Thursday 28th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

goals of the devilish anglo-saxon hegemony…….

One prince rides out from the West, the other from the East, destined to do battle until Judgment Day decrees there must come a time of peace. Ancient legends have always fascinated me, and it has always seemed that this is always with us: the past, the present and the future all knotted together in a repetitive loop.

This is what I find most frustratingly hypocritical with the US/UK stance. They are the architects of aggression and expansionism, so have absolutely no claim to a moral high ground, yet they manipulate and propagandise themselves as if they do.

 

BY Henry Kamens,

The UK for example still reports Western-biased opinions from Russia, and broadcasts the BBC World Service there, but Russian journalists are banned from UK airwaves. Aside from the media war, which is normal to any conflict, before, during and post, the emphasis has been shifted to caring about feeding the world.

All the while, Americans are back-biting each other, gnawing themselves to death: wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

When all else fails

I have always felt that the West never really wanted peace, but instinctively felt that Russia is drawn into this continuum because it cannot do otherwise, cause and effect. Still the Great Game continues. I hope this doesn’t sound too fanciful.

 

[GusNote: this isn't fanciful: THE GOAL OF THE ANGLO-SAXON HEGEMONY has been TO DESTROY RUSSIA AND CHINA since 1917. We have exposed this for a few years but more recently at: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171]

 

The latest bipartisan bill to send $40 billion more to Ukraine is proving a disaster, politically and on the ground. The weapons will either be used by Ukrainians to kill more Ukrainian civilians, destroyed by the Russians, or captured by the Russians. Also, much to the dismay of security experts, they will be sold to terrorist organisations by the Ukrainians themselves. The bigger question for financial managers is where much of the direct aid to Ukraine will end up, in which foreign bank accounts.

The extreme and ridiculously over the top level of anti-Russian rhetoric demonstrates that the propaganda has been blatantly over played. Wars are expensive, and unless the power base can convince the people that a war is necessary it is difficult to convince them that this is money well spent, especially when they themselves are struggling to make ends meet and infrastructure is failing them.

Interestingly the latest talk is of a Ukrainian victory, as even though they will lose Donbass Russia has failed to take the whole country. However this was never the intention. Defeating a country and achieving your stated aims does not mean you have to occupy that country, or pay for it—or rebuild it.

As if this was ever Russia’s objective. It sounds as if the West is now trying to sell a win for Ukraine, or to save face with honour, knowing it has already lost Donbass and the war of words.

It may be lame “probably” thinking among the “main-think” that the West actually wants to make Russia weaker by sending weapons to Ukraine, but Russia is stronger even though the pundits in the MSM are claiming that Ukraine is winning the war.

But how did the West come close to what they call winning when territories are being lost? The West is proving itself to be the same as what it accuses Russia of being. It acts as if it’s somehow better than Russia—holding some moral high ground. Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens are to be pitied as the victims of US foreign policy in the Middle East. It should come as no surprise that nobody is talking about or pitying them as much as they do about Ukraine; everything is selective. And sadly, the collective West always considers itself the instigator of good deeds but paints Russia as inherently bad.

 

Kissinger understands

Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, and his view on this war are insightful – he understands that this war is really a proxy war between the US and Russia, with Ukrainians dying as proxy fighters.

He recently stated that he thought Ukraine should concede the loss of Donbass and Crimea and/or allow them some semblance of independence. What he said is pragmatic, as there is little chance of Ukraine regaining that territory anyway.

The situation now is very complicated, especially when there are such crazy hawks in power, in Ukraine, Europe and the US. They know that there is little public support for entering into a BIGGER war. Despite so much censorship and disinformation for much longer–they still cannot block the truth of the situation, and many do feel uncomfortable about NATO expansion and can see this from the Russian perspective.

Kissinger continues to speak openly about the need for negotiations, before the conflict “creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome.” He recently told European leaders “to consider their long-term relationship with Russia”, and that [they—the leaders] should not risk further strengthening the bond between Russia and China.

However, it is likely too late for that, and there will be no return to the status quo, and it is Europe and NATO that will be more under threat .China and Russia will both be stronger as a result of the US-instigated conflict by further moving NATO to Russia borders.

Kissinger said. “Pursuing the war too far would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but [in reality] a new war against Russia itself.”

Yes, he is an old man, 90 plus, but the West and NATO should be listening to him, as he is warning of what is likely to happen, before it is too late. There is little doubt at this point that Crimea will remain part of the Russian Federation, as it was before 1954, as it is strategically too important for Russia, as its main naval base.

You need not like Russia, but the West has the same intentions or even worse. It is acting as if it is helping, but will only really help when it needs to—and it is a bit late for that. Perhaps it would be more interesting for “real policymakers” to try to guess what could happen if Russia lost. But Western governments are themselves too frightened to think about such a scenario.

All they want is to weaken Russia, not Russia to lose. What would the reality be if Ukraine prevailed? That could very likely become more dangerous for Europe itself—and more than for the Russian Federation!

 

Political landscapes in the shadow of the Ukrainian tragedy

The fallout will come, at least in the US, come November 2022 with midterm elections. The political landscape will likely see a shift in the majority party in both houses of Congress, as the Democrats will lose their majority status, thus clipping the wings of Biden and most of his so-called progressive policies, especially domestic ones. He is no longer very popular, and is in mental and physical decline.

The fallout from this will be made all the worse as Ukraine will soon fall off the radar. The newly-elected Congress will not be willing to dump more money and weapons into a lost cause.

It is already coming to understand that it is supporting the corrupt and undemocratic Ukrainian regime – assuming that regime will survive till November, and not be overthrown by local forces, or totally defeated on the battlefield.

More and more working-class people of all colours and political views are fleeing the Democratic Party. A large number of Hispanics and blacks are turning away from this failed party, and if both of these trends continue, there’s no hope that the Democratic Party, or at least the Biden-Harris version of it, will survive for long!

In short, Biden is providing the perfect conditions for Trump to be re-elected. It will be impossible for the Democrats to win the election for a second time, especially since everybody knows now who and what is Joe Biden & Son, and what is his real agenda. The Democrats will be been turned into a “fringe party” with no future, and not much of a glorious past.

 

The latest bipartisan bill

As Geoff Young, who is Democratic nominee for Congress from the State of Kentucky, has said, “The latest bipartisan bill to send $40 billion more to Ukraine was a disaster. The weapons will either be used by Ukrainian Nazis to kill more Ukrainian civilians, destroyed by the Russians, or captured by the Russians.”

I think many will end up in the hands of terrorists. Why should America send billions to neo-Nazis in Ukraine when Americans cannot buy baby formula (special products for nursing children), in shops? This is now a talking point in the US – and not only amongst the general population. US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) has raised the same issue.

As for the lack of formula, it is sad for those impacted and I blame the Biden administration- another convenient distraction, but this is just more chaos that he wanted to cause. The one positive out of this crisis is that, perhaps, more mothers will consider breastfeeding, which continues to be the best thing for the baby…and for the mother.

 

Did Biden disguise the current economic situation in the USA with this war?

This conflict is an excellent distraction for now, from the economy, inflation, the COVID debacle, and all that is going wrong in America, higher prices and jobs that don’t pay enough to survive for most people. Take the fast food industry for example, which employs so many of the working poor, often teaching basic job skills, like getting to work on time. But hiring the poor is not out of the goodness of Corporate America; it is hardly altruistic.

But people are beginning to understand that it is not Russia which is responsible for doubled fuel prices and skyrocketing food prices — but rather the failed policies of the Biden administration. Much of the problem is that the media works together in lying to the people about the situation in Ukraine and the US, laying the blame on Russia.

 

Why Poland is so interested in the Ukraine war?

It is not only America that has found a scapegoat. As my Polish friend explains – her father as a 14-year-old boy witnessed Ukrainians and Germans murdering Poles and Jews in in 1943- there are many reasons: for politicians and the uneducated masses, and keeping Russia is an eternal enemy. As for international problems, political elites continue in their attempts to blame Russia for domestic problems.

As my Polish respondent commented, “We have weak politicians without guts, but normal people do not hate Russia or Russians. As for young people, they don’t know history, and what they say should be counted as next to zero”.

Polish politicians are dragging the country to the bottom, and some of their politicians are former Communists with close financial connections with Ukraine and its so-called Perestroika. For instance, former president Aleksander Kwaśniewski is like the son of Joe Biden with his side deals. They are all linked with the same energy company, Burisma, and other dirty business deals, especially those associated with Ukrainian businessman and politician Mykola Zloczewski.

When the history of this conflict is written, it will likely show that Poland was naïve in providing material support to the war in Ukraine. It thinks it will somehow get back some of its territories lost at the end of WWII, but this is NEVER going to happen.

No matter how much the West tries to spread anti-Russian propaganda, it can’t entirely win people over to the Ukrainian side. All these sanctions are also hurting the West more than they are Russia, and common people, like you and me, are already sick of long-term austerity and the prospect of ever-rising bills.

 

Predictions

You can be almost certain that the Oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk will end up as independent regions or states. They will not be part of Ukraine proper unless a normal government comes to Kiev, one legally and democratically-elected. It must be emphasised that if Ukraine wants to remain united, maintain its “territorial integrity”, the language and human rights of all citizens must be equally respected.

Ukraine is paying a high price for murdering its own Russian speaking citizens and violating their language rights, including many Ukrainians who preferred using the Russian language in their daily lives, and who took exception to events of 2014, as was the case in Odessa.

Here people were burned alive for just protesting, and nobody was ever held accountable. The price is now being paid, and the bill will be covered by many countries, not just Ukraine.

 

 

Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

READ MORE:

 https://journal-neo.org/2022/06/29/russia-is-left-with-few-options-other-than-to-defend-itself-as-always/

 

 

 

 

REE JUULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............

…and china….

 

by Vladimir Terekhov

 

In the new commentary on the most significant developments one way or another related to the Taiwan issue, first of all it is worth re-emphasizing what in the author’s view is the most important thing. Namely, despite the continuing general trend of thickening clouds in the picture reflecting the issue, there are still glimpses of hope. This is one of the reasons why the prospect of a non-catastrophic development of relations between the two centers of global political gravity involved (directly or indirectly) is non-zero. One of these centers is led by the United States, the other by the expressly emerging tandem of China and Russia.

The mixed impression of the above picture is created above all by the contradictory nature of the signals sent in the last few years from Washington to Beijing, which concern not only the Taiwan issue but also bilateral relations in general. The very existence of (relatively) positive signals is substantially due to the extensive and diverse intertwining of US and China economic interests. This is also controversial, but there is a clear interest among large sections of American business in continuing the economic relations with China that began to take shape at the end of the Cold War.

The continuing validity of this factor under the previous US administration was evidenced by, on the one hand, the conclusion of the so-called bilateral “Phase One Agreement” in January 2020. However, the same administration also imposed tariff barriers designed to cause problems primarily for Chinese high-tech companies (accused of “unfair competition”).

The positive signals sent to Beijing, repeatedly initiated since the beginning of this year by the current US Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, have been precisely caused by the need to reduce the level of these tariffs.  These tariffs not only hurt the business of the US companies having industrial and technological ties with those Chinese companies, but also lead to higher prices for basic necessities. This contributes to domestic political tensions in the United States.

A positive message could even be seen in President Joe Biden’s recent trip to South Korea and Japan in the third decade of May, which was undoubtedly anti-China in general. The centerpiece of the event was the announcement of the so-called Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). It was not clear what this was all about, but it was notable that the IPEF did not include Taiwan.

In a way, the final act in a series of such positive actions in relation to China was Joe Biden’s statementon June 18 ( about his intention to discuss the tariff issue with Chinese leader Xi Jinping “soon.” Apparently, the possibility of such a meeting as well as the list of issues to be discussed were at the center of the hours-long talks in Luxembourg on June 13 between Yang Jiechi, who is in charge of the entire field of Chinese foreign policy, and US Presidential National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

It should be recalled that the first meeting between them since the change of the US administration in January 2021 took place in March of that year in Anchorage, Alaska, and was very heated. In fact, it was then that US diplomacy received a resounding public backlash in response to its attempts to adopt the stance of a teacher of “good international tone” when speaking to representatives of other countries.

In both Anchorage and Luxembourg, one of the main issues discussed was the Taiwan issue. It is safe to say that the second of these meetings would not have taken place if the Department of State’s annually updated web pages on US relations with the outside world had kept a gap in the place of previous entries concerning Washington’s non-recognition of the island’s statehood.

The gap in question appeared in early May after another update and was filled again a month later (a week before the Luxembourg meeting) with the previous entry. This did not go unnoticed in the PRC. The statement on May 21 by Premier Li Keqiang on the continuation of China’s “openness policy,” two days after one of the above-mentioned signals from Janet Yellen, also seems noteworthy.

But, once again, there is a clear preponderance of negativity over the positivity in the messages Washington is sending to Beijing. It can be seen in the US political practice, particularly with regard to the Taiwan issue.

Taipei is not included (yet) in the aforementioned IPEF, but negotiations are underway for some sort of a US-Taiwan trade agreement. The area of bilateral defense cooperation is continuously and comprehensively expanding. On June 20, the second negotiations (Monterey Talks) of high-level delegations took place in the US on this topic. From 2021 onwards, such meetings will be held at least once a year with the aim of acquiring so-called “asymmetric capabilities” for Taiwan that should be “agile, inexpensive and effective in dealing with Chinese amphibious operations.”

The US defense budget for 2023, currently being prepared, includes an increased level of financial support for Taiwan’s defense capability development in general. In mid-June, a controversy erupted between Washington and Beijing over the status of the Taiwan Strait.

All this explains Beijing’s continued cautious, rather than reticent, attitude to attempts by the US leadership to indicate some kind of positivity in policy towards China.

In recent Chronicles of the Taiwan issue, Japan’s presence has appeared more and more frequently. It is safe to say that this topic will continue to be discussed as the scale and nature of Tokyo’s involvement in this issue grows steadily. This manifests itself both in relative trivialities and in quite significant actions that cannot be ignored in Beijing.

The former include Tokyo’s attempts to somehow compensate for another unpleasant “mishap” Taipei has had in its trade with Mainland. A year ago, Beijing was dissatisfied with the quality of pineapples purchased from Taiwan. This time, the sea bass supplied by Taiwanese fishermen came under suspicion. Although the Japanese have plenty of seafood of their own, they can also have some of Taiwanese bass if the political need so dictates.

The report of a possible appearance at the Japanese mission (or, in all but name, embassy) in Taipei of a serving Japanese military officer looks much more serious. There have been retired Japanese military personnel in this mission before. But the inclusion of a serving military officer would in fact mean the appearance of a Japanese military attaché on Taiwan territory. Naturally, Beijing could not leave this (potential) prospect without a reaction.

Finally, the author has to address the words uttered by the Speaker of the Taiwanese Parliament on June 12 that he had been informed during his tenure as Minister of Defense that the island’s long-developed Hsiung Feng III could “reach Beijing.” Although the officially declared characteristics of this missile look very modest (a range of about 150 km), it is important to keep in mind that, as a rule and everywhere else, the same name can refer to completely different weapons systems. Therefore, one should not “right from the start” refer to these words as a “political bluff,” given that Taiwan’s industry in general (and its defense industry in particular) is among the most advanced in the world.

To sum up, a US-China summit would be appropriate now to at least de-escalate tensions in bilateral relations.

But the unfolding situation in general, and with regard to the Taiwan issue in particular, is not yet very conducive to such a summit.

 

 

 

In the new commentary on the most significant developments one way or another related to the Taiwan issue, first of all it is worth re-emphasizing what in the author’s view is the most important thing. Namely, despite the continuing general trend of thickening clouds in the picture reflecting the issue, there are still glimpses of hope. This is one of the reasons why the prospect of a non-catastrophic development of relations between the two centers of global political gravity involved (directly or indirectly) is non-zero. One of these centers is led by the United States, the other by the expressly emerging tandem of China and Russia.

The mixed impression of the above picture is created above all by the contradictory nature of the signals sent in the last few years from Washington to Beijing, which concern not only the Taiwan issue but also bilateral relations in general. The very existence of (relatively) positive signals is substantially due to the extensive and diverse intertwining of US and China economic interests. This is also controversial, but there is a clear interest among large sections of American business in continuing the economic relations with China that began to take shape at the end of the Cold War.

The continuing validity of this factor under the previous US administration was evidenced by, on the one hand, the conclusion of the so-called bilateral “Phase One Agreement” in January 2020. However, the same administration also imposed tariff barriers designed to cause problems primarily for Chinese high-tech companies (accused of “unfair competition”).

The positive signals sent to Beijing, repeatedly initiated since the beginning of this year by the current US Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, have been precisely caused by the need to reduce the level of these tariffs.  These tariffs not only hurt the business of the US companies having industrial and technological ties with those Chinese companies, but also lead to higher prices for basic necessities. This contributes to domestic political tensions in the United States.

A positive message could even be seen in President Joe Biden’s recent trip to South Korea and Japan in the third decade of May, which was undoubtedly anti-China in general. The centerpiece of the event was the announcement of the so-called Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). It was not clear what this was all about, but it was notable that the IPEF did not include Taiwan.

In a way, the final act in a series of such positive actions in relation to China was Joe Biden’s statementon June 18 ( about his intention to discuss the tariff issue with Chinese leader Xi Jinping “soon.” Apparently, the possibility of such a meeting as well as the list of issues to be discussed were at the center of the hours-long talks in Luxembourg on June 13 between Yang Jiechi, who is in charge of the entire field of Chinese foreign policy, and US Presidential National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

It should be recalled that the first meeting between them since the change of the US administration in January 2021 took place in March of that year in Anchorage, Alaska, and was very heated. In fact, it was then that US diplomacy received a resounding public backlash in response to its attempts to adopt the stance of a teacher of “good international tone” when speaking to representatives of other countries.

In both Anchorage and Luxembourg, one of the main issues discussed was the Taiwan issue. It is safe to say that the second of these meetings would not have taken place if the Department of State’s annually updated web pages on US relations with the outside world had kept a gap in the place of previous entries concerning Washington’s non-recognition of the island’s statehood.

The gap in question appeared in early May after another update and was filled again a month later (a week before the Luxembourg meeting) with the previous entry. This did not go unnoticed in the PRC. The statement on May 21 by Premier Li Keqiang on the continuation of China’s “openness policy,” two days after one of the above-mentioned signals from Janet Yellen, also seems noteworthy.

But, once again, there is a clear preponderance of negativity over the positivity in the messages Washington is sending to Beijing. It can be seen in the US political practice, particularly with regard to the Taiwan issue.

Taipei is not included (yet) in the aforementioned IPEF, but negotiations are underway for some sort of a US-Taiwan trade agreement. The area of bilateral defense cooperation is continuously and comprehensively expanding. On June 20, the second negotiations (Monterey Talks) of high-level delegations took place in the US on this topic. From 2021 onwards, such meetings will be held at least once a year with the aim of acquiring so-called “asymmetric capabilities” for Taiwan that should be “agile, inexpensive and effective in dealing with Chinese amphibious operations.”

The US defense budget for 2023, currently being prepared, includes an increased level of financial support for Taiwan’s defense capability development in general. In mid-June, a controversy erupted between Washington and Beijing over the status of the Taiwan Strait.

All this explains Beijing’s continued cautious, rather than reticent, attitude to attempts by the US leadership to indicate some kind of positivity in policy towards China.

In recent Chronicles of the Taiwan issue, Japan’s presence has appeared more and more frequently. It is safe to say that this topic will continue to be discussed as the scale and nature of Tokyo’s involvement in this issue grows steadily. This manifests itself both in relative trivialities and in quite significant actions that cannot be ignored in Beijing.

The former include Tokyo’s attempts to somehow compensate for another unpleasant “mishap” Taipei has had in its trade with Mainland. A year ago, Beijing was dissatisfied with the quality of pineapples purchased from Taiwan. This time, the sea bass supplied by Taiwanese fishermen came under suspicion. Although the Japanese have plenty of seafood of their own, they can also have some of Taiwanese bass if the political need so dictates.

The report of a possible appearance at the Japanese mission (or, in all but name, embassy) in Taipei of a serving Japanese military officer looks much more serious. There have been retired Japanese military personnel in this mission before. But the inclusion of a serving military officer would in fact mean the appearance of a Japanese military attaché on Taiwan territory. Naturally, Beijing could not leave this (potential) prospect without a reaction.

Finally, the author has to address the words uttered by the Speaker of the Taiwanese Parliament on June 12 that he had been informed during his tenure as Minister of Defense that the island’s long-developed Hsiung Feng III could “reach Beijing.” Although the officially declared characteristics of this missile look very modest (a range of about 150 km), it is important to keep in mind that, as a rule and everywhere else, the same name can refer to completely different weapons systems. Therefore, one should not “right from the start” refer to these words as a “political bluff,” given that Taiwan’s industry in general (and its defense industry in particular) is among the most advanced in the world.

To sum up, a US-China summit would be appropriate now to at least de-escalate tensions in bilateral relations.

But the unfolding situation in general, and with regard to the Taiwan issue in particular, is not yet very conducive to such a summit.

 

 

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/06/29/no-end-to-the-chronicles-of-the-taiwan-issue/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

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