It’s a never ending onslaught of war preparation, war provocation, and war stockpiling being generated out of the United States. There is ZERO talk about deescalation. I tire of all of this. It seems like the United States is driving the world to war and they aren’t stopping for shit.
A top US general gave a stark warning about the risk of deteriorating ties with the two giant states. Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General John E. Hyten told a think-tank meeting that conflict could easily spiral out of control. “We never fought the Soviet Union,” he said. “As for the great powers, our goal is to never go to war with China and Russia.” According to Hyten, such an event would “destroy the world and the global economy. It will be bad for everyone, and we have to ensure that we do not go down that path.”
And so everyone is asking these questions.
Why is the United States so fucking hell-bent on creating a major war? And, why isn’t Russia and China responding directly to America’s hybrid wars, clandestine wars, and military provocations?
The Greenville Post suggests…
An excellent read, by the way.
Observing the mounting provocations by Washington and its NATO puppet, many people in Russia (and abroad) think that Putin's response to the West has been weak, misguided and inordinately accommodationist, a form—in their eyes—of appeasement. They argue—as does Paul Craig Roberts—that Washington needs to be confronted far more clearly and decisively, with force if necessary, the way one confronts a depraved bully with a long list of crimes to its name. I have a great deal of sympathy for this point of view, as do many people who don't like seeing an arch-criminal get away with his ever-expanding reign of terror and intimidation. But, folks, this is a soup with some flies in it, and we need to pay more attention. While in a non-nuclear world that kind of thinking—giving a bully what he deserves— makes perfect sense, in a nuclearised world the cost/advantage calculus is far more complicated and the right response almost impossible to pin down. For it is certain that, at this point, an all-out nuclear war between the great powers, a war, mind you, precipitated by the United States and its vassals, besides its unprecedented horrors, is a war guaranteed to have no winners. This is not the kind of decision that any rational leader would like to make. So what is Putin or Xi to do? They face a ruling class that appears to be either technically insane or terminally cynical. Inhabiting a huge bubble of hypocrisy of their own making, drenched in the supremacist myths of US exceptionalism, US elites flail about the world impervious to reality or morality, while wiping their plutocratic asses in the UN charter governing the civilised behaviour of all nations. Under such circumstances, hubris may blind them to the great risks inherent in their constant warmongering. But are they really blind and indifferent to the horrific costs, or—as Kissinger and Nixon once supposedly admitted—this is just a bluff to keep the enemy off balance? Clearly, the Russians and the Chinese, led by rational and competent people, don't want to be forced to find out. A war between the great nuclear powers is a war with no winners in which the totality of the human race stands to be wiped out. They know war up, close, and personal in a way that is simply alien to most Americans, and seemingly forgotten by the idiotised vassal nations in what passes for a free Europe. Well, Russia and China haven't forgotten. The Soviet Union lost more than 27 million people in WW2, and thousands of towns and cities, plus almost 70% of its hard-won infrastructure and industrial base in her struggle to overcome the Nazi assault. China chalked up almost 30 million lives in casualties, an enormous figure even in a nation of over one billion inhabitants. In their eyes, it probably makes sense not to provoke the bully into a fight. Plus, there are powerful historical reasons for avoiding a shooting war as long as possible. As demonstrated by the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact, avoiding war while growing stronger with each passing day is not a bad strategy when confronting a monstrous war machine led by deluded and unstable people. The USSR, despite its many problems, was a much stronger and more resilient nation in 1941 than in 1939. Those two years allowed her to safeguard and reposition the assets she needed to survive the Nazi attack, and she did. (See for ex. OPERATION BARBAROSSA: MYTHS AND REALITY). The same can be said for the truly vertiginous development of Russia's modern military in slightly over a decade: the Russia of 2008 (when it had to subdue a NATO-prodded Georgia into some stupid adventurism) and that of today can't be compared from a military standpoint. Military-naval analyst Andrei Martyanov agrees: "Russia and her Armed Forces of 2021 and of 2008 are separated not just by 13 years, but by two generations of weapon systems and C4ISR." Let that sink in for a minute. In sheer speed and effectiveness, Russia's capacity for strategic development is second to none in the world, and is not to be matched or surpassed by the Pentagon in the foreseeable future, no matter how many trillions it wastes on such pursuit. It's actually a systemic and cultural question not subject to a quick resolution. Ditto with China. Could that be the reason why Putin can afford to look "weak" and calm and non-confrontational toward Washington, despite a non-stop cascade of provocations and vituperations? Keep these things in mind as you read Paul Craig Roberts' persuasive indictment of the Kremlin posture. —PG
Paul Craig Robert thoughts on this matter…
I can't see Putin trusting any US agreement. When Russi/Putin acts, it is sudden, swift, and WITHOUT WARNING So why the PR, the meetings with Biden, Lavrov's diplomatic whirlwind?? Methinks it is to get domestic opinion firmly on his side, a rooted we-back-you-at-any-cost kind of grim determination. Polls show he is half way there. What's the magic #?? 66%?? I would think it in that range. If this is the case, we have a grim scenario awaiting us in February. -Les7
While US Whore Media and Whore “scientists” dependent on Fauci-controlled NIH and Big Pharma grants whip up fear over a relatively harmless “Omicron variant,” a real dangerous situation that I have anticipated for seven years is raising its deadly head.
The arrogant fools in Washington lost in their own hubris have been practicing nuclear attacks on Russia within 20 kilometers of Russia’s borders.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that Washington’s operation Global Thunder rehearsed launching nuclear weapons against Russia from both western and eastern directions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Washington was not taking seriously Moscow’s warning not to cross Russia’s red lines.
Putin is correct. But it is the Kremlin’s fault.
The only decisive action the Kremlin has taken in response to intense provocations from Washington and NATO was the Kremlin’s decision to accept the overwhelming vote of the people in Crimea to be reincorporated into Russia where the territory had resided for 300 years. The Kremlin’s alternative was to lose Russia’s Black Sea navy base.
In a strategic blunder of the first magnitude, the Kremlin refused the same plea from the Russian people in the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, territories that also had been part of Russia for centuries. By refusing to honor the vote of the Donbass Russians to again be a part of Russia, the Kremlin subjected them to war and destruction by the Ukrainian army and various neo-nazi Ukrainian militias. If the Kremlin had accepted the vote of the Donbass Russians to be returned to Russia, the conflict would have ended as Ukraine would not destroy itself by attacking Russian territory. Without the ongoing conflict, Washington would have been unable to continue its machinations against Russia in Ukraine.
In an effort to salvage the situation, the Kremlin put together the “Minsk Agreement,” which Western powers were to support, but didn’t. Thus, the conflict has continued to smolder since 2014, providing Washington with 7 years to use anti-Russian propaganda to define the narrative.
The Kremlin’s passivity and attempt to rely on agreements with the US and NATO to resolve a Ukrainian situation that Washington most certainly does not want resolved has convinced Washington and NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg that there is no fight in Russia, thus producing the situation that I have feared: Washington has concluded that Russia’s red lines are merely rhetoric.
Many other Kremlin failures have contributed to this dangerous outcome. The Kremlin still permits Israel to attack Syrian territory when one telephone call from Putin is sufficient to halt the attacks. The Kremlin still permits the occupation of a small part of Syria by US troops and CIA Arab mercenaries hostile to the Syrian state. The Kremlin receives massive insults to the Russian president and still refers to those insulting Russia as “our Western partners.”
These are not responses that create the impression that there is any force behind the Kremlin’s red line.
The Kremlin has also failed miserably in anticipating Washington’s moves, indicating an incompetent intelligence service or a willing disbelief in the Kremlin of Russian intelligence reports. Despite its obviousness, the Kremlin failed to anticipate the invasion of South Ossetia in 2008 by a US and Israeli-trained and equipped Georgian army. Putin was at the summer Olympics in Beijing. The Kremlin failed to anticipate Washington’s obvious overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine and the replacement of a Russia-friendly regime with a neo-nazi regime. Putin was at the Sochi Olympics.
Washington simply will not take seriously a government incapable of paying attention to what is happening to its interests in its own backyard.
One might think that the Kremlin would learn by experience, but apparently not. With reports that half of the Ukrainian army is in the Donbass region threatening the Russian inhabitants, US Secretary of State Blinken threatens Russia with “serious consequences” if Russia protects the Donbass Russians.
Imagine, a cipher like Blinken, a person of no ability or accomplishments, a representative of a second-rate military power that discriminates against its own white troops, issuing threats to the world’s dominant military force.
This is hubris run amuck, hubris encouraged by years of Kremlin low-key response to major provocations.
As I have warned, the low-key Russian response, despite its good intention, encourages more provocations, and sooner or later Washington will go too far and cross a red line that will force a Russian military response. My fear of nuclear war is the reason for my warning that Russia needs to put a strong foot down in order to stop the progression of provocations that can only end in war.
Why has the Kremlin been so meek in response to insults and provocations? I have no inside information. The speculations are that (1) the Kremlin wants the Donbass Russians to remain in Ukraine in order to water down the influence of anti-Russian attitudes in Western Ukraine; (2) the Kremlin did not want to confirm Washington’s propaganda that Russia was rebuilding the Soviet Empire by reabsorbing the Donbass Russians in addition to Crimea; (3) westernized Russian intellectuals have more confidence in the West than in their government; (4) the Atlanticist Integrationists desire to be part of the West than to be allied with China; (5) the Kremlin thinks that by continuing to be low-key and open to cooperation with the West all difficulties will be resolved; (6) Russia knows the horrors of war and wants to avoid war at all costs; (7) Russian billionaire oligarchs want the West as a haven for their stolen wealth.
All of these are sound reasons as far as they go.
The problem is that all of these reasons ignore that Russia is Washington’s enemy of choice. Russia is the enemy that justifies the $1,000 billion annual budget of the US military/security complex. Russia is the enemy that strengthens Washington’s hold on NATO and Washington’s European empire. Russia is the enemy that keeps the Washington-abused American population loyal to the government that is destroying American liberty. Russia is the enemy that can be blamed, along with China, for every failure of Washington. How can the Kremlin forget that the hostility of the American Elite to Russia is so overwhelming that President Trump was confronted with a CIA/FBI/Justice Department orchestrated “Russiagate” for simply stating that he intended to restore normal relations with Russia?
Normal relations with Russia are impermissible to the extent that a President of the United States was removed from office in a stolen election after trumped-up “Russiagate” and “Impeachgate” attempts failed. To complete the lesson to all future presidents that normal relations with Russia are impermissible, Trump supporters are being prosecuted for attending a rally in support of Trump, a rally now known as “the Trump Insurrection.” Six hundred innocent people are held in prison in violation of habeas corpus and First Amendment rights. Not even the US Constitution can protect them.
And this is a government that the Kremlin thinks it can reach an accommodation with!
God help the Russians and all of us as Washington’s provocations continue their march to war.
In a visit to Beijing in March, Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said that “the US has declared its mission is to limit the technological development opportunities of both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China.”
Tarik in the Vineyard for the Saker Blog comments…
Putin claimed that ties between Moscow and Beijing “have reached the highest level in history,” while Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi insisted both countries “have always been the pillars of peace and stability in the world.” According to him, “the more unstable and turbulent the world is, the more decisive cooperation between China and Russia will become.”
Why Russia didn’t shoot anything down yet?
If Russia shot down a NATO bomber or ship flying or sailing where it shouldn’t be (or even a US one), who would dare respond in kind?
It begs the next question: Why Russia didn’t shoot anything down yet?
Things need to be put in perspective. So here is a third question: Why is the West and the US in particular, so dead set on confronting Russia and China at every corner, short of direct military attack?
It is not because they want to cut Russian gas to Europe (it would terminally break the EU economy and destroy its ability to store increasing dollar reserves), or repatriate jobs from China (systemically incompatible with dollar hegemony) , or even prevent the implementation of the BRI per se (because the matter of fact is that potentially it could become a huge new, and very much needed pit for excess dollars to find their home; if only it were done the “right” way).
When Kissinger invited China into the western world economy, it was understood that it would eternally accumulate dollar trade surpluses, and over time, become another EU or Japan.
In the case of the EU, the US had NATO, and for Japan they had their military bases to make sure these two would dutifully stockpile every dollar that comes their way. But nothing of the sort existed for China.
To make a story short; in the early nineties they took over the largest stash of natural resources that is Russia. With that in hand they thought they now held China on a tight leash.
Late nineties the Asian economic crisis hit; Beijing was livid. 2000 Putin takes over Russia’s natural resources, unleashing China.
The later enters a global buying spree of natural resources through its huge accumulated dollar reserves. Commodities’ prices shoot up, interest rates follow suit and triggers the subprime implosion and all its aftermath.
For all practical purpose, intentional or not, this was an unofficial war declaration. No doubt every central banker on the planet worth his salt understood a new player entered town. It meant business, and was to be reckoned with. US responds with an “epidemic” of color revolution everywhere China was laying the ground work for what was to become the BRI, and dramatically increases the pressure on Russia to force it back into the US$ fold.
Neither China nor Russia blinked. Instead the former announced to the world the official launch of BRI, and the latter openly challenged US military supremacy in Syria, and soon after started in earnest the distribution of S400s (almost as good as the atomic bomb, in diplomatic terms) to the world.
For those holding reservations about the above interpretation of events, please consider: the price of gold went from under 300 US$/ounce in the late 90’s to 1900 US$ by the end of the first decade, bear in mind that this in a market hated by all. To this day less than 1% of global private wealth is held in gold.
In 5000 years of history never did this ratio fall below 5%, even under the most exuberant times. Who was buying? While the western bullion banks acted as “sellers of last resort” with unlimited fictitious supplies on the Futures market to keep the price under cap, so did Beijing act as “buyer of last resort” on the spot market with unlimited dollar supplies from their trade surpluses, thus uncapping the price. The relevance of this is apparent when juxtaposed to the BRI project.
It is estimated tens of thousands tons of gold were disappeared in China; that enters the border but never show up; neither in retails nor official reserves records, but instead just somehow vanish in thin air. At the minimum it shows they’re preparing for a post dollar economy. Then again the BRI makes no secret that it intends to make use of local currencies worldwide.
There are two ways only to have any currency accepted. Either it is backed by the most powerful military, or alternatively it is referenced to gold. Anything else (eg. Petrodollar, Eurodollar…) is military backing under the guise of… and the BRI has also admitted its preferred option for trade account settlements.
Such monetary arrangement (no matter the exact actual architecture) would in short order annihilate any form of western prevalence and privilege on the global scene.
In itself it would just be an ego bruise, but when added to the staggering debt levels, it translates to guaranteed decades of servitude. That my friends is the crux of the matter, the unfathomable horror the west is facing. It is what keeps their elite awake at night, while the population imperfectly senses a looming day of reckoning whether under the traits of a yellow slit eyed giant dragon, a monstrous growling bear, a flood of melted ice, or an amorphous unforgiving pestilence, when instead they should really fear Shylock’s lurking specter and past due pounds of flesh.
Now that the real motive for the Big Boys’ quarrels has been defined, how would a war with Russia or China, even if only through a proxy (Ukraine or whatever) fit in this equation.
First of all the West or the US today is not comparable to say Napoleon’s France or Hitler’s Germany which “benefited” from industrial and military supremacy. It is those specific advantages that allowed them the privilege to make fools of themselves.
Without them, neither Napoleon nor Hitler would have ever thought of heading East. And I might add, nor would have the US embarked on the last 50 years of hegemonic delusions.
Today the latter has lost both trump cards, and with them, one might presume, the luxury to fantasize a swift military solution.
This leaves us with only a proxy war scenario. If realized, that option can only yield very short lived dividends that could never alter the natural course of the empire’s demise.
After all once the Ukrainian army is spent, that card is gone. In fact the Ukraine holds value as long as the status quo last, once the situation is resolved (which ever way that may be) it looses any bargaining stock.
The same holds true for the JCPOA, Syria, North Korea, Taiwan, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and so many others. And what bargaining may I be referring to? Well hold on tight: the West pushes for terms of a new partitioning of the world, while Russia and China expect its terms of surrender.
Sure, until say around 2018, all these pressure points were meant to force China and Russia reconsider the dollar’s role in the BRI and related projects. But then in March of that faithful year (if I remember well) Putin casually announced a panoply of hyper-sonic toys. If the subprime event was a “Wazari”, March 2018 was the “Ipon Seonage”, or basically a “checkmate”.
No doubt every general worth his salt must have raised an eyebrow or two, and every central banker realized the dollar was now naked, with neither gold nor the most powerful military on the planet to enforce it.
All the while Putin was giving his speech, the list of nations that were rejoining the BRI since its official launch and their commitment, were about to dramatically increase.
The practical effect was a gradual and ongoing abandonment of dollars in cross border regional settlement of trades, particularly in South-East Asia were the doomed currency is now considered almost a dirty word among regional players.
Consequently local currencies reserves are displacing US$, which are increasingly being spent on the acquisition of raw materials on the international market for infrastructure projects.
If it sounds like “déjà vu” it’s because it is.
The resulting inflationary pressure on the commodities’ market would again spill over to the interest rate market, triggering the September 2919 REPO event. Because of its brevity, I suppose, few realize how defining that moment was to what came next.
First the Fed met the burst from 0% to 10% on the overnight REPO rate with a 700+ billion US$ barrage within a matter of days to literally drown those darn, messy, uncooperative interest rates. Ever since that market requires a monthly 120 billion allowance just so banks may trust each other and perpetuate the myth of solvency. As the global economy stopped accumulating, or even off-loaded dollar reserves, the greenback’s velocity increased and soon will feel like hot potatoes. A rarely mentioned consequence of this phenomenon (at least I never came across it anywhere), is the severe restriction it imposes on newly printed dollar deployment outside US financial markets, lest it turns the already established price inflation into hyperinflation. Thus it renders the dollar useless as a tool for influencing foreign actors. Those loose dollars must be neutralized. A few months later COVID strikes in China.
Was it just one more sorry attempt to oblige China to reverse its “dollar policy” or whatever favorite narrative one may subscribe, isn’t as relevant as Beijing’s response was remarkable.
There were several instances in the last 20 years when China had to suffer some suspicious biological outbreaks, yet none of the measures taken ever even registered in import/export figures, GDP, or in any other major economic indicator.
Now suddenly under the pretext of one insipid flu-like germ, precisely when the West is shown at its most fragile financially, they decide to entirely shut down one major world industrial production hub.
Again, regardless of one’s view on that epidemic, there’s not a point in the entire space/time continuum where Xi and his team didn’t foresee the consequences of such measures, both on their economy and those of the West respectively.
The West was totally taken off-guard; no point in calling China, the damage was already done, trillions would be needed to absorb the shock, and thus they took the path of least resistance.
They doubled down on the COVID song, proactively shut down their economies to force unanimous political support for direct monetary support of the economy and markets. That the pandemic narrative also served as convenient cover for population movement control, was an extra bonus in an environment ripe for social unrest.
A few months later China unlocks and its economic indicators quickly resume to pre-pandemic levels, all while the US and Europe were still mired in frozen economies.
This showed the world economy did not depend any longer on Western lead. In fact the world can now perfectly do without the West all together.
Now it may still be early to assess with any certainty how the game is being played at this very moment, but based on the evidence over the last 2 to 3 years, here is a proposition which hopefully might offer an answer to our starting questions.
The earlier Putin “checkmate” referred specifically to global dollar dominance. Preserving regional dominion for a little while longer however seems still possible, at least in the minds of the western elites.
However such a region must be isolated from areas that do not submit to the dollar “order” (or whatever new cryptocurrency denomination they may come up with to implement their reset), since direct competition would instantly reveal the currency fraud that it is.
Hence the necessary world partition. In this new context, those pressure points whose main purpose was originally directed against China and Russia, can easily be repurposed to mainly close the ranks in the “salvageable” portion of the world.
That explains nicely the increased hysteria surrounding those sour points; not as means to strike fear in the hearts of Russians and Chinese (which is a ridiculous proposition when considering the ground facts), but to dig it as deeply as possible into their vassals’ hearts instead, with what military and economic might they still muster.
Then in order to preserve their currency’s “credibility”, at least within the remaining sphere of dominion, they need a replacement for the loss of those Central “dollar sinkhole” Banks and respective economies that are escaping to the multi-polar world.
So they “repurposed” (or just upgraded, I’m not sure which) a favorite of theirs: Global Warming, from an obstacle to the BRI momentum, to a black hole for infinite currency issuance.
The basic idea, apart from its green energy infrastructure component which at least is comprehensible to the mind, is to, through the carbon credit market, “financialize” various ecosystems’ contribution to decarbonization. Shares would be available for “investments”.
It’s not clear who or how the book value of these shares would be calculated, but one can be excused for assuming that value will prove as flexible as a COVID infection count.
I suppose the underlying logic goes something like this: ecosystems remove CO2 from the atmosphere, which saves our lives.
Since we can all agree that our lives are infinitely precious, no amount of investments can possibly realize the full valuation of those shares. Et voilàààà, the inflationary dilemma once and for all, forever and ever, eternally and for perpetuity finally solved!
Is it delusional? Of course it is. But as some real wise man said: People rarely think what they must, instead they tend to think what they need to think, when they need to think it.
Obviously the “Grand absurdity” in which their “Great Reset” is being implemented is the sure sign of their impending capitulation. Hence Russia and China patiently awaiting their acceptable terms, which probably means unconditional rendition.
The piper will be paid.
It doesn’t mean they want to destroy, humiliate, or otherwise submit to the West. It’s about facing responsibilities, and within this frame, figure out a convenient, or win-win agreement.
In such an environment a war makes little sense because there is no military threat against western leadership, only military containment.
In typical “Go” fashion, US and NATO bases that were previously seen as power projections enveloping the world, can increasingly be viewed as the boundaries of a shrinking space.
Funny thing is, Russia and China did try really hard to avoid this sorry state; the downright self-inflicted humiliation the West is facing.
Ever since the 1997 Asian crisis, Beijing tried real hard to convince the US to a strategy to solve the Dollar’s paradox in world trades.
During the first decade of the century as preparation for the BRI, they started heavily investing in global natural resources extraction.
Aside from the obvious practical reasons (BRI would require humongous amounts of resources), there was also a financial/monetary aspect.
The commodities sector was suffering from decades of under investments due to price suppression schemes by the usual suspects, in line with the gold price policies.
The idea then was to increase production so that the manipulative Future’s shorts could be gradually unloaded without triggering the typical inflationary bomb and the ensuing interest rate response, and thus freeing the Western banks from exposure at no loss.
At which point international dollar reserves could gradually be unloaded unto an increasing supply of commodities to the BRI, with also minimal (or at least manageable) inflationary disturbance.
Of course it implied a parallel incremental retirement of international dollars to a level commensurate to the US’ economy true size, probably through a series of devaluations against mainly gold. That was China’s plan. Not a bad empire retirement plan when considering where the West stands now.
Just as funny, had the US been agreeable to China’s and Russia’s proposal, better yet had they taken the lead after the USSR collapsed, to “resize” the dollar, neither of the Bear nor the Dragon would have developed their armed forces, instead dedicating their resources strictly to the economy.
The US could have retained Military supremacy and acted as a true policing force of the world, with all the benefits and honors attached to this function, and the eternal gratitude and support of all.
What a monumental waste those last thirty years indeed.
Okay, maybe all wouldn’t have been as rosy, so let’s just say it could have been a great opportunity for a beautiful dream…
MM answers
And kids, this is how World Wars gets started.... However, my fear is that the US and Israel will double down and not go quietly. Instead of upsetting the table and waking away when losing; they will flip the table over and rip open their shirt to reveal a suicide vest.... -A.L.
There are two possible reasons why the United States is acting like such a dick-head bully and Asia is failing to engage…
[1] America is dying. Let it die. When a person is dying, you allow him to go through the death thrall and stay out of the fray. America will be dead soon enough. There’s no rush to do anything. Russia and China know this and see this. They are watching in real time. Obviously they are guarded and concerned, but their projections obviously show a complete national collapse within the decades, if not much sooner. [2] Asia is ready to put an end to it all. The death thralls of the empire is getting dangerous. But neither Russia or China will allow these matters to destroy them. If things become unmanageable, they will take the first steps, on their timetable in accordance with their rules. Both Russia and China are ready to take down the Untied States is such a way that the USA will not be able to launch a retaliatory strike. The complexity of such a mission is enormous, and so they are spending the time to make sure that retaliation would be impossible.To a lesser extent are some other explanations. But I (personally) do not believe that they are valid.
[3] Wishful thinking. Both Russia and China independently believe that the ruling leadership of America will come to their senses and stop all this war-mongering nonsense. Just one or two more elections and it will all be over and change. [4] Incompetence in Russian and Chinese leadership. Both the Russians and the Chinese are not competent, and have determined that the best actions are ones in which America is permitted to define the rules of engagement and the behaviors during conflict.What is obvious is that both Russia and China have the ability, the technology and the capability to hurt the United States substantially. But they are not making any overt mores in this regard. The reasoning behind this is many, but I really see the options as I described coming to the forefront.
We will find out soon enough.
And so … the very next day after I wrote those comments…
Ukraine – Russia Makes Serious Demands, Warns Of ‘Confrontation’
From MoA…
Following unfounded U.S. claims of an imminent Russian invasion of the Ukraine U.S. President Joe Biden and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin have held a virtual summit. Little has been released about its real content but the Russian follow up shows that the issues they talked about were deadly serious.
On December 10 the Russian Foreign Ministry published a statement that not only sounds like an ultimatum but seems to be meant as one:
We note US President Joseph Biden’s readiness expressed at the December 7, 2021 talks with President Vladimir Putin to establish a serious dialogue on issues related to ensuring the security of the Russian Federation. Such a dialogue is urgently needed today when the relations between Russia and the collective West continue to decay and have approached a critical line. At the same time, numerous loose interpretations of our position have emerged in recent days. In this connection we feel it is necessary to once again clarify the following. Escalating a confrontation with our country is absolutely unacceptable. As a pretext, the West is using the situation in Ukraine, where it embarked on encouraging Russophobia and justifying the actions of the Kiev regime to undermine the Minsk agreements and prepare for a military scenario in Donbass. Instead of reigning in their Ukrainian protégés, NATO countries are pushing Kiev towards aggressive steps. There can be no alternative interpretation of the increasing number of unplanned exercises by the United States and its allies in the Black Sea. NATO members’ aircraft, including strategic bombers, regularly make provocative flights and dangerous manoeuvres in close proximity to Russia’s borders. The militarisation of Ukraine’s territory and pumping it with weapons are ongoing. The course has been chosen of drawing Ukraine into NATO, which is fraught with the deployment of strike missile systems there with a minimal flight time to Central Russia, and other destabilising weapons. Such irresponsible behaviour creates grave military risks for all parties involved, up to and including a large-scale conflict in Europe.
All the NATO action mentioned above directly endangers Russia’s security. It has to cease. Some of the steps taken must be reversed and Russia will have to be given guarantees that certain measures will not be taken. The statement includes this list of demands:
- No more NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders. Retraction of the 2008 NATO invitation to Ukraine and Georgia.
- Legally binding guarantee that no strike systems which could target Moscow will be deployed in countries next to Russia.
- No NATO or equivalent (UK, U.S., Pl.) ‘exercises’ near Russian borders.
- NATO ships, planes to keep certain distances from Russian borders.
- Regular military-to-military talks.
- No intermediate-range nukes in Europe.
That the above is not a “pretty please” wishlist has since been emphasized by several Russian authorities:
Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Monday warned of confrontation should the United States and NATO fail to give Russia security guarantees concerning its eastern expansion, the RIA news agency reported. President Vladimir Putin has demanded legally binding security guarantees that NATO will not expand further east or place its weapons close to Russian territory; Washington has repeatedly said no country can veto Ukraine's NATO hopes.
The confrontation Ryabkov talks about would not be verbal if Russia’s red lines get crossed:
We have openly pointed out that there are red lines which we will not allow anyone to cross, and we also have certain requirements, which have been formulated exceedingly clearly.
Russia can of course veto the Ukraine’s entry into NATO. It can destroy the Ukrainian military, take the regions of Ukraine where a majority speaks Russian and create a new sovereign state from them.
The remaining agricultural Banderastan would be left for Poland and Romania to feast on. This would give Russia the strategic depth it needs and it would limit the NATO friendly coastline in the Black Sea to the south western parts.
A Russian attack on the Ukraine is however what western weapon producers and their adjunct think tanks, ‘experts’ and political hawks, mainly in the U.S., deeply wish for. It would isolate Russia, increase the U.S. role in Europe, justify increasing military budgets and end the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and other Russian export routes.
And that is the reason why Russia will not attack and use alternative measures.
Unless, of course, …
In a phone call with Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson Putin repeated the demands and explained his reasoning:
Like other Western leaders, Boris Johnson expressed concern about Russia’s alleged large-scale troop movements near the Ukrainian border. In this regard, Vladimir Putin provided in-depth and principled assessments of the current situation in Ukraine. Specific examples of Kiev's destructive course on derailing the Minsk agreements, which are the only viable path towards resolving the internal Ukraine crisis, were given. It was also pointed out that the Ukrainian authorities are purposefully aggravating the situation on the line of contact and are using heavy weapons and attack drones, which are prohibited by the Minsk Package of Measures in the conflict zone. Ukraine’s policy of discrimination against Russian-speaking people was pointed out as well. It was emphasised that all this is happening amid the active military “exploration” of Ukraine’s territory by NATO, something that poses a direct threat to Russia’s security. With this in mind, Vladimir Putin stated the need to immediately begin talks in order to develop clear international legal agreements that can preclude NATO’s further eastward advance and the deployment of weapons that pose a threat to Russia in neighbouring states, primarily Ukraine. Russia will present draft documents to this end.
The NATO countries which push for further moves against Russia, mostly the Baltic 3 and Poland, see all their dreams endangered. They will resist any move towards a fulfillment of Russia’s demands. They are however not the ones that count.
It is the U.S., Germany and France that Russia is counting on to get some senses. The upcoming winter, which is predicted to be somewhat harsh, is a good opportunity to apply a little pressure to Europe and to show that it is Russia, not the U.S., which provides Europe energy security. The new Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer understands that:
In an interview published on Tuesday in the German newspaper Die Welt, Nehammer, who was elected chancellor earlier this month, was asked if the Austrian government will continue to support Nord Stream 2. He replied, “Of course,” adding that he expects the pipeline to begin operating soon. “I don’t consider it necessary to connect Nord Stream 2 with Russia’s behavior in Ukraine,” he went on, referencing a recent political standoff between Moscow and Kiev. “The EU can only hurt itself by doing so. Nord Stream 2 doesn’t only serve Russia’s interests – Germany, Austria, and other EU countries will profit from it. Nord Stream 2 is a European project, which shouldn’t be used as a tool to pressure Moscow.”
This winter Russia will use its market power to press for a fulfillment of its demands. Russia has stopped to provide natural gas to the European spot markets. It continues to deliver in full to customers who have long term contracts. This will squeeze Poland and a few others who depend on the spot market in times of peak demand. Russia hopes that those countries learn that their excessive hostility towards it can have serious consequences.
As Russia has no direct tool to squeeze the U.S. it will need a different strategy to push Biden to change course. The current main foreign policy concern in the U.S. is China. Russia is therefore coordinating its strategy with it:
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping will discuss "aggressive" language from the U.S. and NATO during their virtual meeting later this week, according to the Kremlin. "The situation in international affairs, especially on the European continent, is very, very tense right now and requires discussion between allies," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, according to a Reuters report. "We see very, very aggressive rhetoric on the NATO and U.S. side, and this requires discussion between us and the Chinese."
Notice Peskov’s use of the word “allies”. This is, as far as I know, new. There is no formal treaty between Russia and China that makes them ‘allies’ so the use of the word is highly significant.
This is a concern for an Asia pundit who fears that any Russian move on Ukraine would be accompanied by a Chinese move on Taiwan. To prevent that she urges the U.S. to end the endless confrontation with Russia and to concentrate on the far east.
We can only hope that Biden understands such reasoning, finally shuts up the Russia hawks and ends the conflict with Moscow.
Otherwise we will all be in for some interesting times.
Yes. The USA is marching straight towards war!
And it’s going to be horrific. Imagine DEMANDING Russia do this, and DEMANDING China do that. These demands will be met with extreme force. And I do mean EXTREME.
All of this reminds me of the scenes from the UK movie about the build-up to Nuclear war called “Threads”.
Never a More Unsettling Strategic Landscape
From HERE.
It is the first time that others are dictating to the West rather than being instructed on how to conform to American red lines.
There was an almost audible sigh of relief echoing around western corridors. Though there were no breakthroughs in the Team Biden-Putin virtual meeting, the talks not surprisingly, were heavily focussed on the matter of immediate concern: Ukraine – amid widespread fears that the Ukrainian volcano might irrupt at any moment.
At the meeting: Agreed was the proposal to initiate ‘lower-level’ government-to-government discussion of Russia’s red lines and any halt to NATO expansion eastwards. Jake Sullivan, however, spilt a little cold water over that when he firmly emphasised that the U.S. had given no commitments on either issue. Biden (as advertised in advance), warned of strong economic and other measures should Russia intervene in Ukraine.
What was more notable however, was that the U.S. is ‘only’ threatening to sanction Russia, or to move more troops into the region, as opposed to posing explicit western and NATO militarily intervention in Ukraine. In earlier statements, Biden and other U.S. officials have been vague about what Washington’s response to a Russian invasion would be: warning repeatedly of ‘consequences’, even as it re-committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
So, should we all begin to breathe again? Actually, no. In fact, the immediacy of the Ukraine issue was always something of a red-herring: Russia has no desire to wade into the thick, cloying mud of a regional quagmire, however much some in the West would ‘love it’. And the Kiev forces are tired, bedraggled and demoralised from sitting in cold trenches along the Contact Line for months. They have little appetite to take on the Donbass militias (unless aided from the outside).
Nothing was resolved about what to do about the wider dark dystopia that is Ukraine – in all its various manifestations. President Putin raised the Minsk Accord, but nobody, it seems, was biting; the fishing line remained limp. Nor was anything agreed about what to do with the accumulating debris of what once was called U.S.-Russian ‘diplomatic relations’. The latter term (diplomatic relations) is now but a poor joke.
Celebration therefore, is not in order. The viscerally anti-Putin factions in U.S. and Kiev are furious: A U.S. Republican Senator, Roger Wicker has warned that in any stand-off over Ukraine, “I would not rule out military action. I think we start making a mistake when we take options off the table, so I would hope the president keeps that option on the table”. Asked what military action against Russia would comprise, Wicker said it could mean “that we stand off, with our ships in the Black Sea – and we rain destruction on Russian military capability”, adding that the U.S. also shouldn’t “rule out first-use nuclear action” against Russia.
So Ukraine festers on. If we are now to have a lull, then it is just that – ‘a lull’. The ‘hawks’ in U.S. and Europe have not raised the white flag: Ukraine is too good a weapon for their needs, to be tossed lightly aside.
This focus on the Ukraine crisis however, is to ‘see the trees, yet miss the wood’: We have three – not one – ticking landmines, ready to ignite. Three ‘fronts’: Each are distinct, yet closely inter-related, and are now threaded by unknown levels of strategic aims and synchronicity: Ukraine, Taiwan, and the faltering JCPOA Accord – which is now sparking untold angst in Tel Aviv.
The wood not seen for these three trees lies with the unresolved issue of European security architecture; Middle East security architecture; and indeed, of global security architecture. The existing rules-based order has passed its sell-by date: It provides neither security, nor does it reflect the reality of today’s Great Power balances. It has become a pathogen. Simply put, it is too fossilised in the post-WW2 lietkultur.
In a recent CNN interview, Fareed Zakaria, asked Jake Sullivan, Biden’s Security Adviser:
So what is it, after all your ‘tough talk’, that you have been able to agree with China; what has been negotiated? ‘
Wrong question’ was Sullivan’s sharp retort. “Wrong metric”, he said flatly: Don’t ask about bilateral agreements – ask about what else we have secured. The right way to think about this, he said, is:
“Have we set the terms of an effective competition where the U.S. is in a position to defend its values and advance its interests – not just in the Indo-Pacific, but around the world…”.
“We want to create the circumstance in which two major powers will operate in an international system for the foreseeable future – and we want the terms of that system to be favorable to American interests and values: It is rather, a favorable disposition in which the U.S. and its allies can shape the international rules of the road on the sorts of issues that are fundamentally going to matter to the people of our country [America] and to the people everywhere … “.
It is this maximalist lietkultur which is leading us to a point where these three explosive issues together risk a fundamental convulsion of the global order.
You have to go back a long way to find a moment when our world was as vulnerable to a sudden change in fortunes – what Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph terms, “The West’s nightmare: a war on three fronts”.
What is going on?
Well, it is certainly something very far-reaching.
And why the U.S. insistence on such an absolute stance for the global order – according to which other Great Powers get no right to set their own security red lines?
Well, it is because … the ‘four horsemen’ of the Great Transitions:
- The Pandemic – leading into a global health regulatory system;
- the Climate Emergency – leading to a global CO2 regime of credits and debits;
- the tech and AI revolution – leading us into a global era of automation and ‘bots’ (and job losses); and fourthly,
- the Transition from classical economics to that of global Modern Monetary Theory that requires a global re-set of the world’s mountain of debt that will never be repaid.
Sullivan’s vision of the ‘foreseeable future’ is essentially conceived around this ‘higher order’ project: The preservation of global ‘rules of the road’, framed to reflect U.S. and allied interests’, as the base from which the clutch of ‘transitions’ – health, climate change, managerial and monetary technocracy – can be levered from the national parliamentary prerogative, up to a supra-national level of business and tech managerial collectives of ‘expertise’ (devoid of accountability to national parliamentary oversight).
Separated in this way into such spheres as health precautions, climate recovery, fostering tech ‘miracles’, and money issuance severed from taxation – they sound non-ideological, and somehow almost utopian.
It was well understood that all these transitions would overturn long-standing human ways of life that are ancient and deeply rooted, and inevitably would trigger dissidence – which is why new forms of social ‘discipline’, and the usurpation of control from national accountability, to the supranational plane, is so important. It certainly isn’t making people “happy”, (as per Davos).
Hmmm! … the ideological underbelly to this ‘higher order’ re-set may be obscured from view, as non-partisan, but it is he who decides the international standards, the protocols, the metrics, and the rules for these transitions, who is Sovereign – as Carl Schmitt once noted.
Sullivan at least has the integrity to be frank about the unseen ideology to the re-set:
“We want the terms of that system to be favourable to American interests and values: It is rather, a favourable disposition in which the U.S. and its allies can shape the international rules of the road on the sorts of issues that are fundamentally going to matter to the people of our country [America] and to the people everywhere …”.
We are talking here of something which clearly goes well beyond the scope of the Biden summits with Xi and Putin, and the Vienna JCPOA talks.
President Putin has warned that any encroachment of NATO infrastructure or forces into Ukraine would not be permitted.
And that Russia would decisively act to prevent it.
Similarly, Iran has stated explicitly that any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities will not be tolerated. It would result in the Iranian destruction of Israeli vital infrastructure across the full territory.
And Iran’ and Russia’s stance is identical with that of China in respect to Taiwan: President Xi made that plain in the virtual summit that he held with Biden on 15 November.
Xi warned that any move by Taiwan to secede is not permitted, and would be met by a military response.
In Vienna, Iran simply stated its ‘red lines’:
- No discussion of Iran’s ballistic missiles;
- no discussion of Iran’s regional role; and
- no freezing of enrichment – as long as the mechanism for lifting sanctions and ensuring their non-recurrence is not agreed upon – effectively calling for a return to the original framework of the 2015 accord.
Iran demands binding guarantees that sanctions will not arbitrarily be re-imposed; that trade normalisation will not be informally hobbled again contrary to the terms of the accord, as happened under Obama (the U.S. Treasury Department pursued its own anti-trade policy, at variance with that of the White House); and that all sanctions must be lifted.
What should be noted here is the context: Note that the Iranian position is almost identical in content to that enunciated by Russia, vis à vis the U.S., in respect to Ukraine: Putin’s demand to Washington is that Russian interests and ‘red lines’ be formally acknowledged and accepted; that legally binding agreements be made in respect to Russia’s security in eastern Europe; and the absolute demand for no further NATO encroachment to the East, and a veto on any NATO infrastructure exported to Ukraine.
This is very new – in geo-politics, co-incidences of this nature don’t just spontaneously happen.
It is evident that the three powers are strategically co-ordinated, politically and likely militarily, too.
Western states are stunned: It is the first time that others are dictating to them – setting out their red lines – rather than being instructed on how to conform to American red lines.
They are disconcerted, and unsure what to do next.
And, as Anatol Lieven astutely notes, some actions would have grave strategic consequences:
“quite apart from the global economic damage that would result from a war in Ukraine, and the ways in which China would take advantage of such a crisis, the West has a very strong reason indeed to avoid a new war: the West would lose”.
Lieven continues:
“This would also risk becoming a world war; for it is virtually certain that China would exploit a war between the United States and Russia, thereby threatening the United States with the risk of two wars simultaneously – and defeat in both”.
For now, the U.S. and its allies repeat the usual bromides about ‘all options being on the table’; of crippling sanctions, and of an international coalition being formed to pressure and oppose such non-compliance.
For, without competitor compliance (or these states’ effective political isolation and condemnation), the higher project of raising these seemingly ‘non-ideological’ transitions to a supra-national sphere whose standards, protocols, etcetera (‘terms of the system’ in Sullivan’s words) will not be achieved.
It will not prove possible to upload a ‘Washington Consensus’ software update when these three states simply refuse Sullivan’s ‘rules’.
A strategic reset however will not come easily.
The west is embedded in meme-warfare, which makes a strategic order partition all the harder.
Any compromise on the narrative that Russia cannot have its own red lines; cannot dictate whether not Ukraine joins NATO; nor determine where NATO sites its missiles and nukes, risks Biden being seen as weak.
Republicans already pre-emptively have blamed what they call Biden’s ‘weakness’ for having encouraged ‘dangerous adventurism’ from Moscow.
Then again, perhaps these two summits – together with Iran’s stance in Vienna – represent the beginning of the end to the West’s Rules-Based Order, and a countdown to a new geo-strategic balance between the two axis – and ultimately therefore, to peace or war.
Meanwhile…
US bans UAE from hosting Chinese navy
So the UAE is not a sovereign nation? It is a vassal state under the thumb of America? From HERE.
During a conference call on 15 November 2021, President Joe Biden assured his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping that his country was not seeking war with China, but only loyal competition. As for China, it rejects any form of rivalry and aims to establish “win-win” relations.
However, according to the Wall Street Journal, back in September the CIA had spotted construction activity for what appeared to be a Chinese naval military facility in Abu Dhabi.
That same month, National Security Secretary Jake Sullivan together with his Coordinator for the Greater Middle East, Brett McGurk, were dispatched to the Emirates.
The two American men presented Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (“MBZ”) with satellite photos, ordering him to stop the construction immediately or face “consequences”.
China currently boasts the most powerful navy in the world, outdistancing the United States. She built a naval base in Djibouti in 2017 to grapple (efficiently) with the threat of Somali pirates, then signed a secret agreement in 2019 to establish a base in Cambodia. In addition, she set up civilian naval bases in Pakistan and Sri Lanka which could quickly be repurposed for military use.
The United Arab Emirates are home to a large US naval base and, in order to safeguard their independence, also host a French base.
…
And the UAE response?
UAE threatens to pull out of massive military deal with US
From HERE.
The United Arab Emirates has reportedly threatened to quit a $23-billion military deal with the US over Washington’s tough requirements meant to shield the weapons against what the Americans call “Chinese espionage.”
The deal was made during former US president Donald Trump’s twilight days in office. On paper, it enables the Emirates to acquire American-made F-35 aircraft, Reaper drones, and other advanced munitions.
On Tuesday, however, The Wall Street Journal cited an Emirati official as saying,
“The UAE has informed the US that it will suspend discussions to acquire the F-35.” “Technical requirements, sovereign operational restrictions, and the cost/benefit analysis led to the reassessment,”
The source added.
The Journal considered the development to be equal to
“a significant shake-up between two longtime allies.”
It tried to attribute the Emirati snub to Abu Dhabi’s partnership with Beijing and the latter’s growing influence in the region.
“The collapse of the deal would fuel perceptions within the Middle East and elsewhere that America’s decades-long role as security provider of choice in the region is diminishing,”
It wrote.
Among other things, the paper said, the US has long been concerned about Abu Dhabi’s economic ties with Beijing and its involvement with the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co.
Huawei provides the Emirates with its communications infrastructure. US officials and members of Congress allege, though, that the company is a national-security threat. The company and the Chinese government have denied such allegations.
An important comment
As one who played “duck, cover & kiss your sweet a*s good-bye” in my fourth grade grammar school during the Cuban/Turkish Missile Crisis, I still think that a repeat of such a memorable event is more probable than a European conflict.
The reasons are as follows:
1) As pointed out by many in this drinking establishment, the Russian leadership is pretty miffed that the Americans get to hide behind an ocean and Europe while the latter plays “Russian Roulette” with the crispness of Eurasia region. Methinks the Russians would prefer the Americans get to feel the heat for a change. At the same time, strategically, its better PR with the locals to threaten the Americans rather than their European cannon fodder.
2) The Russians have already given an indirect threat of moving mobile missile launchers into the Western Hemisphere. Read below in Sputnik. In that article the authors claimed that the Chinese have the capability of moving mobile launchers anywhere in the world inside shipping containers. This article was published the same day as Blinken’s assertion that Russia has no right to drawing red lines, and was picked up by Global Security, the Sun, and others.
Overlooked is a reference in Wikipedia, posted by who knows who, which describes just that with the the Club K Kalibr cruise missile. The article was posted a number of years ago, and is complete with a photo in a container launching platform and a reference to a 2011 showing at the MAKS 2011 Air Show. I’m sure US intelligence is aware of this fact, as it was also covered in navyrecognition.com in 2019. As I stated in the open thread when I first posted it, the Neo-cons are not that bright and need to be hit over the head emotionally to have that “ah-ha” experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr
3) One of the biggest televised events in the original stand-off was the blockade of Cuba by the US Navy. This is interesting in two respects. First, that maneuver is much more difficult due to much better aircraft transport and smaller rockets, and secondly it will be seen as hypocritical to a possible blockade by the Chinese of Taiwan and American stated “Freedom of Self Defense”, and “Freedom of Navigation”. It therefore underlines the notion of “spheres of influence” at a visceral level.
It’s getting to be a very, very interesting world.
-Michael.j
Putting all the pieces together…
Now I know it's serious. -Keith Granger[1] America has established who their allies are. (With the “Summit for democracy”.) [2] It has promised financial outlays for their version of “democracy” to all the nations that will side with them. (Just look at the financial budgets out of Washington DC.) [3] It is really pushing towards war with the nations that are not part of their coalition. (Russia, China, Iran, and any other nation that shows any kind of independence.) They are making bold demands, and pushing, pushing, and pushing for a response. They do not expect anything other than a localized strike, where they can then retaliate with the full force of their military currently in place.
To me, it is obvious. The United States has determined to wage war. Not just against China but against the entire rest of the world, and is now trying to determine who it’s friends and enemies are.
They are pushing for their “enemies” to “make the first move”. Then they will act, with systems already put in place and ready to launch.
No wonder China is building nuke swarm hyper-velocity missiles like there’s no tomorrow.
Maybe it’s because maybe there isn’t going to be one.
We will all be in for gruesome times. No need to play with words here. -Pnyx
Do you want more?
You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.
New Beginnings 2.
Articles & Links
Master Index.
- You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
- You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
- You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
- You can find out more about the author HERE.
- If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
- If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.
