Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump files for divorce from NATO over Ukraine

By Larry Johnson | RT | December 6, 2025

It is one thing to produce a written national security strategy, but the real test is whether or not US President Donald Trump is serious about implementing it. The key takeaways are the rhetorical deescalation with China and putting the onus on Europe to keep Ukraine alive.

The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the US, released by the White House on December 4, 2025, marks a potentially profound shift in US foreign policy under Trump’s second administration compared to his first term as president. This 33-page document explicitly embraces an ‘America First’ doctrine, rejecting global hegemony and ideological crusades in favor of pragmatic, transactional realism focused on protecting core national interests: Homeland security, economic prosperity, and regional dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

It critiques past US overreach as a failure that weakened America, positioning Trump’s approach as a “necessary correction” to usher in a “new golden age.” The strategy prioritizes reindustrialization (aiming to grow the US economy from $30 trillion to $40 trillion by the 2030s), border security, and dealmaking over multilateralism or democracy promotion. It accepts a multipolar world, downgrading China from a “pacing threat” to an “economic competitor,” and calling for selective engagement with adversaries. However, Trump’s actions during the first 11 months of his presidency have been inconsistent with, even contradictory of, the written strategy.

The document is unapologetically partisan, crediting Trump personally for brokering peace in eight conflicts (including the India-Pakistan ceasefire, the Gaza hostage return, the Rwanda-DRC agreement) and securing a verbal commitment at the 2025 Hague Summit for NATO members to boost their defense spending to 5% of GDP. It elevates immigration as a top security threat, advocating lethal force against cartels if needed, and dismisses climate change and ‘net zero’ policies as harmful to US interests.

The document organizes US strategy around three pillars: Homeland defense, the Western Hemisphere, and economic renewal. Secondary focuses include selective partnerships in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Here are the major rhetorical shifts in strategy compared to the previous strategies released during the respective presidencies of Trump (2017) and Biden (2022):

  • From global cop to regional hegemon: Unlike Biden’s 2022 NSS (which emphasized alliances and great-power competition) or Trump’s 2017 version (which named China and Russia as revisionists), this document ends America’s “forever burdens” abroad. It prioritizes the Americas over Eurasia, framing Europe and the Middle East as deprioritized theaters.
  • Ideological retreat: Democracy promotion is explicitly abandoned – “we seek peaceful commercial relations without imposing democratic change” (tell that to the Venezuelans). Authoritarians are not judged, and the EU is called “anti-democratic.”
  • Confrontational ally relations: Europe faces scathing criticism for migration, free speech curbs, and risks of “civilizational erasure” (e.g., demographic shifts making nations “unrecognizable in 20 years”). The US vows to support the “patriotic” European parties resisting this, drawing Kremlin-like rhetoric accusations from EU leaders.
  • China policy: Acknowledges failed engagement; seeks “mutually advantageous” ties but with deterrence (e.g., Taiwan as a priority). No full decoupling, but restrictions on tech/dependencies.
  • Multipolar acceptance: Invites regional powers to manage their spheres (e.g., Japan in East Asia, Arab-Israeli bloc in the Gulf), signaling US restraint to avoid direct confrontations.

The NSS represents a seismic shift in America’s approach to NATO, emphasizing “burden-shifting” over unconditional alliance leadership. It frames NATO not as a values-based community but as a transactional partnership in which US commitments – troops, funding, and nuclear guarantees – are tied to European allies meeting steep new demands. This America First recalibration prioritizes US resources for the Indo-Pacific and Western Hemisphere, de-escalating in Europe to avoid “forever burdens.” Key changes include halting NATO expansion, demanding 5% GDP defense spending by 2035, and restoring “strategic stability” with Russia via a Ukraine ceasefire. While the US reaffirms Article 5 and its nuclear umbrella, it signals potential partial withdrawals by 2027 if Europe fails to step up, risking alliance cohesion amid demographic and ideological critiques of Europe. When Russia completes the defeat of Ukraine, the continued existence of NATO will be a genuine concern.

The strategy credits Trump’s diplomacy for NATO’s 5% pledge at the 2025 Hague Summit but warns of “civilizational erasure” in Europe due to migration and low birth rates, speculating that some members could become “majority non-European” within decades, potentially eroding their alignment with US interests.

Trump’s NSS signals a dramatic change in US policy toward the Ukraine conflict by essentially dumping the responsibility for keeping Ukraine afloat on the Europeans. The portion of the NSS dealing with Ukraine is delusional with regard to the military capabilities of the European states:

We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation… This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons.

As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant US diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.

It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.

The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. Today, German chemical companies are building some of the world’s largest processing plants in China, using Russian gas that they cannot obtain at home. The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis.

Not surprisingly, this section of Trump’s NSS has sparked a panicked outcry in Europe. European leaders, including former Swedish PM Carl Bildt, called it “to the right of the extreme right,” warning of alliance erosion. Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) praise its pragmatism, but flag short-sightedness, predicting a “lonelier, weaker” US. China views reassurances on sovereignty positively, but remains wary of economic pressures. In the US, Democrats, such as Rep. Jason Crow, deem it “catastrophic” for alliances, i.e. NATO.

Overall, the strategy signals a US pivot inward, forcing NATO allies to self-fund security while risking fractured partnerships with Europe. It positions America as a wealthy hemispheric power in a multipolar order, betting on dealmaking and industrial revival to sustain global influence without overextension.

Larry Johnson is a political analyst and commentator, former CIA analyst and member of the US State Department’s Office for Counterterrorism.

December 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

POLITICO’s Delusion Cracks: Belgium Isn’t Helping Russia — It’s Trying to Save Europe From Itself

By Gerry Nolan | The Islander | December 5, 2025

The great farce of late-imperial Europe is that every time Brussels stumbles into another historic blunder of its own making, it immediately searches for a foreign hand to blame. And so the EU’s court chronicler, Politico, delivers its latest fever dream: that Belgium, the most indecisive, over-medicated country in the bloc, has somehow transformed into “Russia’s most valuable asset.” In reality, the only asset Russia needed was the EU’s own arrogance.

Belgium merely did the unthinkable, it told the truth.

What Politico dresses up as geopolitical intrigue is actually a confession of EU derangement. The EU are trying to engineer the largest state-sanctioned theft of sovereign wealth in modern history, a direct raid on the Russian Central Bank’s reserves and expected applause, unity, and moral ecstasy. Instead, Belgium asked the only sane question left in Europe: “Are you all completely out of your minds?” For this, Politico paints De Wever as eccentric, impulsive, unstable, the same labels always deployed when someone refuses to bow to the imperial autopilot. But the deeper scandal is that Brussels expected him to sign off on detonating the post-war financial order for the sake of one more photo-op with Zelensky.

Politico can hide behind metaphors of summit dinners and langoustines, but the legal reality is brutal: raiding another nation’s central bank is not a policy disagreement. It is a declaration of financial war on the entire world. It would obliterate sovereign immunity, destroy the neutrality of reserve holdings, and instantly signal to the global South that their assets in EU banks are hostage to EU’s emotional spasms. One act, one reckless stroke of a pen, and the euro collapses as a safe currency, capital flees to Asia, and the West loses its last functional pillar of power. Belgium saw the cliff’s edge, Brussels mistook it for a (perverse) moral leap of faith.

Politico’s narrative stumbles further when it pretends the only danger lies in Moscow’s retaliation. It does not. Russia’s symmetric countermeasures are well-known, lawful, and devastating: nationalization of Western corporate assets, seizure of industrial infrastructure, liquidation of bond holdings, and the dismantling of Western financial footprints inside Russia. The value of Western assets exposed inside the Russian Federation rivals what sits in Euroclear. Brussels knows this. Euroclear knows this. Investors know this. Only the EU pretends the ledger is irrelevant. But the real threat is not Russia’s response , it is the irreversible collapse of trust in Western custodianship. Once the EU steals central bank reserves, no nation with self-respect will ever again store wealth in Europe. The theft of Russian reserves would be remembered not as an isolated act, but as the day the West proved it cannot be trusted with global money, let alone soverign assets.

This is the part Politico is terrified to articulate. Belgium wasn’t protecting Russia. Belgium is trying to protect the very system the EU purports to defend. Yet instead of portraying De Wever as the only adult in the room, Politico stages a melodrama about a Flemish nationalist gone rogue, supposedly spoiling the EU’s grandiose plan to hurl another €140 billion onto the Ukrainian funeral pyre. The reality is simpler, Belgium refused to mortgage its own future so Europe could continue its cosplay as a geopolitical superpower utterly detached from material reality. The EU elite wanted to play empire with someone else’s risk. Belgium refused to be the guarantor of their delusion.

What makes Politico’s narrative even more absurd is that it accidentally reveals the deeper rot, Europe’s elite caste are incapable of unity, incapable of strategic thought, incapable of honesty. Merz shoots from the hip. Von der Leyen improvises legal fantasies. Orbán holds a veto the size of a continental fault line. Trump instinctively knows he needs an offramp via peace talks and is happy to download project Ukraine’s corpse along with the humiliation onto Western Europe. Zelensky arrives in Brussels begging for cash while European governments fight over whether the money should be spent on their own weapons factories. This is not a union. This is a collective suicide pact.

And through all this chaos, Politico clings to the illusion that Russia must somehow be “laughing.” But Russia isn’t laughing. Russia is watching. Watching as Europe destroys its own energy security, its own industrial base, its own strategic autonomy, its own diplomatic credibility, its own financial reputation, and finally — with this proposed asset raid — the very legal foundations of the Western economic system. If Moscow appears calm, it is because it doesn’t need to act. Europe is demolishing itself at a pace Russia could never have engineered.

Belgium’s “no” was not an act of betrayal. It was the last flicker of European rationality. The EU’s hysteria and psychosis, not Russia, created the crisis. Europe is trying to violate international law, sabotage its own financial institutions, and torch what remains of the bygone postwar order to salvage the illusion of a war it has already lost. Belgium simply refused to join the ritual suicide.

So let us rewrite Politico’s headline as history will record it: “How the EU Became Russia’s Greatest Strategic Gift.” Not because Russia manipulated Europe, but because Europe manipulated itself, into hysteria, into decay, into legal nihilism, into economic ruin. Belgium didn’t hand Russia an asset. It denied the EU the final act of self-destruction… for now.

The tragic irony of the entire Politico piece is that its authors still cling to the fantasy that Europe can recover simply by shaming Belgium into compliance. But history will not be kind to this moment. When future scholars study the collapse of the Western financial empire, this attempted seizure of Russian assets and Belgium’s lonely refusal, will stand as the point where the veil fell, revealing a Europe that could no longer distinguish faux moral posturing from strategic insanity.

Belgium didn’t break with Europe, it broke with Europe’s delusions. The EU convinced itself that tearing down the last pillars of the post-war order was an act of courage. Belgium saw it for what it was, a death rite dressed as morality. And when this era ends, when capitals move eastward, when trust evaporates, when the euro cracks under the weight of its own blind arrogance, historians will look back on this moment. They will not ask why Belgium said no. They will ask why Europe said yes.

December 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Denmark hit by boomerang effect: War vs. welfare

By Ron Ridenour | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 3, 2025

The Social Democratic Party (SD), which has led two governments since 2019, experienced the worst regional election in a century thanks to its leading role in spending more on the Ukraine-Russia war than any other country per capita, and number four in absolute sums—$13 billion, with another billion in the pipeline.

That is $2,100 per person. It is also three times Denmark’s defense budget as of three years ago. The U.S. has appropriated $184 billion for a population of 340 million, according to the March 2025 Department of Defense figures. That is $410 per person.

According to EU figures from August, the EU has spent $186 billion, committed $54 billion more, and has “mobilized” $3.9bn of Russian assets kept in western finance institutions for Ukraine. More than $300bn Russian funds have been “immobilized” and might be used to kill Russians and Ukrainians. Danes think they are protecting Ukraine’s “democracy and sovereignty”, and do so at greater cost to them than any of the 57 countries citizens lined up against Russia.

SD Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen heads a three-party coalition government, including the conservative Moderate party and the land-owner conservative Liberal (Venstre) Party. Moderate Party is a recent off-shoot of the Liberal Party. Frederiksen’s ratings before the proxy war against Russia fluxed between 27% and 35%. Following November 18 regional elections, Frederiksen’s rating fell to 17%.

Social Democrats lost mayor posts in most towns and main cities, including the over-mayor post in Copenhagen, which it has held for over 100 years. Leading members of Frederiksen’s party are calling for a new leader already a year before parliament elections.

None of the 12 parliamentary political parties in Denmark, or the handful of Communist and Trotskyist parties, consider that Russia has the right to protect its sovereignty against the ever-encroaching NATO alliance, which now has six countries bordering Russia out of 14 countries around its border. Schools do not allow pro-Russian views to be taught, nor does the media allow pro-Russian views to be expressed.

Nevertheless, for the first time to this reporter’s knowledge, state-sponsored TV news, and other msm, began reporting following the November election that many voters are tired of spending so much money for Ukraine, and less for welfare. Voters mainly blame the key spokesperson for war, Social Democrat Frederisken.

The Social Democrat-led governments have increased NATO funding from 1.3% of its GNP to 3.5% since 2022, and plan to reach 5% to meet President Trump’s demand. Defense budgets have tripled since 2022.

The mass media usually does not report on Ukrainian corruption, but they did when on November 10 anti-corruption investigators revealed that at least $100 million was siphoned from contracts to rebuild energy losses, plus money laundering conducted by Justice Minister German Galushchenko and, ironically, the Energy Minister, Svitlana Grynchuk.

Investigators also searched Tymur Mindich’s house just hours after he fled to Israel, in order to avoid possible prosecution. Mindich is considered President Zelenskyy’s close associate and confidant. Among other roles, he is co-owner of the TV production company “Kvartal-95,” which Zelenskyy helped set up.

In reality, Ukraine’s government officials have skimmed scores of $billions from at least $400 billion sent to Ukraine. It is no longer taboo to be wary of continued support despite the population’s traditional culture of not challenging Denmark’s authority powers. This scandal created skepticism about just what this war is all about only a week before Danes went to the polls.

Even the CIA-friendly Wikipedia admits that corruption is endemic. “Corruption in Ukraine is a significant issue that effects society going back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.”

Welfare Down $4 Billion

The largest magazine in Denmark is Ældre Sagen (Senior’s Cause) with a 750,000 circulation out of six million people often reports on how the governments are spending less on welfare. Since 2015, welfare spending has deceased three percent ($4 billion).

The current issue of “Senior’s Cause” shows how much less support there is for seniors who cannot care for themselves without communes’ health care. Lack of help for bathing when needed has increased to 37% from 20% in 2021, just before the war. Percentage of elders need for cleaning homes has increased to 45% from 33% in the same period. Only 40% of those who have need for help at home or take a walk receive any whereas it was 56% just four years ago.

Sanctions against Russia cause a boomerang effect, because Danes have to use much more money to import expensive oil and gas energy sources from Norway and the U.S. after they sabotaged the Nord Stream Pipelines, with Sweden and Denmark’s assistance.

Food prices have skyrocketed in the past couple of years. Just before the war, average Danes used 15% of their income for food and now 17%. Moreover, some favorite items have skyrocketed in price: coffee by 67%, hamburger meat by 50%, cheese 47%, milk 44%.

Despite silent but growing war weariness, PM Frederiksen spent time during her local election campaign to provoke Russia even though the election had nothing to do with foreign policy. She blamed Russia for sending drones over Denmark for which no evidence has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, some elected politicians proposed to shoot down drones that fly over these “targets” even if it may not be known that “they” are drones, or even if the senders are unknown.

Among false accusations was her claim that a Russian tanker, Boracay, which was sailing peacefully in international waters close to Denmark, was a “provocation”. At that time, Frederiksen was entertaining 26 heads of state on the Prime Minister grounds to discuss how to keep the war going in Ukraine. Her French sidekick, President Emmanuel Macron, then sent a war ship with soldiers to seize Boracay with the intention of putting its captain on trial.

Macron said: “We want to increase pressure on Russia to convince it to return to the negotiating table… [we are moving] towards to a policy of obstruction when we have suspicious ships in our waters that are involved in this trafficking.”

“Trafficking” means shipping oil to-and-fro countries, which is what the world’s capitalist economies do.

The Danish government is also encouraging more youth to join the military for longer times than the 11-month draft increased from just four months. The draft now includes women. The proposal to have women forced into military garb came during this war by a former communist party, now called Enhedslisten (Red Green Alliance or Unity List). It has nine of the Parliament’s 179 members.

Denmark invites Ukraine to produce rocket fuel

In September, the Danish government announced that it will build a factory for Ukraine missiles by the military Skrydstrup airport near the town of Vojens. Skrydstrup is where most of Denmark’s F-35s are located and where the U.S. will have one of its military contingents. This is the first time that a NATO country has invited a Ukrainian firm to produce weaponry on its soil.

The Ukrainian company Four Points is behind the project. It is best known for developing the 3,000-km range Flamingo cruise missile, which is having difficulties when fired. Four Points and Denmark will employ a couple hundred workers. They will produce rocket fuel and parts for at least two types of ballistic missiles, FP-7 and FP-9. These missiles will be transported to Ukraine where the military will fire them at targets inside Russia. FP-7 has a range of 200 kilometers at a speed of 1,500 meters per second. FP-9 has an 855-kilometer range at 2,200 meters per second.

At first, it was left unstated whether fuel will be made for the Flamenco in Denmark. Nevertheless, Denmark is considering buying some Ukrainian missiles and/or U.S.’s long-range Tomahawks. Denmark has put up $80 million for the rocket fuel project.

The media reported the response of Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin: “Denmark is determined to continue the bloodshed in Ukraine. If Ukraine produces rocket fuel for cruise missiles on Danish soil, then it is increasingly difficult not to consider Denmark a direct participant in the conflict. The Ukrainian side has stated very openly that these missiles are intended to carry out attacks deep inside Russia.”

Then, a week after Zelensky’s buddy Minditi fled to Israel, it was revealed that he is the “mastermind” behind Four Points. Vojens citizens and opposition political parties now demand that their government assure people that no corruption will take place when the Ukraine team comes to work beside Danish workers to build the rocket fuel factory. No one is yet publically questioning why do this when it is all too apparent that Russia will win this war soon.

That scandal, though, was not enough. On November 30, the main war commander and peace negotiator, Chief-of-Staff Andriy Yermark, was forced to resign due to new economic corruption revelations, the extent of which is not yet out. These scandals tell the world that Zelensky only wants personal loyalty for his side-kicks, and not honesty and competence.

Nevertheless, construction of the war factory began as planned on December 1, under the name FPRT ApS. The media let many local citizens express concern that something amiss could occur, such as explosions of fuel inside the factory, and concern about what Russia might do.

Denmark Supports Palestinian Genocide While Preparing for Total War

Denmark’s government is also a supporter of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. There was even an arms fair last August with seven Israel weapons firms selling their wares and Danish weapons sold to Israel. The weapons festival was held at the invitation of Denmark’s military. Two parliamentary parties complained about Israel’s participation. What was the Danish government’s explanation? “We need to quickly rearm for national security to meet the Russian threat.”

Frederiksen and company have concocted one falsehood after another about how Russia will attack first one of its non-NATO neighboring countries, then one NATO neighbor, and within five years invade the entire of Europe: 32 NATO countries have a total of 3.33 million troops (2022) compared to Russia’s 850,000. Six hundred million people inhabit the 30 European NATO countries, compared to Russia’s 140 million. The two North American NATO countries have 335 million and 40 million.

Allegedly, the only obstacle for Russia’s total invasion is to finish the war in Ukraine. Denmark’s only intelligence service, the Defense Intelligence Service (FE), subordinate to the CIA (about which I have written extensively), purports this scenario without offering one iota of evidence.

Since this hypothesis-as-truth surfaced last February, we are repeatedly told by politicians, military experts, and the media to prepare for war by storing water, food, medicines, hygiene articles, warm clothes and blankets, batteries, flashlights, cash, sun-cell or battery radios for three days. Shelters should be constructed or repaired. Land-owner-associations shall call community meetings to learn how best to prepare for war. Military experts are available to give advice.

Following the recent economic corruption cases, the media is open to question how long the war will last as enthusiasm is waning. For instance, some media reports that very few people are actually following the government’s advice to hoard necessities in case of war.

TV stations have long run several one-sided war programs daily. However, on November 26, DR TV’s “War’s Day” weekly program closed with a truthful and cynical Major in the Defense Academy stating: “If the Americans pull out completely, it will be very difficult for Ukraine but still better for us Europeans to continue fighting there, and cheaper than fighting Russians elsewhere.”

Danish Voters Getting Tired of War Cries

In September, dozens of drones (possibly) of various sizes popped up over civilian and military airports. Some were in the air for four hours the first day. Earlier reports of the like turned out to be that the “drones” were sun reflections, but this time they were real, averred the government.

Should unannounced drones be shot down, asked msm and some politicians? The hard-core right says yes. Middle-of-the-roaders point out that when Poland shot down a drone, its own missile destroyed a Polish house.

The key tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet went bananas. Its September 26 headline, “Drone Catastrophe-Denmark Humiliated” started seven pages of text and photos with front and back cover—one-fourth of the newspaper. Its reporters sharply criticized the government-military management for not either shooting them down or intercepting them, or knowing where they came from or where they went.

However, the tone in some media changed. I was pleasantly surprised to read the front-page story in the Christian Daily, November 28, headlined: “Critique: Drone-Communication Has Created Fear and Wild Theories”.

The article opens with a staunch supporter of Ukraine war. “Frederiksen and government rhetoric brings Denmark more in danger than what is necessary, and that worries me…Denmark’s interference in the war is too quick-tempered.”

The article points out that after several days of government shouting about how the Russians are threatening “our skies, our airports… ” silence ensued. No proof of what the “drone interference” really was, not even if they were drones, or where they came from. Nevertheless, Frederiksen wouldn’t give up her rhetoric about the evil Russians. The newspaper quoted her: “It is primarily one land that constitutes a threat: Russia.”

The daily ended with the conclusion that the government presents its people with “a lack of information. [Regardless of what the disturbances were] the point is the government wishes to frighten the people and in that way keep them in an iron cage.”

Just three days before this seminal front-page story, PM Frederiksen spoke on TV about how it was still possible for Ukraine with even more massive European aid to win the war. She said so after Russia completely rejected Europe’s “Coalition of the Willing” 19-point peace proposal as a substitute to Trump’s 28-point plan, which the government and media imply is pro-Russian and supported by President Putin. Both suppositions are false.

The only peace plan for the inevitable Russian victory will be:

  1. a) Crimean and Donbas regions now in the Russian Federation since the peoples’ referendum remain in Russia.
  2. b) Ukraine will not be in NATO nor have associated “military security”.
  3. c) Legal protection for ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
  4. d) A de-Nazification process must begin to re-educate the rampant fascist mentality instilled in the government and military, and much of the population since the 2014 neo-fascist coup financed and organized by the Obama-administration.

November 2025 will be remembered as the beginning of the end for PM Mette Frederiksen’s political career, and the end of silence among the Danish population: Enough is Enough!

December 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Putin reveals new plans with China and India

RT | December 2, 2025

Moscow wants to further develop its economic ties with its key trade partners, China and India, President Vladimir Putin said at the ‘Russia Calling!’ investment forum on Tuesday.

Beijing and New Delhi have refused to join Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict and have instead boosted trade with Russia. The Russian leader hailed what he called a “rational and pragmatic” approach to cooperation taken by the two countries.

Putin paid tribute to “many years of friendship and strategic partnership” with both China and India, adding that the volume of trade with each has “significantly grown” over the past three years.

“We are aiming at taking cooperation with the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India to a whole new level, including through enhancing its technological aspect,” Putin stated.

Russia and China nearly doubled their bilateral trade from 2020 to 2024, surpassing $240 billion last year. Last month, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that the two nations had abandoned Western currencies in mutual settlements, with most payments now conducted in rubles and yuan.

Last month, Moscow and Beijing published a joint roadmap for further developing bilateral ties. They vowed to provide mutual assistance on issues ranging from agriculture, trade, ecology, and investment to AI and space exploration.

India’s exports to Russia are currently worth $5 billion, while imports from Russia amount to $64 billion. The countries are aiming to increase bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2030. Russia is also expanding joint production with India in many areas, both military and civilian.

Earlier on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow is also ready to share its technological knowledge with New Delhi. “Whatever can be shared with India, will be shared,” he said.

Putin is expected to discuss the joint production of Russia’s fifth generation Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jets with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his trip to India later this week.

December 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

EU central bank rejects von der Leyen’s asset-theft plan

RT | December 2, 2025

The European Central Bank has refused to support a proposed €140 billion payout to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets held at Belgium’s Euroclear, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing officials familiar with the discussions.

The ECB determined that the European Commission’s scheme falls outside its mandate, the newspaper reported.

The EU has spent months trying to tap frozen Russian central bank reserves to back a €140 billion ($160 billion) “reparations loan” for Kiev. Belgium, where around $200 billion of the assets is held at the privately owned Euroclear clearing house, has repeatedly warned of potential litigation as well as financial risks if the EU goes through with the scheme.

Under the European Commission’s plan, EU nations’ governments would provide state guarantees to share the repayment risk on the loan for Ukraine.

Commission officials, however, have warned that member states might be unable to mobilize cash quickly in an emergency, risking market strains.

EU officials reportedly asked the ECB whether it could act as a lender of last resort to Euroclear Bank, the Belgian depository’s lending arm, to prevent a liquidity crunch. ECB officials told the commission this was not possible, the FT reported, citing sources familiar with the talks.

“Such a proposal is not under consideration as it would likely violate EU treaty law prohibiting monetary financing,” the ECB said.

Brussels is now reportedly working on alternative ways to provide temporary liquidity to backstop the €140 billion loan.

“Ensuring the necessary liquidity for possible obligations to return the assets to the Russian central bank is an important part of a possible reparations loan,” the FT quoted an EC spokesperson as saying.

Euroclear CEO Valerie Urbain warned last week the move would be seen globally as “confiscation of central bank reserves, undermining the rule of law.” Moscow has repeatedly warned it would view any use of its sovereign assets as “theft” and respond with countermeasures.

The push comes as the cash-strapped EU faces pressure to finance Ukraine for the next two years amid Kiev’s cash crunch, with efforts to tap Russia’s assets intensifying as the US promotes a new initiative to settle the conflict. Economists estimate Ukraine is facing a budget gap of about $53 billion a year in 2025-2028, excluding additional military funding.

The country’s public and government-guaranteed debt ballooned to unseen levels of over $191 billion as of September, the Finance Ministry said. The IMF last month raised its debt forecasts for Ukraine, now predicting public debt at 108.6% of GDP.

December 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Kazakhstan blasts Ukraine after drone strike on oil export terminal

Al Mayadeen | November 30, 2025

Kazakhstan has issued a sharp diplomatic warning to Kiev after a Ukrainian naval drone severely damaged infrastructure at the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s (CPC) Black Sea terminal, forcing a halt to exports from one of the world’s most significant oil corridors.

The strike hit a Single-Point Mooring used to load tankers at the Novorossiysk facility, prompting CPC to suspend operations and remove vessels from the surrounding waters. The consortium, whose shareholders include Russian, Kazakh and US firms such as Chevron, Lukoil and ExxonMobil, said the November 29 attack left SPM-2 so badly damaged that “further operation of Single Point Mooring 2 is not possible.”

CPC transports roughly 1% of global crude supply and is responsible for almost 80% of Kazakhstan’s total oil exports, carrying millions of tonnes each year from the Tengiz, Karachaganak and Kashagan fields to the Black Sea. Any extended disruption threatens the economic backbone of the OPEC+ producer, whose oil overwhelmingly moves through this 1,500-kilometre pipeline to the Yuzhnaya Ozereevka terminal.

Kazakhstan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the incident, calling it the third Ukrainian strike on the installation this year and stressing that the terminal is a civilian facility protected under international norms.

The ministry said the country “expresses its protest over yet another deliberate attack on the critical infrastructure of the international Caspian Pipeline Consortium in the waters of the Port of Novorossiysk,” adding, “We view what has occurred as an action harming the bilateral relations of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and we expect the Ukrainian side to take effective measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.”

Ukraine has not commented on the latest strike. Kiev has repeatedly targeted Russia’s energy network, including refineries and export terminals, arguing that such facilities sustain the Kremlin’s war effort. Russian officials, meanwhile, accuse Ukraine of terrorism, executed with the support of Western intelligence services that help Ukraine identify targets deep inside Russian territory.

CPC warned that the consequences extend beyond Russia alone. “We believe that the attack on the CPC is an attack on the interests of the CPC member countries,” the consortium said.

The halt comes amid escalating maritime drone warfare in the Black Sea, where Ukraine has expanded operations in an effort to erode Moscow’s revenue sources.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Türkiye condemns alleged Ukrainian attacks on tankers

RT | November 30, 2025

Türkiye has condemned recent drone attacks on two sanctioned oil tankers off its Black Sea coast, which Ukraine has reportedly claimed responsibility for.

According to Turkish officials, the Kairos and the Virat, both Gambian-flagged vessels, were struck on Friday while en route to the Russian port of Novorossiysk. The ships caught fire and at least one sustained hull damage. The crews were rescued by the Turkish Coast Guard.

Multiple Ukrainian and Western news outlets reported that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian Navy had carried out the attack using Sea Baby drones previously deployed against Russian warships.

Ankara condemned the strikes on Saturday without blaming any country. “These incidents, which took place within our Exclusive Economic Zone in the Black Sea, have posed serious risks to navigation, human life, property, and the environment,” Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Oncu Keceli wrote on X.

Keceli added that Türkiye was communicating with all parties to “prevent the spread of war and further escalation in the Black Sea.”

The West has blacklisted the Kairos and the Virat for allegedly transporting Russian oil in violation of sanctions. Moscow has denied operating a ‘shadow fleet’ designed to skirt restrictions.

The Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), which handles around 80% of Kazakhstan’s oil exports, said on Saturday that it suspended operations after a mooring at its terminal near Novorossiysk was heavily damaged by sea drones. The operator, whose shareholders include the US companies Chevron and Exxon Mobil, described the strikes as a “targeted terrorist attack.”

November 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The Suez Canal is open again: the weird reason the global shipping industry doesn’t want to use it

Inside China Business | November 28, 2025

Houthi rebels have announced they will no longer attack shipping transiting the Red Sea and Suez Canal, though they are monitoring the situation in Gaza closely.

Global shippers can again pass through the Suez Canal, saving thousands of miles and up to two weeks of sailing time.

But the industry is in no rush to go back to the shorter routing. Doing so would be the equivalent of adding another 10% to global container capacity, or two million TEU’s.

In 2024, ocean shippers boomed, earning record revenues and profits. But this year freight rates have collapsed, and are forecast to fall further next year. Industry-wide use of the Suez will squeeze margins even more.

Closing scene, Dongting Lake Bridge, Yueyang, Hunan

Resources and links: Freightwaves, Houthi Red Sea stand down: ‘Seismic’ impact on shipping https://www.freightwaves.com/news/hou…

NBC, Yemen’s Houthi rebels signal that they’ve stopped attacks on Israel and Red Sea shipping https://www.nbcnews.com/world/middle-…

Reuters, Hapag-Lloyd pledges to address costs as nine-month profit drops 50% https://www.reuters.com/business/hapa…

Reuters, Hapag-Lloyd CEO says return to Suez route not yet in sight but looking closely https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-…

Houthi Halted Red Sea Attacks But Carriers Not Ready to Return Shipping to Suez Canal https://www.universalcargo.com/houthi…

Second US Navy jet is lost at sea from Truman aircraft carrier https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/06/po…

U.S. Navy lost a $67 million fighter jet at sea after it fell off an aircraft carrier https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/…

In 15 months, the Navy fired more air defense missiles than it did in the last 30 year https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-…

US missile depletion from Houthi, Israel conflicts may shock you https://responsiblestatecraft.org/mis…

Search for survivors after Houthis sink second Red Sea cargo ship in a week https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c30…

November 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Sea drone strike halts operations at global oil terminal

The Caspian Pipeline Consortium has described the attack on its infrastructure as serving the interests of multiple countries

RT | November 29, 2025

A major crude hub on Russia’s Black Sea coast that handles around 80% of Kazakhstan’s oil exports has suspended operations after a mooring at its terminal near Novorossiysk was heavily damaged in an attack, its operator, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), said on Saturday.

“As a result of a targeted terrorist attack using unmanned boats at 4:06 a.m. Moscow time, Single Mooring Point 2 (SMP-2) sustained significant damage,” the CPC said in a statement on its website. “At the time of the explosion, the facility’s emergency protection systems successfully shut off the relevant pipelines. Preliminary reports indicate no oil has leaked into the Black Sea, and there are no injuries among staff.”

“Further operation of Mooring Point 2 is not possible,” it added.

There was no immediate confirmation of who carried out the strike, which follows a series of Ukrainian attacks on internationally-owned energy infrastructure in Russia. In September, Ukrainian drones hit the port of Novorossiysk, damaging the CPC’s office. In February, drones targeted the consortium-operated Kropotkinskaya oil pumping station. According to Interfax-Ukraine, citing a Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) source, the most recent incident was a strike on two Russian oil tankers in the Black Sea, both hit by naval drones.

The consortium, whose shareholders include major energy companies from Russia, the United States, Kazakhstan and several Western European countries, described the incident as an attack on infrastructure serving the interests of multiple states. “No sanctions or restrictions have ever been imposed on the CPC, reflecting the company’s recognized role in safeguarding the interests of its Western shareholders,” the statement said.

Kazakhstan has activated an emergency plan to reroute crude through alternative pipelines following the disruption.

CPC said that the strike was the third act of aggression against a civilian facility protected under international law. Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) director, Aleksander Bortnikov, warned in October that Ukraine was preparing further attacks and acts of sabotage against internationally-owned energy assets.

The consortium was established in 1992 to build and operate the 1,500km Caspian Pipeline, which links oil fields in western Kazakhstan to a marine terminal in Novorossiysk and is a key route for exporting Kazakh crude. Last year, the system transported around 63 million tonnes of oil, roughly 74% of it on behalf of foreign shippers.

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

The GDP myth: What it really shows, and what it doesn’t

The most-often cited metric of economic success more often than not simply tells us what we want to hear – or what the West wants us to hear

By Henry Johnston | RT | November 28, 2025

A few weeks after the Russia-Ukraine war began, Belgian economist Paul De Grauwe penned an article for the website of the London School of Economics with the title ‘Russia cannot win the war’. No military specialist, De Grauwe based his conclusion on some simple math: Russia’s GDP was roughly equivalent to the combined output of Belgium and the Netherlands. Therefore, he claimed, Russia is an “economic dwarf in Europe.” Its military operation was thus doomed.

De Grauwe was hardly alone in dismissing Russia on similar grounds. Who has not heard Russia’s economy compared in GDP terms to some modest European country? Needless to say, the article has not aged well. But the point here isn’t to refute De Grauwe – subsequent events have done that well enough. More interesting is to probe the deeper – and mostly unexamined – roots of this particular mode of thinking.

Really the questions boil down to: does such a reliance on GDP even make any sense anymore? And if not, why have we doggedly stuck with an economic indicator whose stature far exceeds its explanative power (and creates a lot of distortions)?

GDP emerged in the 1930s as a tool for policymakers trying to quantify the national economy during the Great Depression. Credited with formalizing GDP was the Russian-born American mathematician and economist Simon Kuznets.

But he was explicit about its limitations: “the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.” And this was back when national income mostly entailed real productivity and not stuff like trading derivatives about the weather.

Around the time of World War II, when economies were mostly industrial and debt levels low, GDP was a decent proxy for capacity. After the war, GDP became entrenched in the grand architecture of the post-war order: Bretton Woods, the IMF, and the triumph of Keynesian macroeconomic theory.

Keynesianism sees the economy as a thermostat problem: if total demand is too low and output falls, the government must raise demand through fiscal spending. Its entire policy program depends on measuring, managing, and stimulating aggregate demand – exactly what GDP claims to quantify. Governments could therefore read the pulse of the economy through GDP, inject stimulus when demand faltered, and withdraw it when inflation loomed.

However, in the 1970s the Keynesian consensus broke down, largely due to the problem of stagflation. This is a combination of high inflation and high unemployment that Keynesian theory couldn’t explain because its models assumed inflation and unemployment moved in opposite directions.

On to the scene came the neoliberalism of the 1980s: Reagan, Thatcher, and the Washington Consensus. Deregulation, privatization, and financial liberalization were sold as growth-enhancing reforms, for which GDP became the proof. If GDP rose, which of course it inevitably did, the reforms were “working.” But this represented a subtle shift. GDP had morphed from a diagnostic instrument into a legitimating symbol of a new set of otherwise dubious-looking policies. To put it more simply, Keynesians used GDP to fine-tune the economy; neoliberals used it to justify their ideology.

By this point, GDP was tracking a lot less productive output and a lot more monetary transactions pumped up by leverage. Yet policymakers, investors, and the media continued to treat it as the authoritative measure of real prosperity. Its symbolic prestige actually increased even as its empirical validity declined. This is a point we will return to.

A quick side note: Many people recognize one of the superficial shortcomings of GDP – its failure to adjust for differences in price levels between countries – and therefore prefer GDP measured in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms. But switching to PPP doesn’t solve the underlying problem, because it leaves untouched the structural distortions within GDP itself: financialization and debt. These are the factors that create the widening gap between real productive output and monetary transactions.

Because GDP treats all spending equally, regardless of whether it comes out of income or borrowing, it cannot distinguish between genuine expansions of productive capacity and debt-fueled transactional churn.

Underlying this is a deeper theoretical fallacy: the modern macroeconomic framework still treats financial intermediation (think Goldman Sachs) as a neutral, efficient allocator of capital, and therefore counts much financial activity as genuine value-added. Let’s say it together with a straight face: investment banking is about efficiently getting capital to the right places in the real economy.

That this assumption persists in today’s hyper-financialized G7 can only be explained by a civilizational-level blind spot. Everyone intuitively understands that flipping a piece of real estate, or repeatedly securitizing the same pool of mortgages, adds to measured GDP without creating any value. These transactions expand balance sheets, not productive capacity, yet GDP tallies them as if a turbine had been manufactured or a bridge built.

But if the standard measure is so vulnerable to distortion, the obvious question is why more effort isn’t devoted to stripping out the debt-driven noise. Yet very few mainstream economists even venture down this path. One man who does is Tim Morgan, a financial analyst who has done important work in exploring the relationship between economic growth and energy. He developed a proprietary metric that he calls C-GDP, which is an estimate of underlying economic output after removing the inflationary effect of debt and credit. Over 2004-2024, Morgan calculates global GDP growth at 96% using the conventional measure, but this falls to just 33% on a C-GDP basis.

This is a fairly radical re-calibration of growth figures that lays bare the fact that much of the recorded growth of recent decades came via credit expansion, asset inflation, and consumption rather than new physical output. Morgan calculates that each dollar of reported growth has been accompanied by an increase of at least $9 of net new financial commitments.

Morgan does not (at least that I am aware of) provide a country breakdown of his C-GDP model, but it is not a stretch to posit that the GDP-inflating effect of debt and financialization is most prominent in the G7.

Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing combined make up just over 20% of US GDP, while household and federal debt levels are at record highs, and the ratio of financial assets to GDP has exploded since the 1980s. Europe is not fundamentally any different. Stripping out debt-inflated transactions would entail a shrinking of measured GDP for both BRICS and the West. But the extent of shrinkage would differ.

Many will correctly point out that China and parts of the BRICS world are also heavily indebted. However, it bears noticing how the link between credit and real output differs from the Western pattern. Much of the credit in China, for instance, has gone into tangible physical assets – infrastructure, housing, factories, power systems – even if there is certainly some overbuilding and malinvestment.

So even if China’s credit system is overextended, a significant portion of the borrowing has produced physical capital, not just paper claims. China’s system is thus internally leveraged but still anchored in actual real trade surpluses. In the West, meanwhile, credit creation is market-driven and profit-seeking, and also heavily intermediated by private banks and financial markets. Debt expansion primarily supports asset speculation and consumption.

This is the hidden weakness in Western economies. Not just has industrial production been largely outsourced – a phenomenon at least acknowledged – but a significant share of what passes for economic output is simply a mirage. And if we think of debt as a claim on future economic output, does anybody actually believe that future output will be sufficient to make good the huge pile of debt G7 economies are sitting on? Of course not.

All of this should be entirely obvious. And the distortions should be obvious. We know what type of economy GDP was created to measure. We know how the structure of Western economies (in particular) has changed. We know that buying and selling derivatives generates no real economic value. So why do we stubbornly cling to GDP?

This question cannot be answered in economic terms alone. To make sense of it, we must depart from the safe confines of economics and examine the bigger paradigm in which our current economic assumptions are intelligible. This is where we return to the notion of the “symbolic” prestige of GDP.

Policymakers and economists in the 21st century fancy themselves paragons of rationality presiding over technocratic systems. This is an inviolable dogma of our time. In reality, we are just as bound by our era’s unquestioned assumptions as any past civilization. Our economic theories are not neutral, objective, or universal; they are a constructed lens that conveys our particular values and accommodates our particular blind spots. GDP is a prime example of this.

An alien economist observing our current civilization would be baffled by how little attention we pay to the distorting impact of debt on our most sacred metric. Even our most widely used attempt to account for debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio, is inadequate precisely because one side of the equation (GDP) is itself inflated by the very thing being measured. The alien’s conclusion: we make no real distinction between debt-fueled growth and organic, sustainable growth. We must be a civilization with a profoundly short-term outlook.

GDP does still correlate reasonably well with employment, consumption, and tax revenues – variables that matter greatly for fiscal and monetary management but say almost nothing about sustainability or the long-term health of an economy. An influx of debt can drive up all three – and GDP with it – while leaving future generations with an albatross.

Yet our fixation on these immediate indicators is not accidental; it mirrors the deeper essence of modern democratic systems, particularly in the West, where this ethos is found in its most concentrated and potent form. Politicians must survive election cycles by promising quick fixes to the uncomprehending masses, central bankers must stabilize the next quarter, and markets increasingly live from headline to headline. Everything is skewed toward the here and now. This seems so natural to us that it hardly ever occurs to anyone to question it.

Nor does it particularly occur to us that the way we think about the economy is inextricably embedded in a deeper logic. GDP merely tells us what we want to hear – and what is allowed to be told within the prevailing civilizational ethos. Nothing more, nothing less.

Any civilizational ethos is a touch metaphysical, whether it admits it or not. Whereas the Roman Emperor Constantine saw a cross in the sky and believed he heard the words: “by this sign you shall conquer,” the Belgian economist De Grauwe, utterly unaware of his own mystical bent, opened a spreadsheet and said “by these figures Russia will not conquer.”

Henry Johnston is a Moscow-based editor who worked in finance for over a decade.

November 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Baltic nations want EU bailout after Russia sanctions backfire – Politico

RT | November 27, 2025

The European Commission will provide financial aid next year to Baltic states grappling with the economic fallout from EU sanctions on Russia, Politico reported on Thursday, citing officials familiar with the plan.

Tourism and investment have slumped across Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, while cross-border trade has “largely collapsed” due to the loss of long-standing commercial ties with Russia, the outlet said.

Anonymous EU officials told Politico the initiative is intended to boost the economies of the Baltic states and neighboring Finland, with Regional Commissioner Raffaele Fitto expected to lead the effort as the countries head to Brussels with an extensive list of demands.

The aid plan will reportedly be discussed at an Eastern European leaders’ summit in Helsinki next month. Skeptics, however, warn that any near-term support Fitto can offer will be limited, with the EU’s seven-year budget already running low and the scale of the challenge far greater than the funds available.

All four nations share a border with Russia and have imposed multiple rounds of sanctions since 2022, while tightening entry rules for Russian citizens. “In doing so, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have all taken a hit,” the outlet noted.

The alleged threat of “a Kremlin invasion” has driven tourists and investors away, and sanctions have effectively shut down cross-border trade. Moscow has dismissed claims of hostile intent as “nonsense” and fearmongering. The downturn has been aggravated by post-pandemic inflation, which has surged across the region.

Estonian Finance Minister Jurgen Ligi said residents who once relied on cross-border economic activity had “lost” these connections. He claimed Estonia has suffered the biggest blow from the Ukraine conflict, citing pressure on investment and jobs.

Finland is also under strain. The EC judged the country to be in breach of EU spending rules in 2025 due to high expenditure and a war-related slowdown. EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said Brussels would acknowledge “the difficult economic situation Finland is facing,” pointing to “the closure of the Russian border.”

Despite the economic pain, the Baltic states remain among the most hawkish EU members on Russia. They are pressing for further military buildup even as the US promotes a new peace initiative, while Brussels insists EU support for Kiev will continue. Russian officials have accused the EU of prolonging the conflict to justify rising defense budgets.

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

The biggest fish caught in China’s “debt trap”

The US is the “victim” as the largest recipient of Chinese official credits and loans

By Hua Bin | November 27, 2025

An Indian by the name of Brahma Chellaney, employed by Center of Policy Research based in New Delhi and funded by US State Department, coined the term “debt trap” to demonize Chinese loans for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) across developing countries.

It’s clear, just by the origin of the term, that it was a smear job by a dimwit sour grape. His argument has since been roundly debunked by researchers and analysts from John Hopkins, Harvard, and the Chatham House. None of them can be described as trolls for China.

For example, research by the New York-based Rhodium Group and John Hopkins University has shown no instance of China seizing strategic assets due to debt defaults, a core claim by Chellaney and the “debt trap” advocates.

Studies done by London-based Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs), a very anti-China outfit by its track record, contrast China’s debt management with that of Western bondholders and institutions.

Their analyses demonstrate China has shown far greater willingness to provide debt rescheduling and relief, while Western lenders such as the World Bank and IMF are quick to resort to legal measures.

Western loans also often come with conditionalities that negatively affect a country’s economic productivity – such as deregulation and privatization.

Ironically, while India sounds the alarm on “debt trap”, the country itself is the largest recipient of loans from the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a financial institution funded primarily by China.

Of course, the Indians are presumably so “smart” that they are immune to any “debt trap”. Their lenders and creditors are the ones who need to worry about being “trapped”.

Very predictably, such a discredited lie is not too low for most Western governments to adopt as the holy script since it fits their geopolitical narrative.

And the term has become a regular in the official lexicon of western governments and media.

A recent study on Chinese official lending done by the College of William and Mary (W&M) in Virginia, the second oldest university in the US, is very telling and goes to show the disparity of Western claims and empirical evidence on the ground.

The AidData research lab at W&M found that China is the largest creditor nation in the world and its global lending since the turn of the century has been “vastly” larger than previously understood, with loans and grants increasingly going to developed countries.

The US is by far the largest recipient – nearly US$202 billion of the US$2.2 trillion disbursed by China’s “official sector” between 2000 and 2023 went to projects in the US.

Note the data excludes China’s purchase of US Treasury bonds.

“Our data demonstrate that the US – a high-income country – is the single largest recipient of official sector credit from China. This finding is both unexpected and counterintuitive,” wrote researchers of the study released earlier this month.

“This is an extraordinary discovery, given that the US has spent the better part of the last decade warning other countries of the dangers of accumulating significant debt exposure to China, and accusing China of practicing “debt trap” diplomacy,” said Brad Parks, AidData’s executive director.

The study, compiled over 36 months using more than 246,000 sources, covered a wide range of Chinese official lenders, including state policy banks, state-owned commercial banks, state-owned companies, state-owned funds, and the central bank.

Some of the Chinese lending in the US involved the construction of “critical infrastructure”, helping to bankroll the construction of major liquefied natural gas pipelines in Rio Grande, Port Arthur and Freeport, the Dakota Access oil pipeline, an electric power transmission line feeding New York City, data centres in Virginia, and airport terminals in New York and California, among other projects.

Official Chinese lenders also financed the merger and acquisition of hi-tech companies in the US and provided liquidity support – via working capital and revolving credit facilities – to a wide array of Fortune 500 companies.

The research lab described most Chinese loans to the US “are guided by the pursuit of profit rather than the pursuit of geopolitical or geoeconomic advantage”.

While China is well known for lending to Global South countries via BRI, the report found that 10 of the 20 largest destinations between 2000 and 2023 were high-income countries, including the UK, Singapore, Germany and Switzerland.

Russia was the second largest recipient after the US, with a cumulative US$171.78 billion in loans and grants over the period, followed by Australia with a total of US$130 billion.

According to AidData, China’s total overseas lending portfolio is two to four times larger than previously published estimates, making China the world’s biggest official creditor by a large margin.

Its lending portfolio has evolved significantly over time – in 2000, 88% of China’s lending went to low-income countries; by 2023, financing going to developed countries rose to 76%.

China had approved loans and grants for more than 30,000 “projects and activities” worldwide between 2000 and 2023. A total of 9,764 of those projects and activities were in high-income countries.

The AidData report claims China offers debt, equity and grants in “flexible, innovative and complementary ways to advance its geostrategic and commercial interests”.

China is increasingly seen as an “international creditor of first – and last – resort”, according to the report summary.

The disconnect between the Western propaganda and the reality on the ground is revealing – the hypocrisy of calling Chinese lending “debt trap” while engaging in a feeding frenzy in a trough of Chinese money.

Western governments and media’s twisted narratives about China live on a hotbed of cynicism and stupidity.

For such narratives to be believed, one of two things must be true – either the readers are so cynical they are willing to swallow patently false narratives to feed their bigotry, or the readers are so dumb that they don’t possess basic faculty for critical thinking.

This reminds one of other similarly ludicrous talking points. For example, Western pundits regularly claim China’s domestic economy precarious because of persistent “deflation”.

While it’s true that prices have been stable or falling slightly in the last 2 – 3 years, how is it a bad thing for consumers?

Why should consumers welcome “rising prices” – as the wide-spread inflation in much of the West?

Shouldn’t prices of goods fall when manufacturing scale and efficiency improve and companies compete for consumers in an open marketplace?

Why are high corporate profit margins as a result of higher prices a good thing for consumers?

In China, average real household income growth in 2024 was 5.4%, 0.2% higher than the nominal growth rate 5.2% due to lower prices. Isn’t this better than negative real income growth in most Western countries?

In China, the effective interest rate for 30-year mortgage is 3.1% on average, and 2.65% for first time buyers. Isn’t this better than paying 6 to 9% as in other countries?

You have to be a real retard or cynically shut down any critical thinking to believe in the garbage from the lying media.

And it’s more than the media. A prime source of such garbage comes from “elected leaders”.

Ted Cruz, the 3-time US Senator from Texas, wrote in a recent op-ed that Chinese AI dominance would mean “state-run surveillance and coercion”, while an American win would guarantee a technology anchored by “liberty, human dignity, and the rule of law”.

If this self-serving propaganda comes from someone with a modicum of credibility, it might carry some weight. But coming from Ted Cruz, one of the most despised men in his home country the US, the irony is overwhelming.

This is Ted Cruz talking. The same Ted Cruz, christened “lyin’ Ted” by the Donald, who became Trump’s most loyal lapdog three months after Trump insulted his wife’s looks (whom Cruz claimed as “the love of my life”) and hinted his father helped kill JFK.

This is the same Ted Cruz who was voted as “the most unlikeable person” by former classmates (including his college roommate) and fellow Republican colleagues.

The same Ted Cruz who fled to a Ritz in Cancun when his voters were frozen to death during the Texas freeze in ’21.

John McCain, late warmonger par excellence and Cruz’s fellow senator, was quoted saying: “if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the senate, and the trial is in the senate, nobody would convict you”.

Even Lindsey Graham, who is a worthy contestant as the most despicable human with Cruz, said “if you shot Ted Cruz, it would be a hung jury”.

For this Ted Cruz, who failed to defend the honor of his own wife and father, to take the moral highroad and defend “human dignity” is the equivalent of a two-peso prostitute to lecture on chastity and virtue.

So, the question is – are those vile creatures like Cruz and Graham going to save the US from China’s “debt trap”?

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »