlining fungibility between contracts, arbitrage, and delivery.
Geopolitics suggest that the simple proposition behind the establishment of a new Moscow exchange will fit in with a larger trans-Asia plan and is unlikely to move at the glacial pace of developments between Russia and China to which we have become accustomed. The gold question has become bound up in more rapid developments triggered by Russia’s belligerence over Ukraine, and the sanctions which quickly followed.
There can be little doubt that this must be leading to a seismic shift in gold policy for the Russian Chinese partnership. The Chinese in particular have demonstrated an unhurried patience that befits a nation with a sense of its long history and destiny. Putin is more of a one-man act. Approaching seventy years old, he cannot afford to be so patient and is showing a determination to secure a legacy in his lifetime as a great Russian leader. While China has made the initial running with respect to gold policy, Putin is now pushing the agenda more forcefully.
Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the strategy was to let the west make all the geopolitical and financial mistakes. For Putin perhaps, the lesson of history was informed by Napoleon’s march to the gates of Moscow, his pyrrhic victory at Borodino, and his defeat by the Russian winter. Hitler made the same mistake with Operation Barbarossa. From Putin’s viewpoint, the lesson was clear — Russia’s enemies defeat themselves. It was repeated in Afghanistan, where the American-led NATO enemy was conquered by its own hubris without Putin having to lift so much as a finger. That is why Russia is Mackinder’s Pivot Area of the World Island. It cannot be attacked by navies, and supply line requirements for armies make Russia’s defeat well-nigh impossible
Following the Ukraine invasion, Putin’s financial strategy has become more aggressive, and is potentially at odds with China’s economic policy. Being cut off from western markets, Putin is now proactive, while China which exports goods to them probably remains more cautious. But China knows that western capitalism bears the seeds of its own destruction, which would mean the end of the dollar and the other major fiat currencies. An economic policy based on exports to capitalistic nations would be a passing phase.
China’s gold policy was aways an insurance policy against a dollar collapse, realising that she must not be blamed for the west’s financial destruction by announcing a gold standard for the yen in advance of it. It would be a nuclear equivalent in a financial war, only an action to be taken as a last resort.
Developments in Russia have changed that. It is clear to the Russians, and most likely the Chinese, that credit inflation is now pushing the dollar into a currency crisis in the next year or two. Preparations to protect the rouble and the yuan from the final collapse of the dollar, long taught in Marxist universities as inevitable, must assume a new urgency. It would be logical to start with a new trade settlement currency as a testbed for national currencies in Asia, and for it to be set up in such a way that it would permit member states to adopt gold standards for their own currencies as well.
Possession of bullion is key
The move away from western fiat currencies to gold backed Asian currencies requires significant gold bullion ownership at the least. The only members, associates, and dialog partners of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the EAEU whose central banks have not increased their gold reserves since the Lehman failure when the credit expansion of dollars began in earnest, are minor states. Since then, between them they have added 4,645 tonnes to their reserves, while all the other central banks account for only 781 tonnes of additional gold reserves.
But central bank reserves are only part of the story, with nations running other, often secret national bullion accounts not included in reserves. The appendix to this article shows why and how China almost certainly accumulated an undeclared quantity of bullion, likely to be in the region of 25,000 tonnes by 2002 and probably more since.
Since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange opened and China’s citizens were permitted for the first time to own gold, gold delivered into public hands has totalled a further amount of over 20,000 tonnes. While the bulk of this is jewellery and some has been returned to the SGE as scrap for re-refining, it is clear that the authorities have encouraged Chinese citizens to retain gold for themselves, which traditionally has been real money in China.
According to Simon Hunt of Simon Hunt Strategic Services, as well as declared reserves of 2,301 tonnes Russia also holds gold bullion in its Gosfund (the State Fund of Russia) bringing its holdings up to 12,000 tonnes. This is significantly greater than the 8,133 tonnes declared by the US Treasury, over which there are widespread doubts concerning the veracity of its true quantity.
Obviously, the Asian partnership has a very different view of gold from the American hegemon. Furthermore, in recent months evidence has confirmed what gold bugs have claimed all along, that the Bank for International Settlements and major bullion operators such as JPMorgan Chase have indulged in a price suppression scheme to discourage gold ownership and to divert bullion demand into synthetic unallocated accounts.
The secrecy that surrounds reporting of gold reserves to the IMF raises further suspicions over the true position. Furthermore, there are leases and swaps between central banks, the BIS, and bullion dealers that lead to double counting and bullion recorded as being in possession of governments and their central banks but being held by other parties.
As long ago as 2002 when the gold price was about $300 per ounce, Frank Veneroso, who as a noted analyst spent considerable time and effort identifying central bank swaps and leases, concluded that anything between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes of government and central bank gold reserves were out on lease or swapped — that is up to almost half the total official global gold reserves at that time. His entire speech is available on the Gold Antitrust Action Committee website, but this is the introduction to his reasoning:[i]
“Let’s begin with an explanation of gold banking and gold derivatives.
“It is a simple, simple idea. Central banks have bars of gold in a vault. It’s their own vault, it’s the Bank of England’s vault, it’s the New York Fed’s vault. It costs them money for insurance – it costs them money for storage— and gold doesn’t pay any interest. They earn interest on their bills of sovereigns, like US Treasury Bills. They would like to have a return as well on their barren gold, so they take the bars out of the vault and they lend them to a bullion bank. Now the bullion bank owes the central bank gold—physical gold—and pays interest on this loan of perhaps 1%. What do these bullion bankers do with this gold? Does it sit in their vault and cost them storage and insurance? No, they are not going to pay 1% for a gold loan from a central bank and then have a negative spread of 2% because of additional insurance and storage costs on their physical gold. They are intermediaries—they are in the business of making money on financial intermediation. So they take the physical gold and they sell it spot and get cash for it. They put that cash on deposit or purchase a Treasury Bill. Now they have a financial asset—not a real asset—on the asset side of their balance sheet that pays them interest—6% against that 1% interest cost on the gold loan to the central bank. What happened to that physical gold? Well, that physical gold was Central Bank bars, and it went to a refinery and that refinery refined it, upgraded it, and poured it into different kinds of bars like kilo bars that go to jewellery factories who then make jewellery out of it. That jewellery gets sold to individuals. That’s where those physical bars have wound up—adorning the women of the world…
“We have gotten, albeit crude, estimates of gold borrowings from the official sector from probably more than 1/3 of all the bullion banks. We went to bullion dealers, and we asked, “Are these guys major bullion bankers, medium bullion bankers, or small-scale bullion bankers?” We classified them accordingly and from that we have extrapolated a total amount of gold lending from our sample. That exercise has pointed to exactly the same conclusion as all of our other evidence and inference—i.e., something like 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of borrowed gold.”
Veneroso’s findings were stunning. But two decades later, we have no idea of the current position. The market has changed substantially since 2002, and today it is thought that swaps and leases are often by book entry, rather than physical delivery of bullion into markets. But the implications are clear: if Russia or China cared to declare their true position and made a move towards backing their currencies with gold or linking them to gold credibly, it would be catastrophic for the dollar and western fiat currencies generally. It would amount to a massive bear squeeze on the west’s longstanding gold versus fiat policy. And remember, gold is money, and the rest is credit, as John Pierpont Morgan said in 1912 in evidence to Congress. He was not stating his opinion, but a legal fact.
In a financial crisis, the accumulated manipulation of bullion markets since the 1970s is at significant risk of becoming unwound. The imbalance in bullion holdings between the Russian Chinese camp and the west would generate the equivalent of a financial nuclear event. This is why it is so important to understand that instead of being a longstop insurance policy against the Marxist prediction of capitalism’s ultimate failure, it appears that the combination of planning for a new trade currency for Asian nations centred on members of the EAEU, coinciding with the introduction of a new Moscow-based bullion standard, is now pre-empting financial developments in the west. That being the case, a financial nuclear bomb is close to being triggered.
China’s gold policy
China actually took its first deliberate step towards eventual domination of the gold market as long ago as June 1983, when regulations on the control of gold and silver were passed by the State Council. The following Articles extracted from the English translation set out the objectives very clearly:
Article 1. These Regulations are formulated to strengthen control over gold and silver, to guarantee the State’s gold and silver requirements for its economic development and to outlaw gold and silver smuggling and speculation and profiteering activities.
Article 3. The State shall pursue a policy of unified control, monopoly purchase and distribution of gold and silver. The total income and expenditure of gold and silver of State organs, the armed forces, organizations, schools, State enterprises, institutions, and collective urban and rural economic organizations (hereinafter referred to as domestic units) shall be incorporated into the State plan for the receipt and expenditure of gold and silver.
Article 4. The People’s Bank of China shall be the State organ responsible for the control of gold and silver in the People’s Republic of China.
Article 5. All gold and silver held by domestic units, with the exception of raw materials, equipment, household utensils and mementos which the People’s Bank of China has permitted to be kept, must be sold to the People’s Bank of China. No gold and silver may be personally disposed of or kept without authorization.
Article 6. All gold and silver legally gained by individuals shall come under the protection of the State.
Article 8. All gold and silver purchases shall be transacted through the People’s Bank of China. No unit or individual shall purchase gold and silver unless authorised or entrusted to do so by the People’s Bank of China.
Article 12. All gold and silver sold by individuals must be sold to the People’s Bank of China.
Article 25. No restriction shall be imposed on the amount of gold and silver brought into the People’s Republic of China, but declaration and registration must be made to the Customs authorities of the People’s Republic of China upon entry.
Article 26. Inspection and clearance by the People’s Republic of China Customs of gold and silver taken or retaken abroad shall be made in accordance with the amount shown on the certificate issued by the People’s Bank of China or the original declaration and registration form made on entry. All gold and silver without a covering certificate or in excess of the amount declared and registered upon entry shall not be allowed to be taken out of the country.
These articles make it clear that only the People’s Bank was authorised to acquire or sell gold on behalf of the state, without limitation, and that citizens owning or buying gold were not permitted to do so and must sell any gold in their possession to the People’s Bank.
Additionally, China has deliberately developed her gold mine production regardless of cost, becoming the largest producer by far in the world.[ii] State-owned refineries process this gold along with doré imported from elsewhere. Virtually none of this gold leaves China, so that the gold owned today between the state and individuals continues to accumulate.
The regulations quoted above formalised the State’s monopoly over all gold and silver which is exercised through the Peoples Bank, and they allow the free importation of gold and silver but keep exports under very tight control. The intent behind the regulations is not to establish or permit the free trade of gold and silver, but to control these commodities in the interest of the state.
This being the case, the growth of Chinese gold imports recorded as deliveries to the public since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange was established and the public then permitted to buy gold, is only the more recent evidence of a deliberate act of policy embarked upon thirty-nine years ago. China had been accumulating gold for nineteen years before she allowed her own nationals to buy when private ownership was finally permitted. Furthermore, the bullion was freely available, because in seventeen of those years, gold was in a severe bear market fuelled by a combination of supply from central bank disposals, leasing, and increasing mine production, all of which I estimate totalled about 59,000 tonnes. The two largest buyers for all this gold for much of the time were private buyers in the Middle East and China’s government, with additional demand identified from India and Turkey. The breakdown from these sources and the likely demand are identified in the table below:
In another context, the cost of China’s 25,000 tonnes of gold equates to roughly 10% of her exports over the period, and the eighties and early nineties in particular also saw huge capital inflows when multinational corporations were building factories in China. However, the figure for China’s gold accumulation is at best informed speculation. But given the determination of the state to acquire gold expressed in the 1983 regulations and by its subsequent actions, it is clear China had deliberately accumulated a significant undeclared stockpile by 2002.
So far, China’s long-term plans for the acquisition of gold appear to have achieved some important objectives. To date, additional deliveries to the public through the SGE now total over 20,000 tonnes.
China’s motives for taking control of the gold bullion market have almost certainly evolved. The regulations of 1983 make sense as part of a forward-looking plan to ensure that some of the benefits of industrialisation would be accumulated as a risk-free national asset. This reasoning is similar to that of the Arab nations capitalising on the oil-price bonanza only ten years earlier, which led them to accumulate their hoard, mainly held in private as opposed to government hands, for the benefit of future generations. However, as time passed the world has changed substantially both economically and politically.
2002 was a significant year for China, when geopolitical considerations entered the picture. Not only did the People’s Bank establish the Shanghai Gold Exchange to facilitate deliveries to private investors, but this was the year the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation formally adopted its charter. This merger of security and economic interests with Russia has bound Russia and China together with a number of resource-rich Asian states into an economic bloc. When India, Iran, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan join (as they now have or are already committed to do), the SCO will cover more than half the world’s population. And inevitably the SCO’s members are looking for an alternative trade settlement system to using the US dollar.
At some stage China with her SCO partner, Russia, might force the price of gold higher as part of their currency strategy. You can argue this from an economic point of view on the basis that possession of properly priced gold will give her a financial dominance over global trade at a time when we are trashing our fiat currencies, or more simply that there’s no point in owning an asset and suppressing its value for ever. From 2002 there evolved a geopolitical argument: both China and Russia having initially wanted to embrace American and Western European capitalism no longer sought to do so, seeing us as soft enemies instead. The Chinese public were then encouraged, even by public service advertising, to buy gold, helping to denude the west of her remaining bullion stocks and to provide market liquidity in China.
What is truly amazing is that the western economic and political establishment have dismissed the importance of gold and ignored all the warning signals. They do not seem to realise the power they have given China and Russia to create financial chaos as a consequence of gold price suppression. If they do so, which seems to be only a matter of time, then London’s fractional reserve system of unallocated gold accounts would simply collapse, leaving Shanghai as the only major physical market.
This is probably the final link in China’s long-standing gold strategy, and through it a planned domination of the global economy in partnership with Russia and the other SCO nations. But as noted above, recent events have brought this outcome forward.
Like other religions, Islam is a religion of peace and does not permit acts of terrorism such as bomb blasts suicide attacks etc. But, the Holocaust warriors and the typical Jews who created holy warriors are misguiding the international community by equating the ideology of Islam with terrorism. Control of these Jews on the mainstream media houses of the world is so strong that terms such as Islamic militants, Jihadist groups and holy warriors (Mujahideen) have become popular. While reporting regarding global and regional events of terrorism, they do not use the terms like Hindu militants and Jewish terrorism or Christian militants.
Everyone knows that Al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban were created by the American CIA to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
In this respect, former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook stated, “Throughout the 1980s, he [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.”
The then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and said about the militants (Mujahideen), “We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed…because, you are fighting against the infidel Russians.”
However, after obtaining the political and economic interests of the US-led Israel, Washington had left Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general to face the fallout of a prolonged conflict—terrorism and instability. These Mujahideen who pulled the Russians out of Afghanistan, later become the Taliban, Al-Qaeda (New version) and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State group (Daesh, ISIS, ISIL). They got the label of terrorists.
Notably, massacre of Jews through various tactics of torture in the concentration camps, erected by Hitler before and during the World War 11 is still shocking and condemnable. It was a big tragedy, popularly known as the Holocaust, conducted by the forces of state terrorism. But, before and in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, the Zionist-Israeli-led America has been taking unjustified revenge of the Holocaust from the Muslims in particular and the Christians in general, including persons of some other religious communities, who were not responsible for the Holocaust. These Holocaust warriors have been trying to convert the entire world into holocaust, as terror-related attacks have shown in various Islamic countries, including America, Europe and other Western countries.
Zionist-controlled American leading think-tanks and media have propagated that “genocide of 5 million Jews was carried out at the extermination camps, using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers of Germany, Poland, Austria and Alsace”, while some Jewish-influenced Western scholars have estimated the genocide of the 7.8 million Jews.
On the other side, impartial writers, researchers and authors have opined, “Following the rise of Hitler there were no more than 4 million Jews, living in areas occupied by the Third Reich at the height of its power. Yet on June 30, 1965, the West German government announced that some 3,375,000 Jewish holocaust “survivors” had applied for reparations money. The International Red Cross had already reported in 1946 that of registered Jewish camp inmates no more than 300,000 could have died, and their audit to December 31, 1984 records a total 282,077 registered deaths of all internees in all German Concentration Camps from all causes.”
Regarding the present holocaust, it had already started when the US emerged as the sole superpower in the unipolar world after the disintegration of the former Russia. American former President Bush, (The Senior) replaced the old bipolar order with the New World Order, with the US acting as a kind of global policeman to protect the political and economic interests of Israel and the American Jews who are owners of many big cartels—multinational corporations, arms factories, oil companies, banks etc., including print and electronic media of the US in particular and the world in general. By dominating American internal policies, Zionist Jews mould country’s foreign policy for their own interests. And, by changing America into corporate industry, they have converted the world into corporate industry.
In the unipolar world, the United Nations became an instrument of the US policy to establish American hegemony in the world. In order to obtain the hidden agenda of Jews, the US imposed its sudden terms of globalization such as free markets, privatization and de-nationalization etc. on the ill-prepared developing countries and the Muslim states which left behind shattered nations and a global financial crisis, increased poverty in most of these countries, which resulted into deaths of many persons due to diseases and lack of medical treatment. It further widened the gap between the poor and the rich countries or G-7 countries. The corporations and international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank which are indirectly controlled by the Jews have continued to drive the project of globalization through the sole superpower. Besides, America’s child-killing sanctions against Iraq and Iran; late action to curb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo—genocide of the Bosnian Muslims annoyed the Muslims all over the world.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American former President Bush (The Senior) in connivance with his Zionist-advisers and neoconservatives took the Islamic fundamentalism as a great threat. Since then, sometimes, Al-Qaeda has continuously been used by the US and some Western countries as a scapegoat to malign Pakistan, as the latter is the only nuclear country in the Muslim World. Sometimes, they accused Iran of harbouring terrorism, and to propagate against Tehran’s peaceful nuclear progragmme—sometimes to achieve the goals of external policy and sometimes to pacify their public, including the opposition in relation to the prolonged war in Afghanistan and the anti-Muslim ‘different war’. In all cases, the purpose behind has been to safeguard the interests Israel and Zionists who consider themselves God’s chosen people to rule over the world.
As regards the double game, on November 13, 2009, a Reuters report quoting Labeviere’s book “Corridors of Terror” (Released in November 2003) points to negotiations between Bin Laden and CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks-at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, when Bin Laden was under a kidney dialysis treatment.
Meanwhile, while making Osama and Al-Qaeda as scapegoats, a number of fake video messages were telecast on various TV channels and websites by some Zionist Jews to obtain Israel’s anti-Muslim goals. For example, during the November 2004 elections in the US, a fake video tape helped the ex-president George W. Bush to get lead over John Kerry.
It is well-known that in a tape released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in question, Osama denied any involvement in the September 11 tragedy. However, later, two video tapes appeared to validate his guilt in relation to 9/11, because the main aims of the Bush administration were to provoke American public against the Muslims and to justify the fake global war on terror—the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq to possess energy resources of Central Asia and Iraq, including proxy wars in other Middle Eastern countries. Besides other actions of Bush era such as America’s state-sponsored terrorism in the volatile Islamic countries, persecution of Muslims through torture, detentions and arrests, CIA and FBI-operated facilities, promotion of sectarian violence and divide between Sunnis and Shias in the Islamic World—radicalizing the Western Christians against the Muslims.
It was because of the dual strategy of Bush through phony war on terror, and on the other side, response of Al-Qaeda militants by clandestine terror attacks, as shown through a number of the past suicidal missions such as on Indonesian resort island of Bali, Saudi Arabia, Spain etc., and a series of bomb attacks on London’s transport network, including those ones in other Afro-Asian countries have clearly pointed out that Al-Qaeda was organized on world level. But, the outfit lost control on its affiliated militant groups. Al-Qaeda’s decimated old guard may no longer be able to mount elaborately detailed plots, executed by other trained terrorists of various new groups which claim their links with Al-Qaeda, but, are not under its direct command. For example, in Somalia—splitting away of a hardliner-faction Al-Shabaab is an offshoot of the Islamic Courts Union, though the US defined Al-Shabaab as Al-Qaida allies.
In this connection, in March 2004, the former CIA Director, George Tenet said, “Al-Qaeda has become a loose collection of regional networks working autonomously-[they] pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks…in this new phase of franchise terrorism, Al-Qaeda has been described as an idea rather than an organization.”
It is mentionable that some Holocaust deniers claim, “The mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis never happened…the Nazi command had a policy of deporting Jews, not exterminating them”, while some remark that the number of Jewish losses has been greatly exaggerated…that the Holocaust was not systematic nor a result of an official policy…only 600,000 Jews were killed rather than six million. All Jews were not killed through gas chambers, but also due to hunger, diseases and depression.”
On the one hand, the Jews have made the Holocaust the greatest device of gaining sympathy, while, on the other, they have used it for wars, anti-Muslim policies, expansion and foreign-aid, and to fulfill the Zionist ambition of greater Israel. With the support of American-Zionist Jews who manipulate the Holocaust, Israel has also become the sixth strongest military power of the world owing to the US assistance.
Once Henry Kissinger stated “legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created.” Under the cover of the 9/11 tragedy, the US President George W. Bush who was in collaboration with the neo-conservatives and the Zionist Jews, orchestrated the drama of global war on terror to obtain the illegitimate interests of Israel by targeting the Islamic countries and persecution of the Muslims.
Bush who used the words, “crusade against the evil-doers” adding to the perception that the ongoing ‘different war’ against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries also warned the world to choose sides by saying, “either you are with us or with terrorists.” It was due to employment of pressure-diplomacy on the weak states—Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya etc., including almost all the Arab states joined Bush’s anti-terrorism war. By manipulating the 9/11 carnage, Bush also got the sympathies of almost all the major Western countries, including NATO states which also joined the fake global war on terror.
By justifying the unjustified war on terror, several Muslim countries were deliberately destabilized and converted into concentration camps to attain the political, economic and religious goals of the Jews and Israel. For the purpose, double game and false flag operations which still continue became the part of the American CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW.
In case of Iraq, many of the Iraqis including some members of the former Interim Governing Council were shocked at the violence in Fallujah. Even the US weekly, ‘Newsweek’ admitted in its publication of April 19/April 26, 2004 that the US forces “used very heavy hand in Fallujah where more than 400 people were killed. Four members of the [former] Governing Council resigned in a protest against America’s crackdown in Fallujah…according to doctors figure of the deaths was impossible to check and it is more than 400…an airstrike dropped a 500 pound bomb. Arab language TV claimed that the bomb killed more than a score of civilians at prayer.”
Like Afghanistan, American soldiers also massacred several wounded people and civilians in Iraq. In November, 2004, a number of world’s televised channels including those of America showed footage of a US marine who was shooting and killing an already captive and wounded Iraqi prisoner at close range in a mosque in Fallujah where civilians had taken shelter.
No one can deny the fact that these were the worst examples of the US-led state terrorism or use of abnormal force.
It is of particular attention that the US-led troops, assisted by CIA have carried out indiscriminate mass round-ups in catching up suspected Muslim men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, including some Arab countries without evidence. Mossad has helped the CIA officials in arresting the Muslim men, having beard and ladies, wearing scarves. Besides Guantanamo Bay and Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, CIA torture cells were present in several Islamic countries and were also set up in ships where US secret agencies and military personnel employed various methods of torture on the militants and suspected persons like physical violence and even murder. American notorious private military firm Blackwater also eliminated countless Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When America implemented the suggested plan of Rand Corporation and sparked a civil war (Sectarian violence) between the Sunnis and Shias in wake of war on terror to promote the objectives of Israel in the Muslim World, the horrible scenes of deaths were witnessed in Pakistan and especially in Iraq. In March, 2013, an investigative report by the British Guardian/BBC disclosed that acting under the direction of the top US officials; the CIA utilized a global network of secret prisons, foreign intelligence agents and torture centers in various Islamic countries including Belgium, Thailand etc. where torture was conducted directly by American intelligence operatives.
The report also mentioned atrocities of the US-backed entities, carried out in Bagram Airbase (Afghanistan), Guantanamo and Iraq—unleashed a deadly sectarian militia which terrorized the Sunni community and germinated a civil war between Sunnis and Shias, and claimed tens of thousands of lives.
It revealed, “At the height of that sectarian conflict, 3,000 bodies a month were strewn on the streets of Iraq. Rounding up Sunnis in American pickup trucks, the captives were thrown into secret prisons established in libraries, airports, and ministries. Anti-occupation politicians, human rights activists, and journalists were murdered. The purpose was also to terrorize ordinary Iraqis who opposed the US occupation.”
In this regard, the report focuses on the role of retired Colonel James Steele who worked with the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. David Petraeus who also served as Obama’s CIA director. Steele sent regular memos to Donald Rumsfeld who forwarded them to Vice-President Dick Cheney and President George Bush, while, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died and millions were displaced as a result of the chaos and brutal practices.
As exact details of the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq are not available due to the Jewish controlled media and their dominated concerned strategic institutes, some independent organizations have published their reports on the basis of randomly selected interviews of the household persons and the military officials. Some reports suggest that more than 3 million people including civilians died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following his predecessor, President Barack Obama had also continued the ruthless killings of the Muslims to complete the unfinished agenda of the Zionist Jews and Israel. Apart from air strikes on funerals, marriage-ceremonies and mosques in Afghanistan, and extrajudicial killings of the innocent people through illegal CIA-operated drone attacks in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen etc. in general and Pakistan in particular, he converted Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. into concentration camps. As part of the US double game, CIA which created Al-Qaeda and then ISIL, including Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and Syrian rebel groups in fighting against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iraqi regime is responsible for the mass murder of more than 7 million Muslims and Christians who were killed in civil wars—ground and aerial strikes of the US-led Western countries, including various terrorism-related assaults like suicide attacks and bomb blasts, conducted by Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Besides, during the phony global war on terror, in these countries and Afghanistan and Iraq, especially in Syria, millions of Muslims became homeless. The plight of refugees—countless deaths, particularly of children owing to lack of medical treatment and starvation has displayed the holocaust on larger scale.
It is worth-mentioning that through the war against terrorism, President Bush and Obama provided a golden chance to Israel and India to accelerate the systematic genocide of the Palestinians and Kashmiris in the occupied territories of Palestine and Kashmir. Their forces have been employing military terrorism such as curfews, crackdowns, sieges, massacre and targeted killings to maintain alien rule on these territories.
In the recent years, the US-backed military regime in Burma (present Myanmar) has broken all the record of religious cleansing by encouraging Rakhine extremist Buddhists who butchered thousands of the Burmese Muslims belonging to the Rohingya Muslim through various brutal methods of torture. Eye witnesses disclosed that Buddhist extremists who are in majority in the country, torched several mosques, shops and houses of Muslims, while Burmese military and police have been found involved in genocide, targeted killings, disappearances and rape of Muslim women. Indian RAW which is in collaboration with the CIA and Mossad was behind the genocide of the Muslims.
According to reports, nearly one and half million Rohingya Muslims have been murdered since June 28, 2012, while more than 20,0000 are missing.
It is noteworthy that since September 2015, Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah has broken the backbone of the CIA-Mossad-assisted ISIS terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebel groups. Russian-supported Assad’s forces and Iraqi troops have retaken several territories from the control of the rebels and the ISIS terrorists who are on flee in Syria and Iraq. Recently, Iraqi forces have recaptured the city of Mosul by defeating the ISIL militants. Very soon, through the skilful diplomacy, Russian President Vladimir Putin will liberate entire Iraq and Syria from the control of the US and Israeli supported non-state actors. Moscow which is destroying the pillars of the New World Order has also exposed the sinister designs of Washington and Tel Aviv against the Muslims and the international community.
In this backdrop, there is an interrelationship of the terror attacks in the US, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Philippines etc., and elsewhere in the world, which were false flag terror assaults, conducted by Mossad in connivance with the agents of Indian RAW and those of the vulnerable CIA operatives.
Through all these false flag terror operations, the US and Israel wanted to obtain their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims. Mossad had also provided the US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to manipulate various terror assaults of Europe and America to win the US presidential election and to reunite America and Europe, as a rift was created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a number of issues. And, pro-Israeli President Donald Trump have left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian refugees.
Nevertheless, Israeli Mossad which was in collaboration with the vulnerable CIA operatives, particularly, organized terror assaults in the US and Europe. As part of the double game, these terror attacks were conducted by these secret agencies, especially Mossad with the assistance of the ISIS terrorists who used the home-grown terrorists of these countries. Main aims of the Mossad were to reunite Europe and America and keep NATO united, and to divert the attention of their public from internal crises and a prolonged war in Afghanistan. Other purposes of Tel Aviv were to muster the support of America’s Western allies against Russia in relation to the Syrian war and to instigate the Western Christians, particularly those of Europe against the Muslims. Exaggeration of the threat of Islamophia and persecution of the Muslims in America and these countries might be cited as instance.
Another regrettable point is that irresponsible attitude of Indian, Israeli and some Western politicians has introduced dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by equating the “war on terror” with “war on Islam” and acts of Al-Qaeda and ISIS with all the Muslims. Their media have also been contributing to heighten the currents of world politics on cultural and religious lines with the negative projection of Islam.
Although overtly President Trump has softened his external policy regarding Muslims and Islamic countries to some extent, yet covertly, he is acting upon the conspiracy of Mossad and RAW, which is, intentionally or unintentionally, being followed by America’s Western partners against the Muslims. If not checked in time by the peace-loving Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists, these policies of the President Donald Trump who is particularly completing the extremist agenda of Israel are likely to result into more recruitment in the militant outfits, especially in the ISIS group, inspiring the extremist Muslims for more terrorism-related attacks. Israel, who will never accept the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, will prefer to seek the final revenge by bringing about a major war between the Muslim and the Christian worlds or to cause a nuclear war between Russia and the US-led some Western countries.
Nonetheless, the Holocaust warriors who created holy warriors to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan are likely to create more holy warriors, while dividing the nations on religious lines which would convert the whole world into holocaust.
The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy.
Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine.
The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”
The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union.
President Joe Biden has promoted this narrative, declaring that the greatest challenge of our time is the competition with the autocracies, which “seek to advance their own power, export and expand their influence around the world, and justify their repressive policies and practices as a more efficient way to address today’s challenges.” US security strategy is not the work of any single US president but of the US security establishment, which is largely autonomous, and operates behind a wall of secrecy.
The overwrought fear of China and Russia is sold to a Western public through manipulation of the facts. A generation earlier George W. Bush, Jr. sold the public on the idea that America’s greatest threat was Islamic fundamentalism, without mentioning that it was the CIA, with Saudi Arabia and other countries, that had created, funded, and deployed the jihadists in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere to fight America’s wars.
Or consider the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, which was painted in the Western media as an act of unprovoked perfidy. Years later, we learned that the Soviet invasion was actually preceded by a CIA operation designed to provoke the Soviet invasion! The same misinformation occurred vis-à-vis Syria. The Western press is filled with recriminations against Putin’s military assistance to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad beginning in 2015, without mentioning that the US supported the overthrow of al-Assad beginning in 2011, with the CIA funding a major operation (Timber Sycamore) to overthrow Assad years before Russia arrived.
Or more recently, when US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recklessly flew to Taiwan despite China’s warnings, no G7 foreign minister criticized Pelosi’s provocation, yet the G7 ministers together harshly criticized China’s “overreaction” to Pelosi’s trip.
The Western narrative about the Ukraine war is that it is an unprovoked attack by Putin in the quest to recreate the Russian empire. Yet the real history starts with the Western promise to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge to the East, followed by four waves of NATO aggrandizement: in 1999, incorporating three Central European countries; in 2004, incorporating 7 more, including in the Black Sea and Baltic States; in 2008, committing to enlarge to Ukraine and Georgia; and in 2022, inviting four Asia-Pacific leaders to NATO to take aim at China.
Nor do the Western media mention the US role in the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych; the failure of the Governments of France and Germany, guarantors of the Minsk II agreement, to press Ukraine to carry out its commitments; the vast US armaments sent to Ukraine during the Trump and Biden Administrations in the lead-up to war; nor the refusal of the US to negotiate with Putin over NATO enlargement to Ukraine.
Of course, NATO says that is purely defensive, so that Putin should have nothing to fear. In other words, Putin should take no notice of the CIA operations in Afghanistan and Syria; the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999; the NATO overthrow of Moammar Qaddafi in 2011; the NATO occupation of Afghanistan for 15 years; nor Biden’s “gaffe” calling for Putin’s ouster (which of course was no gaffe at all); nor US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stating that the US war aim in Ukraine is the weakening of Russia.
At the core of all of this is the US attempt to remain the world’s hegemonic power, by augmenting military alliances around the world to contain or defeat China and Russia. It’s a dangerous, delusional, and outmoded idea. The US has a mere 4.2% of the world population, and now a mere 16% of world GDP (measured at international prices). In fact, the combined GDP of the G7 is now less than that of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), while the G7 population is just 6 percent of the world compared with 41 percent in the BRICS.
There is only one country whose self-declared fantasy is to be the world’s dominant power: the US. It’s past time that the US recognized the true sources of security: internal social cohesion and responsible cooperation with the rest of the world, rather than the illusion of hegemony. With such a revised foreign policy, the US and its allies would avoid war with China and Russia, and enable the world to face its myriad environment, energy, food and social crises.
Above all, at this time of extreme danger, European leaders should pursue the true source of European security: not US hegemony, but European security arrangements that respect the legitimate security interests of all European nations, certainly including Ukraine, but also including Russia, which continues to resist NATO enlargements into the Black Sea. Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine. At this stage, diplomacy, not military escalation, is the true path to European and global security.
As Eurasian integration will become an even stronger vector, Russian diplomacy will be solidifying the new normal.
Dmitry Medvedev, relishing his unplugged self, has laid down the law on the Special Military Operation (SMO). Bluntly, he affirmed there is a “one and a half” scenario: either to go all the way, or a military coup d’etat in Ukraine followed by admitting the inevitable. No tertium applies.
That’s as stark as it gets: the leadership in Moscow is making it very clear, to internal and international audiences, the new deal consists in slow cooking the Kiev racket inside a massive cauldron while polishing its status of financial black hole for the collective West. Until we reach boiling point – which will be a revolution or a putsch.
In parallel, The Lords of (Proxy) War will continue with their own strategy, which is to pillage an enfeebled, fearful, Europe, then dressing it up as a perfumed colony to be ruthlessly exploited ad nauseam by the imperial oligarchy.
Europe is now a runaway TGV – minus the requisite Hollywood production values. Assuming it does not veer off track – a dicey proposition – it may eventually arrive at a railway station called Agenda 2030, The Great Narrative, or some other NATO/Davos denomination du jour.
As it stands, what’s remarkable is how the “marginal” Russian economy hardly broke a sweat to “end the abundance” of the wealthiest region on the planet.
Moscow does not even entertain the notion of negotiating with Brussels because there’s nothing to negotiate – considering puny Eurocrats will only be hurled away from their zombified state when the dire socio-economic consequences of “the end of abundance” will finally translate into peasants with pitchforks roaming the continent.
It may be eons away, but inevitably the average Italian, German or Frenchman will connect the dots and realize it is their own “leaders” – national nullities and mostly unelected Eurocrats – who are paving their road to poverty.
You will be poor. And you will like it. Because we are all supporting freedom for Ukrainian neo-nazis. That brings the concept of “multicultural Europe” to a whole new level.
The runaway train, of course, may veer off track and plunge into an Alpine abyss. In this case something might be saved from the wreckage – and “reconstruction” might be on the cards. But reconstruct what?
Europe could always reconstruct a new Reich (collapsed with a bang in 1945); a soft Reich (erected at the end of WWII); or break with its past failures, sing “I’m Free” – and connect with Eurasia. Don’t bet on it.
Get back those Taurian lands
The SMO may be about to radically change – something that will drive the already clueless denizens of U.S. Think Tankland and their Euro vassals even more berserk.
President Putin and Defense Minister Shoigu have been giving serious hints the only way for the pain dial is up – considering the mounting evidence of terrorism inside Russian territory; the vile assassination of Darya Dugina; non-stop shelling of civilians in border regions; attacks on Crimea; the use of chemical weapons; and the shelling of Zaporizhzhya power plant raising the risk of a nuclear catastrophe.
This past Tuesday, one day before the SMO completing six months, Crimea’s permanent representative to the Kremlin, Georgy Muradov, all but spelled it out.
He stressed the necessity to “reintegrate all the Taurian lands” – Crimea, the Northern Black Sea and the Azov Sea – into a single entity as soon as “in the next few months”. He defined this process as “objective and demanded by the population of these regions.”
Muradov added, “given not only the strikes on Crimea, but also the continuous shelling of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, the dam of the Kakhovka reservoir, peaceful facilities on the territory of Russia, the DNR and LNR, there are all preconditions to qualify the actions of the Banderite regime as terrorist.”
The conclusion is inevitable: “the political issue of changing the format of the special military operation” enters the agenda. After all, Washington and Brussels “have already prepared new anti-Crimean provocations of the NATO-Bandera alliance”.
So when we examine what the “restoration of the Taurian lands” implies, we see not only the contours of Novorossiya but most of all that there won’t be any security for Crimea – and thus Russia – in the Black Sea without Odessa becoming Russian again. And that, on top of it, will solve the Transnistria dilemma.
Add to it Kharkov – the capital and top industrial center of Greater Donbass. And of course Dnipropetrovsk. They are all SMO objectives, the whole combo to be later protected by buffer zones in Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts.
Only then the “tasks” – as Shoigu calls them – of the SMO would be declared fulfilled. The timeline could be eight to ten months – after a lull under General Winter.
As the turbo-charged SMO rolls on, it’s a given the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder will continue to prop up and weaponize the Kiev racket till Kingdom Come – and that will apply especially after the Return of Odessa. What’s unclear is who and what gang will be left in Kiev posing as the ruling party and doing specials for Vogue while duly fulfilling the mass of imperial diktats.
It’s also a given the CIA/MI6 combo will be refining non-stop the contours of a massive guerrilla war against Russia in multiple fronts – crammed with terror attacks and all sorts of provocations.
Yet in the Bigger Picture it’s the inevitable Russian military victory in Donbass and then “all the Taurian lands” that will hit the collective West like a lethal asteroid. The geopolitical humiliation will be unbearable; not to mention the geoeconomic humiliation for vassalized Europe.
As Eurasian integration will become an even stronger vector, Russian diplomacy will be solidifying the new normal. Never forget that Moscow had no trouble normalizing relations, for instance, with China, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel. All these actors, in different ways, directly contributed to the fall of the USSR. Now – with one exception – they are all focused on The Dawn of the Eurasian Century.
With the recent political events involving such different parts of the world, but usually for the same reasons: popular dissatisfaction, rising prices, and the like. And these causes arise with the decision-making errors of Western leaders, who end up suppressing popular opinion, in what generates a kind of democratic government in the archetype but doesn’t really care about its people.
The most practical example arises when countries try to enter into military alliances without popular consultation as to whether the people agree with what is at stake. The Nordics in NATO were a very clear example of this.
The politicians who now manage the finances of powers within Europe were clearly not prepared for what is happening, mainly because in the global production chain, which involves Russia, now sanctioned, reflects much more on the sanctioning regional economy than on the sanctioned one. Plus it…
The FBI has seized the electronic data of a retired four-star general who authorities say made false statements and withheld “incriminating” documents about his role in an illegal foreign lobbying campaign on behalf of the wealthy Persian Gulf nation of Qatar. (AP)
It’s one more instance of what’s been going on for years. People have posts in government and then sell themselves to another country to use what they’ve learned in government to make it favor that country. Members of Congress and their aides. Military personnel. Or they join defense contractors to help them get federal money. Sometimes they edge over the legal line.
Or they join think tanks. General John Allen, referred to above, became the head of the Brookings Institution when he retired from the military in 2017. There are at least two issues here.
NATO is inflamed over the amount of ‘disinformation’ that is plaguing social media platforms. According to their own self image, NATO states: “NATO member countries maintain open civil communications systems, some with very high rates of social media and social messaging use.” Simultaneously, NATO states that false messages and inflammatory statements are a direct danger in “the damage they can do to citizens’ faith in the institutions of democratic governance and resources of public information and discussion.” Therefore, ‘open communication’ must be censored.
These ‘warfare campaigns’ must be silenced in order to have a free open source of information. Please read that again… ‘silencing in order to be free and open source’. Claiming disinformation is warfare sets the stage for the institution of Nazi style laws that prohibit anyone from saying anything deemed disinformation.
Given that humans are currently responsible for tattling on other humans, NATO wants AI to take control.
Currently, certain words or phrases are delisted and are the source of censorship. But together with Johns Hopkins, NATO wants emotions to be targeted. They term this new design as ‘Sentiment Analysis’. If AI determines a particular sentiment is not within the programmed guidelines, a circuit breaker effect would be instituted globally.
Within this algorithm of AI regulatory analysis, censors will not only delete the communication pathway, but could also insert legal action resulting in censor police knocking down doors. All of this is based on The Great RESET of global governance.
Member states of NATO would be required to adopt these censorship mechanisms or face de-alliance.
DISINFORMATION Definition: false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.
In other words, disinformation is born of government propaganda according to dictionary.com. That would indicate that the government is using the media to convey the notion that disinformation is parlayed via individuals on social media – which IS the disinformation! Funny word-play!
Johns Hopkins is a partner of NATO. They have other interesting partnership alliances, including with; Tsinghua University in China, China University in Hong Kong, Shanghai Jia Tong University – China, and Nanjing University – China. They have been heavily involved in the Thousand Talent Program in China and have yet to decouple that arrangement despite concerns over the sharing of US intellectual property.
While our media, NATO and White House Handlers would have us believe China is our enemy… Johns Hopkins does not. ODD!
Johns Hopkins is also the designated source of statistics for CoVid cases and deaths via their algorithm. They are a perpetuator of Climate Change Theory including climate change’s racism. An event with two speakers , one from Bloomberg’s Johns Hopkins is scheduled at Harvard the latter part of this month to discuss Climate’s racism.
Given climate is racist, trees are racist, birds are racist, street signs are racist, sidewalks are racist, crayons are racist… the Cloud should be deemed racist given it represents fluffy whiteness. Right?
In 2020, Johns Hopkins contributed $2.4 million to Democrats and $92,000 to Republicans. But they are nonpartisan. Its most recent grant from NIH announced October 2021 is in the amount of $4 million. The purpose of the grant is to study and research the use of psilocybin mushrooms to explore the impact on tobacco addiction. So you might cure that smoking addiction but you’ll be crazy and confined in a mental institution, so who cares…
A total of 85% of Johns Hopkins funding is via federal and state governments – $2.562 million. That means ALL taxpayers are paying for Johns Hopkins to give the money to Democrat PACs… Sounds logical.
Johns Hopkins provides internships for students with: GAVI, UNICEF, WHO and Pan American Health Organization, although a WHO internship was cancelled this year because of CoVid. ???
At the recent NATO Summit, US Defense blunderer, Lloyd Austin, made the following playbook statement with regard to China: “We see an increasing interest in our allies and partners [in the Indo-Pacific] to ensure the region remains free and open, and the rules-based international order remains in place.”
However Jens Stoltenberg was quick to add that Russia continues to take a close second place as the target of demonizing after NATO expelled 8 Russian ‘spies’, errr diplomats. The evidence? NATO declared their decision was based on intelligence and they are not going to comment on their intelligence… Ah
NATO has gone Full ballistic mental in abiding by the Handlers that make the rules. What becomes increasingly clear is that the pedophilia based NATO is being situated to be the global police, not just of coups but of censorship as in Big Brother. Not one UN Peacekeeper or NATO personnel accused of sexual assault was jailed despite more than 2,000 allegations. Just one allegation was from a 12 year old who claimed she was paid 75 cents for each of the 40 men she was prostituted to.
Two destinies are pulling on West Asia from two opposing visions of the future.
As devotees of the rules-based order laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski 40 years ago strive to uphold their dystopic model of dividing populations to feed endless wars, a more optimistic program of cooperation is being ushered in by China’s ever-evolving Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
While many nations have jumped on board this new paradigm with enthusiastic support, others have found themselves precariously straddling both worlds.
Turkey plays footsie with great powers
Chief among those indecisive nations is the Republic of Turkey, whose leader was given a harsh wake up call on 15 July, 2016. It was on this date that Russian intelligence provided Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the edge needed to narrowly avoid a coup launched by followers of exiled Islamist leader Fetullah Gulen.
The timing of the coup has been subject to much speculation, but the fact that it occurred just two weeks after Erdogan’s letter of apology to Putin went public was likely not a coincidence. The apology in question referred to Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian fighter jet flying in Syrian airspace in November 2015, killing a soldier and very nearly activating NATO’s collective security pact.
For years instrumental in providing weapons and logistical support to ISIS in both Iraq and Syria (via Operation Timber Sycamore), it is possible Erdogan was tiring of being used to further western interests in the Levant, when it had its own, quite different, aspirations in those territories.
Whatever the case, since that fateful day, Turkey’s behavior as a player in West Asia took on an improved (though not entirely redeemed) character on a number of levels. Chief among those positive behavioral changes is Ankara’s participation in the Astana process with Tehran and Moscow to demilitarize large swathes of Syria. Turkey then purchased Russian S400 medium-long range missile defense systems, and has recently advanced plans to jointly produce submarines, jet engines and warships with Russia, while also accelerating the construction of a nuclear reactor built by Rosatom.
That said, old habits die hard, and Turkey has been caught playing in both worlds, providing continued support for the terrorist-laden Free Syrian Army and Al Qaeda offshoot Hayat Tahrir Al Sham in Syria’s Idlib governorate. Turkey now has a total of 60 military bases and observation posts that provide protection for these and other militant groups in the country’s north.
The Middle Corridor option
On an economic level, Turkey’s ambition to become a gateway between Europe and Asia along the New Silk Road also indicates Erdogan’s resolution to break from his previous commitments to join the European Union and engage more intricately with the East.
Turkey’s 7500 km Trans-Caspian East-West Middle Corridor is an ambitious project that runs parallel to the northern corridor of the BRI connecting China to Europe.
This corridor, which began running in November 2019, has the benefit of cutting nearly 2000 km of distance off the active northern corridor and provides an efficient route between China and Europe. The route itself moves goods from the north-eastern Lianyungang Port in China through Xinjiang into Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and on to Europe via land and sea routes. Erdogan has previously stated that “the Middle Corridor lies at the heart of the BRI” and has called to “integrate the Middle Corridor into the BRI.”
Other projects that are subsumed by the Middle Corridor include the $20 billion Istanbul Canal which will be a 45km connection between the Black and Marmara Seas (reducing traffic on the Bosporus) as well as the Marmara undersea railway, Eurasian Tunnel, and the third Istanbul Bridge.
Without China’s increased involvement, not only will these projects fail to take shape, but the Middle Corridor itself would crumble into oblivion. Chinese trade with Turkey recently grew from $2 billion in 2002 to $26 billion in 2020, more than 1,000 Chinese companies have investment projects throughout the nation, and Chinese consortiums hold a 65 percent stake in Turkey’s third largest port.
Restraining Ankara’s options
These projects have not come without a fight from both internal forces within Turkey and external ones. Two major Turkish opposition parties have threatened to cancel the Canal Istanbul as a tactic to scare away potential investors at home and abroad. And internationally, financial warfare has been unleashed against Turkey’s economy on numerous levels.
Credit ratings agencies have downgraded Turkey to a ‘high risk’ nation, and sanctions have been launched by the US and EU. These acts have contributed to international investors pulling out from Turkish government bonds (a quarter of all bonds were held by foreign investors in 2009, collapsing to less than 4 percent today) and depriving the nation of vital productive credit to build infrastructure. These attacks have also resulted in the biggest Turkish banks stating they will not provide any funding to the megaproject.
Despite the fact that Chinese investments into Turkey have increased significantly, western Financial Direct Investments (FDIs) have fallen from $12.18 billion in 2009 to only $6.67 billion in 2021.
Dialing down its Uyghur project
As with Turkey’s relations with Russia, Erdogan’s desperate need to collaborate with China in the financial realm has resulted in a change of policy in his support for Uyghur extremists. Of the 13 million Chinese Uyghurs, 50,000 live in Turkey, many of whom are part of a larger CIA-funded operation aimed at carving up China.
For many years, Turkey has provided safe haven to terrorist groups like the East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement, which cut its teeth fighting alongside ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Operatives affiliated with the World Uyghur Congress, funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy and based in Germany, have also found fertile soil in Turkey.
In 2009, Erdogan publicly denounced China for conducting a genocide on Muslims living in Xinjiang (long before it became de rigueur to do so in western nations). After Turkey’s 2016 failed coup, things began to change. In 2017, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu stated: “We will absolutely not allow in any activities in Turkey that target or oppose China. Additionally, we will take measures to eliminate any media reports targeting China.”
There are many parallels to Turkey’s protection of radical Islamic groups in Idlib, but Ankara’s protection of radical anti-China Uyghur groups was more gradual. However, recent significant moves by Erdogan have demonstrated good faith, including the 2017 extradition treaty signed with China (ratified by Beijing though not yet by Ankara), an increased clampdown on Uyghur extremist groups, and the decision to re-instate the exclusion order banning World Uyghur Congress president Dolkun Isa from entering Turkey on 19 September, 2021.
Might the INSTC bypass Ankara?
Not only is Turkey eager to play a role in China’s BRI and secure essential long term credit from Beijing – without which its future will be locked to the much diminished fortunes of the European Union – but Ankara has also factored the growing International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) into its calculus.
A multimodal corridor stretching across a dozen nations, the INSTC was launched by Russia, India and Iran in 2002 and has been given new life by China’s BRI. In recent years, members of the project have grown to also include Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Belarus, Oman and Bulgaria.
While Turkey is a member of the project, there is no guarantee that the megaproject will directly move through its borders. Here too, Erdogan is keen to stay on good terms with Russia and its allies.
The Middle Corridor loses its shine Up until now, Turkey’s inability to break with zero-sum thinking has resulted in the self-delusion that Turkey’s Middle Corridor would be the only possible choice China had to move goods through to Europe and North Africa.
This perception was for many years buoyed by the war across the ISIS-ridden region of Syria and Iraq (and the relative isolation of Iran), which appeared to ensure that no competing development corridor could be activated.
However, Iran’s entry into the BRI as part of its 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership struck with China in March, and its ascension to full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in September, has provided an attractive new east-west alternative route to the Middle Corridor.
This potential branch of the New Silk Road connecting China with Europe via Iran, Iraq and Syria into the Mediterranean through Syria’s port of Latakia provides a unique opportunity to not only reconstruct the war-torn West Asian nations, but to also create a durable field of stability after decades of western manipulation.
This new route has the additional attraction of incorporating Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other Arab states into a new strategic dynamic that connects Eurasia with an African continent desperate for real development. As of this writing, 40 sub-Saharan African nations have signed onto China’s BRI.
The first glimmering light of this new corridor took form in a small but game-changing 30 km rail line connecting the border city of Shalamcheh in Iran with Basra in Iraq. Work began this year, with its $150 million cost supplied by the semi-private Mostazan Foundation of Iran.
Foreseeing a much larger expansion of this historic connection, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq stated: “Iraq can be connected to China through the railways of Iran and increase its strategic importance in the region … this will be a very big change and Iran’s railways will be connected to Iraq and Syria and to the Mediterranean.”
Ambassador Masjidi was here referring to the provisional agreement reached among Iran, Iraq and Syria in November 2018 to build a 1570 km railway and highway from the Persian Gulf in Iran to the Latakia Port via Iraq.
Already, Iran’s construction-focused investments in war-torn and sanction-torn Syria have grown immensely, boosting estimated trade between the two nations with an additional $1 billion over the next 12 months.
Indicating the higher development dynamic that is shaping the Iraq–Iran railway, Iraq’s Prime Minister stated in May 2021 that “negotiations with Iran to build a railway between Basra and Shalamcheh have reached their final stages and we have signed 15 agreements and memorandums of understanding with Jordan and Egypt regarding energy and transportation lines.”
Indeed, both Egypt and Jordan have also looked east for the only pathway to durable peace in the form of the New Silk Road. The trio of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq began setting the stage for this Silk Road route with a 2017 energy agreement designed to connect the electricity grids of the three nations and also construct a pipeline from Basra to Aqaba in Jordan followed by a larger extension to Egypt.
Iraq and the New Silk Road In December 2020, Iraq and Egypt agreed on an important oil for reconstruction deal along the lines of a similar program activated earlier by former Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi and his Chinese counterpart in September 2019. The latter project was seriously downgraded when Mahdi stepped down in May 2020, and although PM Mustafa Al-Kadhimi has begun to repair Chinese relations, Iraq has not yet returned to the level of cooperation reached by his predecessor.
To date, the only major power that has shown any genuine concern for Iraq’s reconstruction – and been willing to invest actual resources toward it – has been China.
Despite the trillions of dollars wasted by the United States in its brutal invasion and occupation of the country, not a single energy project has been built by US dollars there. In fact, the only power plant constructed after 2003 has been the Chinese-built 2450 mW thermal plant in Wassit which supplies 20 percent of Iraq’s electricity. Iraq requires at least 19 GW of electricity in order to supply its basic needs after years of western bombardment strategically targeting its vital infrastructure.
To this day, hardly any domestic manufacturing exists in Iraq, with 97 percent of its needs purchased from abroad, and entirely with oil revenue. If this dire situation is to be reversed, then China’s oil-for-construction plan must be brought fully back online.
The kernel of this plan involves a special fund which will accumulate sales of discounted Iraqi oil to China until a $1.5 billion threshold is reached. When this happens, Chinese state banks have agreed to add an additional $8.5 billion, bringing the fund to $10 billion to be used on a full reconstruction program driven by roads, rail, water treatment, and energy grids, as well as soft infrastructure like schools and healthcare.
Where the western economic models have tended to keep nations underdeveloped by emphasizing raw material extraction with no long-term investments that benefit its citizenry, creating no manufacturing capabilities or an increase in the powers of labor, the Chinese-model is entirely different, focusing instead on creating full spectrum economies. Where the former is zero sum and a closed system, the latter model is win-win and open.
If Turkey can find the sense to liberate itself from the obsolete logic of zero sum geopolitics, then a bright future will await all of West and Central Asia.
There is no reason to believe that the Middle Corridor will in any way be harmed by the success of an Iran–Iraq–Syria Silk Road corridor, or by its African extensions. By encouraging the development of collaborative relations, large scale infrastructure, and full-spectrum economic networks, abundance can be created in these regions to offset the underdevelopment and stagnation of recent years.
Jonah Goldberg and Michael Ledeen have much in common. They are both writers and also cheerleaders for military interventions and, often, for frivolous wars. Writing in the conservative rag, The National Review, months before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Goldberg paraphrased a statement which he attributed to Ledeen with reference to the interventionist US foreign policy.
“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,” Goldberg wrote, quoting Ledeen.
Those like Ledeen, the neoconservative intellectual henchman type, often get away with this kind of provocative rhetoric for various reasons. American intelligentsias, especially those who are close to the center of power in Washington DC, perceive war and military intervention as the foundation and baseline of their foreign policy analysis. The utterances of such statements are usually conveyed within friendly media and intellectual platforms, where equally hawkish, belligerent audiences cheer and laugh at the warmongering muses. In the case of Ledeen, the receptive audience was the hardline, neoconservative, pro-Israel American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Predictably, AEI was one of the loudest voices urging for a war and invasion of Iraq prior to that calamitous decision by the George W. Bush Administration, which was enacted in March 2003.
Neoconservatism, unlike what the etymology of the name may suggest, was not necessarily confined to conservative political circles. Think tanks, newspapers and media networks that purport – or are perceived – to express liberal and even progressive thought today, like The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, have dedicated much time and space to promoting an American invasion of Iraq as the first step of a complete US geostrategic military hegemony in the Middle East.
Like the National Review, these media networks also provided unhindered space to so-called neoconservative intellectuals who molded American foreign policy based on some strange mix between their twisted take on ethics and morality and the need for the US to ensure its global dominance throughout the 21st century. Of course, the neocons’ love affair with Israel has served as the common denominator among all individuals affiliated with this intellectual cult.
The main – and inconsequential – difference between Ledeen, for example, and those like Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, is that the former is brazen and blunt, while the latter is delusional and manipulative. For his part, Friedman also supported the Iraq war, but only to bring “democracy” to the Middle East and to fight “terrorism.” The pretense “war on terror,” though misleading if not outright fabricated, was the overriding American motto in its invasion of Iraq and, earlier, Afghanistan. This mantra was readily utilized whenever Washington needed to “pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall.”
Even those who genuinely supported the war based on concocted intelligence – that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, possessed weapons of mass destruction, or the equally fallacious notion that Saddam and Al-Qaeda cooperated in any way – must, by now, realize that the entire American discourse prior to the war had no basis in reality. Unfortunately, war enthusiasts are not a rational bunch. Therefore, neither they, nor their “intellectuals,” should be expected to possess the moral integrity in shouldering the responsibility for the Iraq invasion and its horrific consequences.
If, indeed, the US wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were meant to fight and uproot terror, how is it possible that, in June 2014, an erstwhile unknown group calling itself the “Islamic State” (IS), managed to flourish, occupy and usurp massive swathes of Iraqi and Syrian territories and resource under the watchful eye of the US military? If the other war objective was bringing stability and democracy to the Middle East, why did many years of US “state-building” efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, leave behind nothing but weak, shattered armies and festering corruption?
Two important events have summoned up these thoughts: US President Joe Biden’s “historic” trip to Cornwall, UK, in June, to attend the 47th G7 summit and, two weeks later, the death of Donald Rumsfeld, who is widely depicted as “the architect of the Iraq war.” The tone struck by Biden throughout his G7 meetings is that “America is back,” another American coinage similar to the earlier phrase, the “great reset” – meaning that Washington is ready to reclaim its global role that had been betrayed by the chaotic policies of former President Donald Trump.
The newest phrase – “America is back” – appears to suggest that the decision to restore the US’ uncontested global leadership is, more or less, an exclusively American decision. Moreover, the term is not entirely new. In his first speech to a global audience at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, Biden repeated the phrase several times with obvious emphasis.
“America is back. I speak today as President of the United States, at the very start of my administration and I am sending a clear message to the world: America is back,” Biden said, adding that “the transatlantic alliance is back and we are not looking backward, we are looking forward together.”
Platitudes and wishful thinking aside, the US cannot possibly return to a previous geopolitical standing, simply because Biden has made an executive decision to “reset” his country’s traditional relationships with Europe – or anywhere else, either. Biden’s actual mission is to merely whitewash and restore his country’s tarnished reputation, marred not only by Trump, but also by years of fruitless wars, a crisis of democracy at home and abroad and an impending financial crisis resulting from the US’ mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Unfortunately for Washington, while it hopes to “look forward” to the future, other countries have already staked claims to parts of the world where the US has been forced to retreat, following two decades of a rudderless strategy that is fueled by the belief that firepower alone is sufficient to keep America aloft forever.
Though Biden was received warmly by his European hosts, Europe is likely to proceed cautiously. The continent’s geostrategic interests do not fall entirely in the American camp, as was once the case. Other new factors and power players have emerged in recent years. China is now the European bloc’s largest trade partner and Biden’s scare tactics warning of Chinese global dominance have not, seemingly, impressed the Europeans as the Americans had hoped. Following Britain’s unceremonious exit from the EU bloc, the latter urgently needs to keep its share of the global economy as large as possible. The limping US economy will hardly make the substantial deficit felt in Europe. Namely, the China-EU relationship is here to stay – and grow.
There is something else that makes the Europeans wary of whatever murky political doctrine Biden is promoting: dangerous American military adventurism.
The US and Europe are the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which, since its inception in 1949, was almost exclusively used by the US to assert its global dominance, first in the Korean Peninsula in 1950, then everywhere else.
Following the September 11 attacks, Washington used its hegemony over NATO to invoke Article 5 of its Charter, that of collective defense. The consequences were dire, as NATO members, along with the US, were embroiled in their longest wars ever, military conflicts that had no consistent strategy, let alone measurable goals. Now, as the US licks its wounds as it leaves Afghanistan, NATO members, too, are leaving the devastated country without a single achievement worth celebrating. Similar scenarios are transpiring in Iraq and Syria, too.
Rumsfeld’s death on June 29, at the age of 88, should serve as a wake-up call to American allies if they truly wish to avoid the pitfalls and recklessness of the past. While much of the US corporate media commemorated the death of a brutish war criminal with amiable noncommittal language, some blamed him almost entirely for the Iraq fiasco. It is as if a single man had bent the will of the West-dominated international community to invade, pillage, torture and destroy entire countries. If so, then Rumsfeld’s death should usher in an exciting new dawn of collective peace, prosperity and security. This is not the case.
Rationalizing his decision to leave Afghanistan in a speech to the nation in April 2021, Biden did not accept, on behalf of his country, responsibility over that horrific war. Instead, he spoke of the need to fight the “terror threat” in “many places,” instead of keeping “thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country.”
Indeed, a close reading of Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan – a process which began under Trump – suggests that the difference between US foreign policy under Biden is only tactically different from the policies of George W. Bush when he launched his “preemptive wars” under the command of Rumsfeld. Namely, though the geopolitical map may have shifted, the US appetite for war remains insatiable.
Shackled with a legacy of unnecessary, fruitless and immoral wars, yet with no actual “forward” strategy, the US, arguably for the first time since the inception of NATO in the aftermath of World War II, has no decipherable foreign policy doctrine. Even if such a doctrine exists, it can only be materialized through alliances whose relationships are constructed on trust and confidence. Despite the EU’s courteous reception of Biden in Cornwall, trust in Washington is at an all-time low.
Even if it is accepted, without any argument, that America is, indeed, back, considering the vastly changing geopolitical spheres in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Biden’s assertion should, ultimately, make no difference.
STUTTGART, Germany – In less than two years, NATO hopes to have its own modified version of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) operational. At the 31st Annual Summit in Brussels on June 14, the alliance members agreed to launch a new initiative called Defense Innovation Accelerator of the North Atlantic (DIANA), which […]
Take a look at this new hashtag #nato2030 all over the massive worldwide, globalist think-tanks and foundations as they “define NATO’s role in 2030″…
Chatham House – New Ideas for NATO 2030
NATO has been a bedrock of security and stability for over 70 years. But today, it is facing an increasingly complex world full of new actors, threats and challenges. How can it guarantee that it will remain fit, united and adaptable in this new world? What hard decisions does it need to take to be fit for purpose in the next decade? In his first major policy speech of 2021, NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, outlines his vision for NATO to 2030 with recommendations from the NATO 2030 Young Leaders – a group he appointed to advise him on how the organization can meet the demands of a rapidly changing world. The event also features the culmination of a week-long policy hackathon that will see students from 10 universities ‘pitch for purpose’ on key strategic themes for NATO 2030: Turning the tide: NATO’s role in defending and re-shaping a values-based international order Full spectrum security: building resilience against economic security risks People first: protecting populations in modern-day conflicts Innovating innovation: next steps in technology cooperation Less is more: reducing military carbon emissions How will NATO continue to be a strategic anchor in uncertain times? How will it adapt to well-known threats such as terrorism and new risks that loom from pandemics and climate change particularly as emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) present both dangers and opportunities for its members? And what lessons can be drawn from NATO’s experience that can apply to other multilateral organizations?
GLOBSEC – The Future of Warfare
NATO leaders have asked the Secretary-General to lead a forward-looking reflection on NATO’s future, NATO 2030. As part of this effort, NATO seeks to strengthen its engagement with civil society, youth and the private sector. This is why NATO is launching the NATO 2030: NATO-Private Sector Dialogues. Facilitated by GLOBSEC, the dialogues will look to deepen the involvement of the private sector across the transatlantic sphere and galvanize their activity in advancing NATO’s collective security agenda. This initiative will begin with a conference on November 25th focusing on The Future of Warfare and the Role of New and Emerging Technologies that will bring together experts from the fields of technology, security, and public policy. Threats in the international security landscape have never been so diverse or so quick to materialize. From hypersonic delivery systems to the integration of machine-human teaming on the battlefield, quantum leaps in technological development and ultra-connectivity are transforming how nations assess national security threats as well as how they organize societies and engage with citizens. This interplay between technology, society, and conflict is only just beginning, and the Transatlantic community will need critical reflection leading to action to guarantee its peace and prosperity. Going forward, and into 2021, six NATO 2030 dialogues will explore how the private sector can contribute to addressing the most pressing technology-based security risks and contribute to increasing societal resilience across the Alliance. GLOBSEC is proud to have been selected by NATO to lead the engagement with the private sector on this high-profile project. We encourage you to follow GLOBSEC on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and our website where you can find the latest news on #NATO2030, as well as information about the upcoming conference. You can find all the information about the event here: https://bit.ly/3phVm1l
Munich Security Conference – NATO 2030 Youth Summit
Fourteen emerging leaders from across the Alliance were nominated as #NATO2030 Young Leaders at the NATO 2030 Youth Summit to assist #NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg with input to inform his recommendations for NATO 2030. Here, they introduce themselves and answer questions posed to them by incumbent heads of state, including Zuzana Čaputová, Boris Johnson, Kersti Kaljulaid, Angela Merkel, Mark Rutte, Pedro Sánchez and Justin Trudeau.
Atlantic Council – NATO 2030: Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on strengthening the Alliance in a post-COVID world
As COVID-19 accelerates existing global trends and tensions, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg discusses how the Alliance is embracing this new normal and preparing for the next decade and beyond. For more information, please visit: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event… —————————— Subscribe for more! https://www.youtube.com/user/Atlantic… Driven by our mission of “shaping the global future together,” the Atlantic Council is a nonpartisan organization that galvanizes US leadership and engagement in the world, in partnership with allies and partners, to shape solutions to global challenges. Find out more about us by visiting: atlanticcouncil.org
German Marshall Fund – NATO 2030 – United for a New Era
Speakers: Marta Dassù, Senior Director, European Affairs, The Aspen Institute; Editor-in-Chief, Aspenia Thomas de Maizière, Member, German Bundestag Wess Mitchell, Vice Chairman, Board of Directors, Center for European Policy Analysis Moderator Ian Lesser, Vice President, The German Marshall Fund of the United States At their December 2019 meeting, NATO leaders invited Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to lead a forward-looking reflection process to strengthen NATO’s political dimension. To support him in this process, Stoltenberg appointed a group of ten experts to answer a broad set of questions, including how to keep NATO strong militarily, more united politically, and how to engage the Alliance globally. In November 2020, the Reflection Group published their conclusions in a report titled “NATO 2030: United for a new Era.” Please join the co-chairs of the Reflection Group to discuss the analysis and recommendations of the report and to explore some of the key issues pertaining to the future of the Alliance.
SFU NATO Field School and Simulation Program- NATO2030 Hackathon
In on February 4th, 2021, a team of NATO Field School alumni participated in the first-ever NATO2030 Policy Hackathon, where they pitched innovative ideas to a wide NATO audience, including the Secretary General. The SFU team was the only Canadian university represented in the competition, and in the end an expert jury panel determined them to have won in their category, Reducing Military Carbon Emissions, and judged their presentation to be in 2nd place overall, tied with Harvard University.
Carnegie Europe – NATO in 2030: Adapting to a New World
With the changing nature of global security challenges, the coming decade will see NATO confronted by emerging world powers, climate change, and new disruptive technologies. Is NATO prepared for this future? Can it balance firm military commitments with political unity and a broader global mandate? Carnegie Europe is delighted to host a virtual discussion on the findings of the independent group supporting NATO 2030 (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl20…), a forward-looking process initiated by the NATO Secretary General in March 2020. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will give a keynote address, before group co-chairs Thomas de Maizière and Wess Mitchell are joined by Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer and Anna Wieslander for a discussion on the coming decade for NATO. Rosa Balfour will moderate. To submit a question for the event, please use the YouTube chat, email email@example.com, or tweet at @Carnegie_Europe using the hashtag #NATO2030. To receive invitations to similar events and alerts of new publications, register here: https://carnegieeurope.eu/resources/r…
Woodrow Wilson Center – Is NATO Prepared for the Future
How well is NATO prepared for the future? NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asked former German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell to co-chair an independent Reflection Group to take up the challenge.
American Council on Germany – Moving Towards NATO 2030
Dr. Thomas de Maizière, Member of the Bundestag (CDU) and former Defense Minister, and Dr. A. Wess Mitchell, Vice Chairman of CEPA and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe discuss the findings of the independent Reflection Group on the future strategic concept for NATO 2030, established by Secretary General Stoltenberg, which they chaired over the course of nine months in 2020.
European CFR – NATO in a Multipolar World
Discussion on the role of NATO in a world of revived geopolitical competition with a focus on the potential of the transatlantic alliance, organised by the European Council on Foreign Relations – Sofia office. The event took place on 16 December 2020 in a hybrid format with a connection from Sofia. Interview: “NATO 2030 – United for a New Era” – key takeaways, with • Marta Dassù, Board member, ECFR; Senior Advisor for European Affairs, The Aspen Institute Speakers: • Assen Agov, Journalist, Former Member of Parliament and Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee, Bulgarian National Assembly • Dzhema Grozdanova, ECFR Council Member; Former Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee, Bulgarian National Assembly • Dragomir Zakov, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Bulgaria to NATO Moderator: Vessela Tcherneva, Deputy Director and Head of Sofia office, ECFR