• Destabilization activities becoming more evident, book says

• Mistakes made in Hong Kong are being repeated on larger scale

• Countries can “only be liberal democracies or authoritarian dictatorships”

 book

AMERICA’S OVERT AND COVERT actions to subvert other communities while claiming to spread liberal democracy are likely becoming apparent to people around the world, a new study says.

It’s evident that the US and its allies are just advancing their own interests while destabilizing perceived enemies, according to an analysis of present day geopolitical manoeuvring by top political scientist Paolo Urio.

Meanwhile, US attempts to cling to global supremacy in the face of China’s rise have been accompanied by “a surge in anti-China propaganda” focused on Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet, he writes in a new book, America and the China Threat.

The huge gulf between the surface narrative and what really happening is laid bare in the analysis by Urio, a highly respected Swiss professor of international relations, specializing in China-Europe relations.

CONTRADICTIONS

It is increasingly hard to hide the contradictions between what the US says it does and its actual activities, says Urio. America claims to be taking the high road, but constantly hits perceived enemies with sanctions, and amplifies their genuine internal problems in the hopes of creating destabilization or regime change.

More people are likely to realize what’s happening, he believes. “Subversive activities against countries that do not comply with the interests of the establishment of the US empire are becoming ever more evident to global publics and elites, who may finally start getting the bigger picture,” he says in the new 587 page study.

[Paolo Urio, is based at the University of Geneva.]

America has always claimed to be horrified by non-democracies but its actions tell a different story. “The US empire has often cooperated, and it is still cooperating today, with authoritarian countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and has even replaced democratically elected governments with dictatorships, such as in Iran in 1953 and in Chile in 1973,” says the professor based at the University of Geneva.

SUBVERSION IN HONG KONG

What happened in Hong Kong epitomizes the problem, the top Swiss political scientist said. The city on the southern coast of China thrived under many years of executive-led leadership which carefully balanced Western and Chinese interests.

But in the 1990s, the UK took the political step of unilaterally imposing a temporary system of Western liberal democracy on the city, angering China’s rulers and leaving behind a fractured and polarized city.

The UK’s error in Hong Kong is being repeated on a much larger scale today, with the US urging China to adopt the allegedly superior Western model of governance, Urio says. The argument runs as follows: “In the 1990s Hong Kong should have turned democratic instantaneously by the magic hand of the UK, as China should today do the same under the magical hand of the US.”

The tension this creates is heightened by the West’s obvious double standards and its tendency to demonize the East. The result is increasing polarization and now the threat of war.

CRITICIZING CHINA

Yes, China has become more rigid in some ways, but that is at least partly a response to unfair treatment, the book explains. “Certainly, from the point of view of Western values, one may regret and strongly criticize China’s evolution towards an increasingly authoritarian state. But in doing so, we forget that we have done our part of pushing China in this direction, and were we not pushing so hard, China might not have felt it necessary to protect itself by such means,” the author says.

Meanwhile, the imbalance in the popular narrative is clear. The evidence that the US and its allies have engaged in operations of mass destruction in various places around the world for many years is beyond doubt. Yet the general discourse continually condemns the West’s enemies’ alleged mass destructions, despite them being far smaller in scale. “This corresponds to the well-known use of double standards exhibited by both the US and the EU,” Urio says.

RIGID VERSUS FLEXIBLE

A key problem lies in the two leading countries’ differences in self-perception. The United States, despite its widespread inequalities and troubled democratic system, has a rigid belief in its ultimate superiority (“American exceptionalism”) and its calling by God to spread its system around the world, which it sees as a set of countries which must be divided into a stark good-or-evil choice: democracy or autocracy. This division is echoed on a daily basis by major international media.

Urio’s analysis echoes the views of many Asians, who feel that the labelling system is brutally unfair. The media labels countries “democratic” OR “authoritarian”. In Hong Kong, people who are pro-American/ anti-China are labelled “pro-democracy” and anyone who dares to criticize this view in any way is cancelled as “pro-Beijing”. This silences many Hong Kong people, who have a more authentic, nuanced view.

Urio further points out that China, for all its faults and tendency to heavyhandedness, has a flexible, developing system of governance, and not the slightest interest in imposing its politics on other countries.

Yet the US has total propaganda dominance, keeping control of the narrative. “The US targets China by interfering in three very sensitive regions: Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet,” Urio writes. “This happens in the midst of a surge in anti-China propaganda embedded into the US Cold War mentality, with the usual mix of sanctions, military build-up in the China Seas, and support to subversive activities within China. Moreover, the US is trying to convince its allies in Europe and in Asia to unite against the purported existential threat represented by China.”

MILITARISTIC

Talking up this “threat” to the world is of huge benefit to America in that it draws its allies to its side, acting like vassal states. “NATO is on track to become a global alliance for the perpetuation of the US empire,” the author says.

Result: We end up with the argument that can be seen in US military strategy documents that the East is a problem and the solution is to spend more public money on weapons.

“These documents regard it as increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with what is regarded as their authoritarian model,” Urio writes.

“The consequence that is put forward is the need to accelerate modernization programmes of the US military resources by investing more money in a sustained effort ‘to solidify our competitive advantage’.

“In particular, this requires, among other measures, the modernization of key capabilities as it concerns nuclear forces; space and cyberspace as warfighting domains; artificial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and missile defence.”

read more:

https://www.fridayeveryday.com/wests-bid-to-subvert-others-is-no-longer-secret-study/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

If you follow this little site, we've been on the case for a long time...

BY James O’Neill

The past week saw what was arguably the most important encounter for a considerable period of time. The Russian president Vladimir Putin travelled to Beijing as the honoured guest of Chinese president Xi Jinping . It was their first face to face meeting for more than two years. The two leaders did not waste the opportunity and devoted themselves to covering issues that mattered.

Prior to this summit, the respective foreign secretaries of the two countries Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi also had a meeting. The focus of the meeting was also significantly reflected in the statement after the meeting made by Wang Yi. He pointed to what is arguably the most important development occurring in the world today; the increasing cooperation of the Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian Economic Union (the EAEU).

There was considerable agreement between the two countries, reflected in the final communiqué. The different emphasis between the concerns of the two great powers and the preoccupations of the West were striking. Both countries are against NATO expansion which Russia in particular sees as an existential threat. They favoured the United Nations as the medium for seeking justice in international relations, rather than the more narrow and manifestly self-interested version of international agreements the Americans and their allies favour.

Both Russia and China oppose interference in their internal affairs, something the Chinese in particular are against, given the constant attempts in recent years by the Americans to create trouble in Xinjiang province and to oppose the reunification of Hong Kong into the People’s Republic. Both policies are seen as blatant interference in China’s domestic affairs, particularly, as in the Xinjiang example, where it is accompanied by a massive campaign to portray Chinese policy as amounting to genocide of the Uighur people, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

President Putin had an Op-ed published in Xinhua, a Chinese media outlet, which details what he and Xi had discussed. Importantly, the op-ed pointed to the drive by the two countries to strengthen the role of the United Nations in global affairs and to prevent the international legal system, with the United Nations Charter at its centre, from being eroded.

And important component of that drive was to consistently expand the role of national currencies and maintaining mechanisms to offset the impact of unilateral United States sanctions. This is very important. The United States has consistently used the central role of the United States dollar in international trade as a vehicle for affecting the national policies of the countries forced to use the dollar. That is now changing, and the pace of change is expected to grow in the forthcoming years as more and more countries abandon the dollar as the means of international trade payments.

Putin’s article defined the Russia – China strategic partnership as “sustainable, intrinsically valuable, not affected by the political climate and not aimed against anyone. It is underpinned by respect, regard for each other’s core interests, adherence to international law and the United Nations Charter.”

Such a message is immensely appealing to much of the global South which for decades has been dictated to by the United States. It stands in stark contrast to the worldview as expressed by NATO which sees the dominance of United States political views, enhanced by NATO’s military power, as the cornerstone of its continued attempts to dominate the world.

The China-Russia policy to oppose the attempted United States hegemony rests on a soft power alternative, the strengthening of both the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Belt and Road Initiative. The SCO has recently welcomed Iran as a full member, making it the ninth member State along with China, India, Russia and the five “stans” of Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. There are in addition three observer states and six dialogue Partners, of which the most important is Turkey in terms of population and economic and political power.

The BRI has a far broader reach, with currently more than 140 members, region extensively into Africa and Latin America. The association is historically unique. It reaches more countries than any western alliance, military or otherwise. It poses a threat to United States dominance never seen before and as such represents a major threat to that dominance. Its very success explains a lot of United States hostility toward China, which for the first time since at least the end of World War II faces a serious challenge to its assumed hegemony.

The big difference between the BRI and the United States system is that the BRI makes no attempt to dictate the internal policies of its members. It sees the United Nations as the governing body for international relations. The United Nations is accordingly awarded prime status, as Putin’s article makes abundantly clear.

The unresolved issue for the future of the Eurasian region will be the role of Turkey. It clearly harbours ambitions of a larger role in the Islamic states that stretch across the Eurasian heartland. The Turkish role is complicated by its concurrent membership of NATO. The issue will be whether Turkey’s ambitions for a larger pan Asian role are independent of NATO’s ambitions, or whether Turkey will be seen as a stalking horse for NATO.

The recent experience of Kazakhstan which saw an attempted overthrow of its government by forces that notably including a large Turkish element is a warning to other Islamic influenced nations in the region. It would be idle to assume NATO will accept its defeat and Kazakhstan as the last word in its ambitions for the region.

For NATO to gain a hole in the region would also pose a threat to the SCO. They have been defeated in their ambitions to capture Kazakhstan. It would be a huge mistake to assume that the ambitions have been put to rest. China and Russia must remain constantly alert to this threat.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/02/08/vladimir-putin-s-meeting-with-xi-jinping-marks-an-important-step-in-eurasian-future/

READ FROM TOP.

SEE ALSO: soros the devil...

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

RISING TENSIONS (5)

Washington and London try to preserve their domination over Europe

by Thierry Meyssan

Today, the best kept secrets are quickly revealed. They do not spread for all that. However, this week, confidential letters from the United States and NATO to Russia have leaked and have been widely read. While the front stage is dominated by Nato’s bootstraps, the Western backstage is the scene of feverish organization of allied surveillance networks by their American and British overlords. For Washington and London are convinced that Russia will not attack them, but will try to divert their allies.

In 1921, the United Kingdom wanted to prevent the United States from developing its fleet and becoming the world’s leading naval power. The two states almost went to war, but wisely chose to ally themselves. Together they could dominate the world. This was the beginning of what British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called their "Special Relationship" in 1946. To celebrate it, a statue of the first U.S. president, George Washington, was erected in the heart of London, in Trafalgar Square. This "special relationship" is the basis for Nato.

This article is a follow-up to : 

 1. "Russia wants to force the US to respect the UN Charter," January 4, 2022. 

 2. "Washington pursues RAND plan in Kazakhstan, then Transnistria," January 11, 2022. 

 3. "Washington refuses to hear Russia and China," January 18, 2022. 

 4. "Washington and London, deafened", February 1, 2022.

The responses of the United States and NATO to the Russian proposal for a Treaty guaranteeing freedom of movement [1].were revealed by the Spanish daily El País [2], allegedly thanks to a Ukrainian source who feared that his country would be turned into a theater of West-East confrontation.

NATO’s response corresponds in every respect to the presentation made by its Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. This is normal, since this text had been submitted to the 30 member states and could not remain secret for very long. On the one hand, the Alliance is proposing measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war, while on the other, it is questioning the right of peoples to self-determination in Transnistria (Moldova), Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia) and finally in Crimea (Ukraine). In other words, the Allies reject international law. That is why they no longer refer to it, but say they are attached to "rules" that they alone set. They intended to remain under the protection of the United States, supported by the United Kingdom, but did not want to risk a World War.

The United States response, on the other hand, was a surprise. It was unknown to everyone, including the Allies and Ukraine. That is why, according to its title, it is a "non-paper" (sic) that does not need to be submitted to them and had to remain secret. It is therefore highly unlikely that it was revealed by a Ukrainian source. It can only be American. This "non-paper" is about "Areas of engagement to improve security". In it, Washington presents itself as refusing to give up anything, although it is willing to negotiate to freeze the current situation. It would maintain its plans without seeking to gain any more ground.

This document sheds light on the recent public actions of NATO: a propaganda campaign denouncing an imminent Russian invasion, the deployment of soldiers around Ukraine and the transfer of arms to Ukraine itself. But the most important thing is that these troops and weapons are not capable of resisting a Russian invasion if it were to take place. On the other hand, this atmosphere is panicking the European leaders (in the broad sense, not only those of the European Union). Washington and London know that they may not respond in substance to Russia’s demand for compliance with the Treaties and that Moscow will not attack them for that. Their fear is elsewhere: just as Vladimir Putin tried in 2007 in Munich, Moscow may try to topple the allies one by one. But this time, the decline of US power may give them pause. They can see that they have little to gain from their allegiance. That is why the US CIA and the British MI6 reorganize the stay-behind networks with the consent of some European leaders who soon imagine themselves living in countries occupied by Russia.

At the end of World War II and even before the creation of NATO, the United States and the United Kingdom had imagined a way to dominate the Western European continent up to the Oder-Neisse border, which was established by the Potsdam Conference, a few days after the capture of Berlin by the Soviets and the surrender of the Nazis. It was this border that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill described in 1946 as the "iron curtain" separating the European continent into two parts [3]. Then U.S. President Harry Truman organized the Cold War to prevent the Soviets from advancing into the zone of influence that had been assigned to them at Yalta and Potsdam. The Americans and the British had the idea of setting up resistance networks within the Allied administrations and preparing them for action in the event of the "inevitable" Soviet invasion. These networks were commanded by Anglo-Saxons, but their soldiers were anti-Soviet nationals, including many survivors of Nazi armies, recycled for the "good cause".

When NATO was created in 1949, these Western European networks were incorporated into it. They still obey Washington and London exclusively, with the approval in principle of the allied states, which ignore the details of their actions. Each time they are brought to light, they are promised to be dissolved, yet they continue to exist. The latest "incident" was the discovery in 2020 that all the leaders of European countries were being listened to by Denmark on behalf of Nato [4].

The CIA and MI6 have also extended these networks to the majority of the planet. It was they who organized the World Anti-Communist League [5] during the Cold War, installing bloody dictatorships from Taiwan to Bolivia, including Iran and the Congo.

The CIA’s activities outside NATO were brought to light by the US Congress (Church Commission [6]) after the resignation of President Richard Nixon. These networks had developed to such an extent that they had succeeded in constituting a state within a state, even going so far as to organize the Watergate scandal to bring down the President of the United States [7]. President Jimmy Carter encouraged the continuation of these revelations and took control of the CIA with Admiral Stansfield Turner.

Hundreds of books have been devoted, first by journalists and now by historians, to the crimes of the CIA and MI6. But these are books and theses on this or that operation. Some have tried to draw up summary catalogs of these events, but none has dared to write the history of this system and its men. For it is the same men who have moved to accomplish them in different places on the planet.

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush Sr. publicly nurtured these networks in the Warsaw Pact countries, organizing vast economic and military sabotage operations. It was not until the collapse of the USSR that they came to light and were called upon to play a political role. They were very active in the NATO membership of the countries of Central, Balkan, Eastern and Baltic Europe. The support of the Latvian president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, for Nazi demonstrations [8] or the entry of Nazi leaders into the Ukrainian government [9] are therefore not inexplicable accidents of fate, but public manifestations of the secret networks that sometimes manage to rise to the top of governments.

At the end of the Second World War, it was obvious to all that it had been won by the Soviet Union (22 to 27 million dead) with the very relative help of the Anglo-Saxons (less than one million dead by the United States and the United Kingdom, including the colonies). First Secretary Joseph — who had eliminated the kulaks, then the Mensheviks in the Gulags — forged national reconciliation and Soviet national sentiment around the equality of all in the face of the hierarchical system of races of the Nazis (racism), the United States (segregation) and South Africa (apartheid). The debates on the "totalitarianisms of the twentieth century" and the negationist resolutions of the European Parliament [10] are aimed exclusively at destroying the image that Stalin left behind by amalgamating Nazi and Soviet crimes, which were very different in nature and at different times (the great period of the Gulags did not end in 1953 with the death of the "Little Father of the Peoples", but in 1941 with the agreement between Joseph Stalin and the Russian Orthodox Church to defend the country. It is therefore not characteristic either of Stalinism or of the USSR.) It makes it possible to hide the recycling of the worst Nazi criminals by the CIA and MI6 in Third World states. It also masks the use of Nazis by the United States and the United Kingdom to extend their domination, with for example the British concentration camps in Kenya during the 1950s.

All these elements attest to the fact that, in order to establish their domination over the world, the United States and the United Kingdom have not hesitated to recycle yesterday’s enemies and ask them to continue their work, under their orders, with the same criminal methods.

With this past in mind, the question arises as to the true role of NATO. The prevailing thought is that this alliance was formed to fight against the Soviets. But, besides the fact that the Soviets had just taken Berlin and defeated the Nazis, NATO never fought them, and today the Soviets no longer exist. On the contrary, NATO has officially fought only two conventional wars, the first in Yugoslavia, the second in Libya. Its whole history has been to interfere in the internal life of its members in order to align them with Anglo-Saxon interests by means of coloured revolutions (May ’68 in France), political assassinations (Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro) and coups d’état (Greece of the colonels).

Under these conditions, one must ask oneself if all this hullabaloo about a possible war in Ukraine does not mask something else: a reinforcement of Washington’s and London’s control over their allies, even though these two powers are losing ground.

One has to wonder why Russia, which on December 17, 2021, demanded that Nato be brought into line with the UN Charter, no longer raises this issue. Washington and London do not want to give up their position as overlords and the Allies their position as vassals. Dissolving NATO would make no sense, because each member still intends to play its role and not to gain independence and individual responsibility. If NATO were to disappear, a structure of identical form would succeed it. The problem is therefore not the Atlantic Alliance, but the way in which the Anglo-Saxon leaders and their allies think.

It is possible that this difference in thinking is not only cultural, but refers to the information revolution. Vertical conceptions, analyses in zones of influence, geopolitical theories belong to the industrial age, while multipolar decisions, individualized analyses and network theories are characteristic of the societies that are being built today. In this case, Moscow and Beijing are simply ahead of the West.

Eventually, at some point, this or that ally will stop kowtowing to Washington and London. The pro-Chinese statements of Polish President Andrzej Duda or the pro-Russian statements of Croatian President Zoran Milanović give a foretaste of what might happen. In 1966, the Allies were surprised when French President Charles de Gaulle denounced the stay-behind networks and expelled Nato forces from his country. Their reaction would be different today if, once again, a NATO member were to leave the integrated command without questioning the North Atlantic Treaty. The European leaders, who often behave like sheep, could follow this new model and leave en bloc.

In any case, Moscow and Beijing are continuing their rapprochement. It is not a question of them uniting to crush anyone, but to defend together their vision of international relations and economic development for all. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, issued a new joint statement on February 4 [11]. In the process, they criticize the West’s claim to be a "free world" based on democracy. They point out that, far from being perfect, their two countries value their citizens much more than the United States and the United Kingdom do.

The West, listening only to itself, has not picked up on what the Russians and Chinese are saying. If they heard it, they would despise it, wondering how these people can talk like that, but not why they talk like that.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation 

Roger Lagassé

READ MORE:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article215552.html

READ FROM TOP.

SEE ALSO: soros the devil...

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

From PEPE ESCOBAR

ISTANBUL – Emmanuel Macron is no Talleyrand. Self-promoted as “Jupiterian”, he may have finally got down to earth for a proper realpolitik insight while ruminating one of the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs key bon mots: “A diplomat who says ‘yes’ means ‘maybe’, a diplomat who says ‘maybe’ means ‘no’, and a diplomat who says ‘no’ is no diplomat.”

Mr. Macron went to Moscow to see Mr. Putin with a simple 4-stage plan in mind.

1. Clinch a wide-ranging deal with Putin on Ukraine, thus stopping “Russian aggression”.
2. Bask in the glow as the West’s Peacemaker.
3. Raise the EU’s tawdry profile, as he’s the current president of the EU Council.
4. Collect all the spoils then bag the April presidential election in France.

Considering he all but begged for an audience in a flurry of phone calls, Macron was received by Putin with no special honors. Comic relief was provided by French mainstream media hysterics, “military strategists” included, evoking the “French castle” sketch in Monty Python’s Holy Grail while reaffirming every stereotype available about “cowardly frogs”. Their “analysis”: Putin is “isolated” and wants “the military option”. Their top intel source: Bezos-owned CIA rag The Washington Post.

Still, it was fascinating to watch – oh, that loooooong table in the Kremlin: the only EU leader who took the trouble to actually listen to Putin was the one who, months ago, pronounced NATO as “brain-dead”. So the ghosts of Charles de Gaulle and Talleyrand did seem to have engaged in a lively chat, framed by raw economics, finally imprinting on the “Jupiterian” that the imperial obsession on preventing Europe by all means from profiting from wider trade with Eurasia is a losing game.

After a strenuous six hours of discussions Putin, predictably, monopolized the eminently quotable department, starting with one that will be reverberating all across the Global South for a long time: “Citizens of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia have seen how peaceful is NATO.”

There’s more. The already iconic  Do you want a war between Russia and NATO? – followed by the ominous “there will be no winners”. Or take this one, on Maidan: “Since February 2014, Russia has considered a coup d’état to be the source of power in Ukraine. This is a bad sandbox, we don’t like this kind of game.”

On the Minsk agreements, the message was blunt: “The President of Ukraine has said that he does not like any of the clauses of the Minsk agreements. Like it, or not – be patient, my beauty. They must be fulfilled.”

The “real issue behind the present crisis”

Macron for his part stressed, “new mechanisms are needed to ensure stability in Europe, but not by revising existing agreements, perhaps new security solutions would be innovative.” So nothing that Moscow had not stressed before. He added, “France and Russia have agreed to work together on security guarantees.” The operative term is “France”. Not the non-agreement capable United States government.

Anglo-American spin insisted that Putin had agreed not to launch new “military initiatives” – while keeping mum on what Macron promised in return. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not confirm any agreement. He only said that the Kremlin will engage with Macron’s dialogue proposals, “provided that the United States also agrees with them.” And for that, as everyone knows, there’s no guarantee.

The Kremlin has been stressing for months that Russia has no interest whatsoever in invading de facto black hole Ukraine. And Russian troops will return to their bases after exercises are over. None of this has anything to do with “concessions” by Putin.

And then came the bombshell: French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire – the inspiration for one of the main characters in Michel Houellebecq’s cracking new book, Anéantir – said that the launch of Nord Stream 2 “is one of the main components of de-escalating tensions on the Russian-Ukrainian border.” Gallic flair formulated out loud what no German had the balls to say.

In Kiev, after his stint in Moscow, it looks like Macron properly told Zelensky which way the wind blows now. Zelensky hastily confirmed Ukraine is ready to implement the Minsk agreements; it never was, for seven long years. He also said he expects to hold a summit in the Normandy format – Kiev, the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, Germany and France – “in the near future”. A meeting of Normandy format political advisers will happen in Berlin on Thursday.

Way back in August 2020, I was already pointing to which way we were heading in the master chessboard. A few sharp minds in the Beltway, emailing their networks, did notice in my column how “the goal of Russian and Chinese policy is to recruit Germany into a triple alliance locking together the Eurasian land mass a la Mackinder into the greatest geopolitical alliance in history, switching world power in favor of these three great powers against Anglo-Saxon sea power.”

Now, a very high-level Deep State intel source, retired, comes down to the nitty gritty, pointing out how “the secret negotiations between Russia and the US center around missiles going into Eastern Europe, as the US frantically drives for completing its development of hypersonic missiles.”

The main point is that if the US places such hypersonic missiles in Romania and Poland, as planned, the time for them to reach Moscow would be 1/10 the time of a Tomahawk. It’s even worse for Russia if they are placed in the Baltics. The source notes, “the US plan is to neutralize the more advanced defensive missile systems that seal Russia’s airspace. This is why the US has offered to allow Russia to inspect these missile sites in the future, to prove that there are no hypersonic nuclear missiles. Yet that’s not a solution, as the Raytheon missile launchers can handle both offensive and defensive missiles, so it’s possible to sneak in the offensive missiles at night. Thus everything requires continuous observation.”

The bottom line is stark: “This is the real issue behind the present crisis. The only solution is no missile sites allowed in Eastern Europe.” That happens to be an essential part of Russia’s demands for security guarantees.

Sailing to Byzantium

Alastair Crooke has demonstrated how “the West slowly is discovering that that it has no pressure point versus Russia (its economy being relatively sanctions-proof), and its military is no match for that of Russia’s.”

In parallel, Michael Hudson has conclusively shown how “the threat to US dominance is that China, Russia and Mackinder’s Eurasian World Island heartland are offering better trade and investment opportunities than are available from the United States with its increasingly desperate demand for sacrifices from its NATO and other allies.”

Quite a few of us, independent analysts from both the Global North and South, have been stressing non-stop for years that the pop Gotterdammerung in progress hinges on the end of American geopolitical control over Eurasia. Occupied Germany and Japan enforcing the strategic submission of Eurasia from the west down to the east; the ever-expanding NATO; the ever de-multiplied Empire of Bases, all the lineaments of the 75-year-plus free lunch are collapsing.

The new groove is set to the tune of the New Silk Roads, or BRI; Russia’s unmatched hypersonic power – and now the non-negotiable demands for security guarantees; the advent of RCEP – the largest free trade deal on the planet uniting East Asia; the Empire all but expelled from Central Asia after the Afghan humiliation; and sooner rather than later its expulsion from the first island chain in the Western Pacific, complete with a starring role for the Chinese DF-21D “carrier killer” missiles.

The Ray McGovern-coined MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) was not capable to muster the collective IQ to even begin to understand the terms of the Russia-China joint statement issued on an already historic February 4, 2022. Some in Europe actually did – arguably located in the Elysée Palace.

This enlightened unpacking focuses on the interconnection of some key formulations, such as “relations between Russia and China superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era” and “friendship which shows no limits”: the strategic partnership, for all its challenges ahead, is way more complex than a mere “treaty” or “agreement”. Without deeper understanding of Chinese and Russian civilizations, and their way of thinking, Westerners simply are not equipped to get it.

In the end, if we manage to escape so much Western doom and gloom, we might end up navigating a warped remix of Yeats’ Sailing to Byzantium. We may always dream of the best and the brightest in Europe finally sailing away from the iron grip of tawdry imperial Exceptionalistan:

“Once out of nature I shall never take / 

My bodily form from any natural thing, /

But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make /

Of hammered gold and gold enameling /

To keep a drowsy Emperor awake; /

Or set upon a golden bough to sing /

To lords and ladies of Byzantium /

Of what is past, or passing, or to come.”

Read more:

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/do-you-want-a-war-between-russia-and-nato/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ....

After sitting five hours with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, French President Emmanuel Macron walked out with the impression that Russia would not take any new military initiative with respect to Crimea. Not so, said Kremlin spokesman Dimtry Preskov. At this stage of the negotiations, it is impossible for Paris or Moscow to reach any conclusion.

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article215593.html