Thursday 9th of May 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

towards a multipolar world…...

The speaker of the Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, may have created the defining acronym for the emerging multipolar world: “the new G8”.

As Volodin noted, “the United States has created conditions with its own hands so that countries wishing to build an equal dialogue and mutually beneficial relations will actually form a ‘new G8’ together with Russia.”

This non Russia-sanctioning G8, he added, is 24.4% ahead of the old one, which is in fact the G7, in terms of GDP in purchasing power parity (PPP), as G7 economies are on the verge of collapsing and the U.S. registers record inflation.

 

BY PEPE ESCOBAR

 

The power of the acronym was confirmed by one of the researchers on Europe at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Sergei Fedorov: three BRICS members (Brazil, China and India) alongside Russia, plus Indonesia, Iran, Turkey and Mexico, all non adherents to the all-out Western economic war against Russia, will soon dominate global markets.

Fedorov stressed the power of the new G8 in population as well as economically: “If the West, which restricted all international organizations, follows its own policies, and pressures everyone, then why are these organizations necessary? Russia does not follow these rules.”

The new G8, instead, “does not impose anything on anyone, but tries to find common solutions.”

The coming of the new G8 points to the inevitable advent of BRICS +, one of the key themes to be discussed in the upcoming BRICS summit in China. Argentina is very much interested in becoming part of the extended BRICS and those (informal) members of the new G8 – Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Mexico – are all likely candidates.

The intersection of the new G8 and BRICS + will lead Beijing to turbo-charge what has already been conceptualized as the Three Rings strategy by Cheng Yawen, from the Institute of International Relations and Public Affairs at the Shanghai International Studies University.

Cheng argues that since the beginning of the 2018 U.S.-China trade war the Empire of Lies and its vassals have aimed to “decouple”; thus the Middle Kingdom should strategically downgrade its relations with the West and promote a new international system based on South-South cooperation.

Looks like if it walks and talks like the new G8, that’s because it’s the real deal.

The revolution reaches the “global countryside”

Cheng stresses how “the center-periphery hierarchy of the West has been perpetuated as an implicit rule” in international relations; and how China and Russia, “because of their strict capital controls, are the last two obstacles to further U.S. control of the global periphery”.

So how would the Three Rings – in fact a new global system – be deployed?

The first ring “is China’s neighboring countries in East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East; the second ring is the vast number of developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America; and the third ring extends to the traditional industrialized countries, mainly Europe and the United States.”

The basis for building the Three Rings is deeper Global South integration. Cheng notes how “between 1980-2021, the economic volume of developing countries rose from 21 to 42.2 percent of the world’s total output.”

And yet “current trade flows and mutual investments of developing countries are still heavily dependent on the financial and monetary institutions/networks controlled by the West. In order to break their dependence on the West and further enhance economic and political autonomy, a broader financial and monetary cooperation, and new sets of instruments among developing countries should be constructed”.

This is a veiled reference to the current discussions inside the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), with Chinese participation, designing an alternative financial-monetary system not only for Eurasia but for the Global South – bypassing possible American attempts to enforce a sort of Bretton Woods 3.0.

Cheng uses a Maoist metaphor to illustrate his point – referring to ‘the revolutionary path of ‘encircling the cities from the countryside’”. What is needed now, he argues, is for China and the Global South to “overcome the West’s preventive measures and cooperate with the ‘global countryside’ – the peripheral countries – in the same way.”

So what seems to be in the horizon, as conceptualized by Chinese academia, is a “new G8/BRICS+” interaction as the revolutionary vanguard of the emerging multipolar world, designed to expand to the whole Global South.

That of course will mean a deepened internationalization of Chinese geopolitical and geoeconomic power, including its currency. Cheng qualifies the creation of a “three ring “ international system as essential to “break through the [American] siege”.

It’s more than evident that the Empire won’t take that lying down.

The siege will continue. Enter the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), spun as yet another proverbial “effort” to – what else – contain China, but this time all the way from Northeast Asia to Southeast Asia, with Oceania thrown in as a bonus.

The American spin on IPEF is heavy on “economic engagement”: fog of (hybrid) war disguising the real intent to divert as much trade as possible from China – which produces virtually everything – to the U.S. – which produces very little.

The Americans give away the game by heavily focusing their strategy on 7 of the 10 ASEAN nations – as part of yet another desperate dash to control the American-denominated “Indo-Pacific”. Their logic: ASEAN after all needs a “stable partner”; the American economy is “comparatively stable”; thus ASEAN must subject itself to American geopolitical aims.

IPEF, under the cover of trade and economics, plays the same old tune, with the U.S. going after China from three different angles.

– The South China Sea, instrumentalizing ASEAN.

– The Yellow and East China Seas, instrumentalizing Japan and South Korea to prevent direct Chinese access to the Pacific.

– The larger “Indo-Pacific” (that’s were India as a member of the Quad comes in).

It’s all labeled as a sweet apple pie of “stronger and more resilient Indo-Pacific with diversified trade.”

BRI corridors are back

Beijing is hardly losing any sleep thinking about IPEF: after all most of its multiple trade connections across ASEAN are rock solid. Taiwan though is a completely different story.

At the annual Shangri-La dialogue this past weekend in Singapore, Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe went straight to the point, actually defining Beijing’s vision for an East Asia order (not “rules-based”, of course).

 

 (Republished from Strategic Culture Foundation)  READ MORE:https://www.unz.com/pescobar/the-new-g8-meets-chinas-three-rings/  FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............

profits from weapon sales…...

 

BY Vladimir Platov

 

It is well known that US politics, and American politicians themselves, have long thrived not on “diplomatic successes”, but on considerable cash profits from the unleashing of numerous armed conflicts in one part of the world or another. And this is particularly evidenced by the recent allocation by the US Congress of $40 billion to prolong the war in Ukraine and the new supply of US arms there, rather than by Washington’s diplomatic efforts in the same Ukraine or in other armed conflicts. Or the fight against famine in Afghanistan, Africa, climate change, which are increasingly becoming the scourge of humanity…

This approach has been particularly active of late, when, against a backdrop of failed foreign and domestic policies, the Biden administration realized that its time “at the helm” was short-lived and therefore, apart from sending massive weapons to Ukraine, it embarked on multiple sins to scoop “at last” from new supplies of the US military and industrial complex.

Hence, in particular, the intense desire in recent months by the White House to create an “Asian NATO” based on QUAD and AUKUS, by dragging the Asia-Pacific region into Anglo-Saxon integration around the US, Britain, and Australia and to unleash a new arms race in the region. This is also the aim of Turkey’s efforts to integrate the Central Asian region around Erdoğan’s idea of a “Great Turan”, in the apparent hope of shaping a “Central Asian NATO” and then stuffing it with still the same American weapons to conduct “armed missions in the region”.

In order to support such “belligerent actions”, Washington has launched a vigorous propaganda campaign to expose the allegedly aggressive course of Moscow and Beijing to the American and international publics. However, it must not be forgotten that both countries have never in their history fought aggressive wars on foreign territory, but only defended themselves against external military threats. Nevertheless, despite this, in an effort to create the image of an “external enemy”, Washington has even adjusted US and NATO’s political and military strategies, clearly highlighting Russia and the PRC as the main adversaries of the US and the “collective West”.

As for Russia, by cutting off all diplomatic channels of communication with Moscow and bringing Russian-American relations to a critical point, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov, Washington’s policy is now aimed at “the complete annihilation of the Russian state.” And this, in particular, was confirmed by former Hawaiian congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard in an interview with the US media.

For the purpose of this “annihilation of Russia”, the White House began to accelerate the use of the armed confrontation between Kiev and Moscow which it had been preparing for the past few years. However, having realized the futility of these efforts and Russia’s clear and resounding quick victory against the Nazi authorities in Kiev, as well as the “collective West” standing behind them with modern weapons, the White House began to frantically look for the possibility of opening a “second front against Moscow”, but with someone else’s hands. Clearly fearing that if it publicly showed its own involvement in such an armed confrontation with Russia, the latter would be sure to use all the forces and means at its disposal to launch a retaliatory and devastating strike against the United States. For it is well known that today Russia’s “capabilities” far exceed those of the US in power and effectiveness!

Under these circumstances, in January this year Washington initiated provocative actions in Kazakhstan in order to “divert” Moscow’s forces from defending Russia’s own and regional security to eliminating the danger from this conflict. However, thanks to Moscow’s calibrated policy and the competent actions of the CSTO, Washington’s plans were thwarted and the conflict situation in Kazakhstan was resolved.

This was followed by instigation of another conflict in Central Asia, namely on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border and in the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region (GBAR), but this attempt by the US to create another “second front” for Russia in Central Asia was also thwarted by Moscow.

Recently, Washington has been actively trying to involve Turkey and Israel in similar provocative anti-Russian actions in Syria, orchestrating a significant aggravation of the situation there through their capabilities and causing Russia to become involved in resolving it and eliminating the “second front” organized by the US there.

As for Ankara’s planned new military operation in Syria, even as acknowledged by the Turkish media, Moscow has so far succeeded in reducing the heat of Turkish activity diplomatically.

In the circumstances, Washington has displayed a rabid willingness to throw its main Middle Eastern ally, Israel, into the crucible of armed conflict with Moscow, showing its readiness to sacrifice the Israelis, as it has already done to the Ukrainians in the Ukrainian conflict it had unleashed. The threat of war between Syria and Israel has therefore become increasingly real in recent months. The Syrian leadership has already repeatedly demanded that the UN Security Council put pressure on Israel to stop Washington-promoted Israeli attacks on the territory of the republic, which violate Syrian sovereignty and lead to increased tensions in the region. The Syrian Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, has frequently stated that the country can use “all legitimate means” to respond to Israeli strikes on its territory. But such provocative Israeli activities are only escalating, blatantly testing the fate of what could turn into a serious armed conflict any time now.

For example, in the first ten days of June alone, Israel has already fired missiles into the vicinity of Damascus twice: on June 6, a missile attack was launched from the occupied Golan Heights and on June 10, at Damascus International Airport. As the official spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova stressed in a statement on June 10, “the continuing Israeli shelling of the territory of the SAR in violation of the basic norms of international law is absolutely unacceptable. We strongly condemn Israel’s provocative attack on critical Syrian civilian infrastructure.” Maria Zakharova recalled that according to reports, the airfield had sustained serious material damage: the runway had been damaged, which according to Syrian technical services may take considerable time to repair, and the Syrian Ministry of Transport had announced the suspension of all flights operating through the capital’s gateway. According to Maria Zakharova, such “irresponsible actions pose serious risks to international air travel and put the lives of innocent people in real danger.”

 

'

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/06/16/us-tries-to-open-a-second-front-in-syria/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOWª•¶§∞¢£££££££™

planting the US flag in asia……..

The British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has hosted the “Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore since 2002. It is billed as “Asia’s premier security summit,” all while being almost entirely Western-centric in agenda and design. To help illustrate this, since the format was created, the first plenary meeting has always been centered around the US Secretary of Defense – the United States being a nation not even located in Asia.

 This year was no exception, the West and its interests took center stage. Opening remarks by IISS Director-General and Chief Executive John Chipman centered around the conflict in Ukraine and the notion that “it is essential for the West to prevail.” Chipman also ensured that it was clear that the West prevailing in Ukraine is just one small part of the West’s “rules-based order” prevailing globally, including over the Indo-Pacific region.

 

BY Brian Berletic

 

While the opening and keynote address was given by Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, it might as well have been given by US President Joe Biden or another senior representative from Washington. Prime Minister Kishida’s “vision” was indistinguishable from that of the US State Department or the US Department of Defense’s, it consisted of various objectives for the region identical to American interests right down to the fact that nothing PM Kishida proposed would actually benefit the people of Japan and instead would be pursued on Washington’s behalf at the Japanese public’s expense.

This includes Japan adopting NATO-standard defense spending, something clearly aimed at China, a fellow East Asian state with which Japan does a considerable and growing amount of trade. This increased military spending will create opportunities for Washington to box Beijing in, but at the cost of Japanese-Chinese relations reaching their full potential as well as at the cost of regional stability.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s speech at the first plenary meeting contained nothing novel. It was a reiteration of decades of US policy in Asia, a policy of maintaining primacy over the region, its people, and its resources, all under the guise of upholding what is continuously refers to as the “rules-based international order.” .

Like Chipman, Secretary Austin placed Washington’s proxy war with Russia at the heart of the discussion – accusing Russia of violating Ukraine’s sovereignty. Secretary Austin made these comments without any apparent sense of irony considering the United States currently illegally occupies large swaths of eastern Syria, continues its military occupation of Iraq against the desires of Iraqi representatives, and has only just recently withdrawn from Afghanistan, a Central Asian country left in ruins after 2 decades of US occupation.

Worse still, was the emphasis Secretary Austin placed on Taiwan, officially recognized by the US as part of China under the “One China Policy,” and with Secretary Austin himself clearly stating, “we do not support Taiwan independence,” but still placing it on Washington’s agenda for the region up to and including, “assisting Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability,” through the shipment of arms to Taiwan against the wishes of Beijing.

The United States condemning Russia for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty while blatantly violating China’s in regards to Taiwan is a continuation of American exceptionalism – the creation and adherence to rules when convenient, and the wholesale trampling of those rules when inconvenient.

Secretary Austin made several other paradoxical claims, the most troubling being the US supposedly not desiring “an Asian NATO” all while repeatedly declaring America’s intent to expand military exercises across the region to build up military cooperation and expand military interoperability – in other words – the pursuit of “an Asian NATO” in everything but official title and treaty.

At one point Secretary Austin would claim:

 

Next year, our Coast Guard will also deploy a cutter to Southeast Asia and Oceania. That will open up new opportunities for multinational crewing, training, and cooperation across the region. And it will be the first major US Coast Guard cutter permanently stationed in the region. 

 

The US deploying its military thousands of miles from its own shores, and in this case, deploying the US Coast Guard on the opposite side of the planet from where America’s actual coasts exist, is done as a means of attempting to integrate regional military forces into a US-led military presence. It is being done precisely to threaten, constrain, encroach upon, and contain China in Asia.

This is what China is responding to, and yet China’s reasonable reactions to US military encroachment in Asia is depicted by the US as “the People’s Republic of China adopting a more coercive and aggressive approach.”

And while Secretary Austin condemns Russia for its alleged violations of Ukrainian sovereignty while clearly threatening China’s sovereignty regarding the Taiwan question, the US is also infringing on the sovereignty of its supposed “partners” across Asia and especially so in Southeast Asia.

It does this because while Secretary Austin claims America’s Asian partners share Washington’s vision regarding the region, this is not entirely true. They do so only to a point – and that is the point at which US coercion and interference is minimal.

The notion of “ASEAN centrality” as defined by the US is Southeast Asia’s leading role in defining regional architecture. This is so simply because the US refuses to recognize China’s natural leadership role in Asia as the region’s largest nation by geography, population, and economy. It is also so because the United States feels that its influence over ASEAN is greater than any influence it could exercise over China. In many ways its is similar to the way the US influences or in many ways outright controls the European Union versus Russia.

As part of this process the United States funds and directs political opposition groups throughout ASEAN – groups that are anti-China, pro-West and more specifically, pro-American and seek to seize power in their respective nations, sabotage ties with China and fall into a US-led regional front against China. And just as it is similar to what the United States has constructed in Europe versus Russia it will likewise have a similarly destabilizing and destructive impact on Asia as a whole.

The United States, through political interference across ASEAN, is blatantly violating the individual sovereignty of ASEAN member states as well as creating a destabilizing effect on Asia as a region. The protests in Hong Kong, continued aspirations toward separatism in Taiwan, ongoing protests still taking place in Bangkok, Thailand, and persistent armed conflict in Myanmar are all the result of US political interference in Asia and Washington’s desire to disrupt the peaceful Chinese-led rise of Asia in order to maintain both its own, and Europe’s historical primacy over the region instead.

When Secretary Austin accused Beijing of “adopting a more coercive and aggressive approach,” he was actually projecting. While China will continue to assert itself against US encroachment, it will be the US, for a lack of a better alternative, who becomes increasingly aggressive in its political interference in the region, unable to compete with China in the material terms China increasingly excels at.

In the months and years to come, we will see a race between a Chinese-led rise of Asia economically, politically, and militarily, versus Washington’s attempts to disrupt and undermine it through engineered political strife just as it engineered in Eastern Europe from 2014 onward, or the Middle East from 2011 onward.

 

 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/06/21/us-outlines-continued-primacy-over-asia-at-2022-shangri-la-dialogue/

 

READ EVERYWHERE HERE....The USA want to control everything on this planet....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW......

new board, same shit….

On 17 June 2022, US Secretary of State Anthony Biden announced his selections for the Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

Co-chairs: 

 Cecilia Muñoz (former adviser on domestic policy to President Obama, she now works for the think-tank New America). She will be responsible for assessing the consequences for US citizens of various foreign policy actions. 

 Thomas E. Donilon (former National Security Advisor to President Obama, now an employee of the world’s second largest investor, BlackRock). Logically, he should be responsible for assessing the consequences for the super-rich of various foreign policy actions.

Members : 

 David Autor, professor of labor economics at MIT. 

 Sameer Bhalotra, Cybersecurity specialist.
 Hal Brands, professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University. He is in favor of reinvigorating America and taking inspiration from the Cold War in dealing with China and Russia. 

 Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar, former judge and legal adviser to Barack Obama, he now chairs the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
 Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., former governor of Indiana and president of the Hudson Institute. 

 Janine Davidson, former Undersecretary of the Navy, specialist in the adaptation of the Armed Forces to the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine, current president of the Metropolitan State University of Denver.
 Cathy Feingold, former director of the Solidarity Center (unionized workers branch of the National Endowment for Democracy), and former vice-president of the International Trade Union Confederation. 

 Margaret A. Hamburg, former Commissioner of the Federal Food and Drugs Administration. She participated in the 2021 Munich Security Conference exercise on monkeypox [1]
 Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., former Governor of Utah. He served as President Obama’s Ambassador to China and President Trump’s Ambassador to Russia. 

 Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, a biologist and feminist, she is co-ounder of Urban Ocean Lab, a think tank on global warming and ocean conservation.
 Kristie A. Kenney, diplomat and former adviser to John Kerry. Her husband, Ambassador William Brownfield, was a personal enemy of President Hugo Chávez. 

 Gilman G. Louie, former president of a CIA-sponsored company in charge of big data, now president of America’s Frontier Fund, an association involved in the development of artificial intelligence in the USA.
 Katherine Maher, former employee of the National Democratic Institute (the left-wing political branch of the National Endowment for Democracy) expert on the Middle East. Current director of the Wikimedia Foundation, which notably oversees the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. 

 James M. Manyika, economist focused on new technologies, former director of the McKinsey & Company consulting outfit, current adviser to Google/Alphabet.
 Meghan L. O’Sullivan, oil specialist, former assistant to Paul Bremer at the Coalition Provisional Authority (which was a private company and not a public administration), today president of the Trilateral Commission and Raytheon executive. 

 Annise D. Parker, former lesbian mayor of Houston and current president of the Victory Institute, the association of elected LGBTQI officials.
 Vincent R. Stewart, General of the Marines, Director of Military Intelligence.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article217373.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........