Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

China denies interfering in US elections, calls Trump’s claims ‘entirely fabricated’

The Cradle | July 17, 2026

China on 17 July rejected claims by US President Donald Trump that Beijing had interfered in the 2020 US presidential elections, saying the allegations were baseless and an attempt to smear China.

“The relevant allegations by the US are entirely fabricated and aimed at vilifying China,” stated Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian. “We have no interest in interfering in US elections and have never done so.”

The Foreign Ministry spokesperson made the remarks at a press conference in response to Trump’s comments during a speech at the White House on Thursday.

Lin said China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and has never influenced, or had a reason to influence US elections.

“On the contrary, the international community sees all too clearly who routinely interferes in the internal affairs of other nations, conducts long-term, indiscriminate surveillance of governments, businesses, and ordinary citizens worldwide, and steals the data of other countries’ citizens on a massive scale,” the spokesman said.

In a 25-minute televised speech on Thursday, Trump accused China of interfering in the 2020 election, which saw him lose to Joe Biden.

Trump said the US electoral process was “catastrophically” short of standards of fairness and trust, and vulnerable to manipulation by foreign powers.

“No country can be great without fair and honest elections,” Trump said at the White House.

“If there can be no trust, there can be no greatness. Unfortunately, the system we have falls catastrophically short of that standard.”

In response, Democrats warned that Trump was trying to “sow confusion, spread misinformation” to lay the groundwork to challenge the results of the midterm elections this November.

Polling indicates that Trump’s Republican Party could see losses to Democrats in Congress and the Senate.

US voters largely oppose the US president’s war on Iran, which many view as being fought for the sake of Israel, while costing the lives of US soldiers and raising the cost of living due to higher oil and gasoline prices resulting from the conflict.

During the 2016 US presidential elections, Democrats and former members of the intelligence community accused Russia of intervening to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. The allegations were eventually shown to be baseless.

Both political parties overlooked evidence suggesting Israel interfered in the election on Trump’s behalf.

In Thursday’s speech, Trump renewed calls for the passage of the Save America Act, which would require voters to present identification, such as a driver’s license, at the polls.

“Addressing this crisis of election security demands that Congress must pass the Save America Act,” he said. “How easy is that to do? Unless you want to cheat.”

Trump made his comments hostile to China following a cordial visit to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping in May.

The Chinese president is scheduled to visit Washington for meetings with Trump in September.

July 17, 2026 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , | Comments Off on China denies interfering in US elections, calls Trump’s claims ‘entirely fabricated’

Lindsey Graham Won’t be Missed

The full reckoning of a senatorial legacy built on imperial adventurism, serving Jewish interests, and promoting mass migration.

José Niño Unfiltered | July 13, 2026

Last weekend brought a brief respite to those of us jaded by the current political order. On July 11, 2026, two days after 71st birthday, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina reportedly died from a sudden and brief illness. For more than three decades, from the halls of the South Carolina statehouse to the upper echelons of the United States Senate, Graham was a defining figure of the Republican Party establishment.

More than just a politician, he was the Senate’s most durable neoconservative hawk—a man who embodied the “invade the world, invite the world” political order. His career was characterized by a relentless drive to project American military power abroad, an unyielding devotion to Zionist causes, and a long-standing willingness to champion mass migration, even as Republican voters began to gravitate toward populism.

Born in Central, South Carolina, Graham was the first in his family to attend college. His worldview was forged in the military, where he spent 33 years in the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps and the reserve system. Serving as the Air Force’s chief prosecutor in Europe during the 1980s, Graham developed a rigid belief in the necessity of a hyper-interventionist American foreign policy. Though he never deployed to a combat zone during the Gulf War, his brief reserve stints in Iraq and Afghanistan later in life cemented his hawkish credentials.

Entering the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994, Graham quickly made a name for himself as one of 13 Republican House managers who prosecuted the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999. His conservative South Carolina constituents approved of the performance, and he earned recognition among his colleagues that would follow him to higher office. That early legalistic fervor translated into a broader, more belligerent approach to global affairs when he succeeded Strom Thurmond—who had held the seat since 1956—winning the 2002 Senate race against Democratic opponent Alex Sanders with President George W. Bush actively campaigning on his behalf.

Once in the Senate, Graham found his true calling on the global stage. Alongside John McCain and Joe Lieberman, he formed the “Three Amigos,” a nickname coined by General David Petraeus during one of the trio’s many visits to war zones. The group became a fixture of congressional delegations to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other conflict zones, pitching American intervention as a bipartisan cause at a time when much of the country was souring on it. Graham outlived both his comrades—McCain died of brain cancer in August 2018, Lieberman in 2024.

Graham was a steadfast supporter of the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2007 surge, consistently opposing any drawdown that might let the country slide back into chaos. He opposed bringing troops home from Afghanistan at every turn, blasting Biden’s 2021 withdrawal announcement as “dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous” and warning that it amounted to canceling “an insurance policy against another 9/11.” His philosophy on the use of force was stark and uncompromising. When discussing the prospect of war with North Korea in 2017, he told NBC’s Today show that “if there’s going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here.” For Graham, the collateral damage of war was always worth it in the name of long-term stability and national security.

This belligerence extended across the globe. He was a leading advocate for the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, calling on NATO to “cut the head of the snake off” by bombing Gaddafi’s inner circle, compounds, and military headquarters in Tripoli. In Syria, he repeatedly pushed for a U.S. no-fly zone and military intervention to arm anti-Assad rebels, blasting the Obama administration’s handling of the chemical weapons “red line” as profoundly mismanaged. He was equally hawkish on Venezuela, writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed republished on his Senate website that the U.S. must be willing to intervene in Venezuela the way Reagan did in Grenada, arguing that an ultimatum to Cuba to withdraw its security forces from the country would mean “the beginning of the end of the [Nicolás] Maduro dictatorship.”

His hostility toward Russia and China was equally palpable. In March 2022, Graham publicly called for Putin’s assassination on Fox News and Twitter, asking “Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” and declaring “the only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.” He stood by the remarks the following day, saying “I hope he’ll be taken out, one way or the other.”

He introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 alongside Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, proposing a 500% tariff on goods imported from any country that continues buying Russian oil, gas, or uranium—a measure that by June 2025 had attracted 84 Senate co-sponsors. He similarly vowed to “draft pre-invasion sanctions from hell” against China over Taiwan, calling a report that Xi Jinping had told Biden he would “unify” Taiwan “beyond unnerving.” He also championed the COVID-19 Accountability Act in 2020, which would have authorized sanctions on Beijing if it failed to cooperate with an international investigation into the pandemic’s origins.

Nowhere was Graham’s hawkishness more pronounced than in his stance on Iran and his devotion to Israel. He vehemently opposed the 2015 JCPOA, warning that the deal would give Iran “a pathway to the bomb, missiles to deliver it, money to pay for it” and describing a nuclear-armed Iran as “an existential threat to our allies in Israel.”

During the 2026 Israel-Iran conflict, he urged the Senate to re-vote the Iran War Powers resolution and defeat it, arguing that passing it would embolden Iran during ceasefire negotiations. Graham backed the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, pushed for American recognition of the Golan Heights, and consistently voted for every annual appropriation of military aid to Israel. Throughout the recent Gaza war, Graham’s rhetoric reached new extremes; he called for giving Israel “the bombs they need to end the war,” shockingly comparing the situation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatened to sanction the International Criminal Court over potential arrest warrants for Israeli officials.

Graham’s unyielding pro-Israel stance was deeply intertwined with his political funding. He was completely in the pocket of Zionist, oligarchical, and defense interests. Advocacy trackers and campaign finance records show Graham received massive financial backing from pro-Israel PACs and donors. Campaign finance records tell much of the story behind that devotion. A Center for Public Integrity investigation found that the top donor to his 2014 super PAC was Larry Mizel—a Colorado developer, AIPAC board member, and Simon Wiesenthal Center chairman who gave $100,000. Sam Fox, a former chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition, gave $50,000. Boeing’s political action committee gave $25,000 to the same super PAC.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also appeared among the donors. OpenSecrets documented that Sheldon Adelson co-hosted a 2015 fundraiser for Graham’s presidential exploratory committee, alongside Mizel and RJC executive director Matthew Brooks. Graham himself acknowledged the network publicly, telling the Wall Street Journal that he “may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding.”

While Graham was an avatar of invading the world, he was equally committed to inviting the world via mass migration. For years, he was one of the Republican Party’s foremost advocates for comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty, earning him the moniker “Lindsey Grahamnesty.” He was a critical player in the 2006 and 2007 reform efforts, working closely with John McCain and Ted Kennedy to create pathways to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

In 2013, Graham was one of eight senators—four Democrats and four Republicans—who drafted and co-sponsored the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, known as the “Gang of Eight” bill, which proposed a 13-year conditional path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. The bill passed the Senate 68-32 but stalled in the House. He also introduced the DREAM Act alongside Democratic Senator Dick Durbin in at least three consecutive sessions of Congress—2017, 2019, and 2021—legislation that would allow illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children to earn permanent residence and eventually citizenship.

There is no cause for mourning in the passing of Lindsey Graham. He served as a key instrument for a nefarious agenda that traded American blood and treasure for imperial adventurism while simultaneously eroding the nation’s demographic core through mass migration.

His entire political lifespan was a tireless campaign against the interests of his own constituents in favor of a Judeo-American order that has hollowed out our country from within. As we reckon with the geopolitical and domestic ruin he helped orchestrate, we must recognize his legacy for what it truly is: a betrayal of the American people. He belongs to the ages, but he deserves no peace; may Lindsey Graham exist in eternal torment for the devastation he brought upon this polity.

July 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lindsey Graham Won’t be Missed

US Strategy and the shift to NATO 3.0

A shorter declaration masks deeper tensions, as Washington pushes to reshape NATO’s role from Europe to West Asia and Asia-Pacific.

By Mehmet Ali Guller | The Cradle | July 11, 2026

The six-point final declaration of the NATO Ankara Summit is among the shortest in recent years, similar to last year’s five-point declaration from The Hague. In contrast, the 2021 Brussels Summit declaration contained 79 points, Madrid in 2022 had 22, Vilnius in 2023 included 90, and Washington in 2024 featured 38.

The sharp reduction reflects ongoing tensions between the US and Europe. The declaration is brief because areas of agreement remain limited. The debate over NATO as a “paper tiger” has not been resolved, only set aside.

In the declaration, this issue is temporarily addressed through the slogan “a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”

Ankara Declaration targets Russia and Iran

The first article of the six-point Ankara declaration reaffirms commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, while the final article offers thanks to the host country.

The remaining four articles center on Russia, outline a $70 billion support package for Ukraine, expand defense spending, reference $50 billion in arms deals, and briefly touch on Iran.

The Donroe Doctrine and NATO 3.0

Washington is seeking to adapt NATO to what it frames as a new strategic phase, described here as NATO 3.0. The so-called Donroe Doctrine centers on consolidating dominance in the Western Hemisphere, shifting more responsibility onto allies in Europe and elsewhere, and encircling China in the Asia-Pacific through partnerships.

In practice, this takes three forms:

  1. Europe assumes primary responsibility for its own security, including taking the lead in supporting Ukraine against Russia.
  2. A new order is established in West Asia under Israeli hegemony, requiring normalization between NATO member Turkiye and Israel, as well as between Israel and Syria and the Gulf states, while weakening Iran as the principal obstacle.
  3. NATO deepens cooperation with its Asia-Pacific partners—the IP4 countries: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—integrating them into its arms supply chain and gradually extending NATO’s reach into Asia.

The political economy of NATO 3.0

Washington views militarization as the lever for the transformation of NATO 3.0. It has two key objectives: raising NATO members’ defense spending to 5 percent of GDP and building a new arms production chain. The first step was initiated in The Hague last year, and the second advanced in Ankara.

Pushing defense spending to 5 percent would generate a vast financial pool within a few years. Including NATO partners such as Japan would further expand the scale, creating a market that draws broad interest. The US aims to distribute this pool in a way that sustains the NATO 3.0 framework.

Alongside this sits the effort to construct a new arms supply chain. The approach is to retain control over core components while distributing subcomponent production across allies, linking them to one another and ultimately to Washington.

The $50 billion arms deals referenced in the declaration mark an initial step. The $10 billion NATO–South Korea agreement, which grants Seoul access to NATO’s joint defense procurement market, fits within this model.

A new military-industrial economy

For the Erdogan government, securing a share of expanding defense spending has become a priority. Ankara sees this as an opening for its defense sector, particularly through the state firm ASELSAN and the private company BAYKAR.

The Defense Industry Forum, long held as a side event at NATO summits, was included in the official program in Ankara for the first time, reflecting that shift.

Countries seeking a share of this expanding market and Washington’s effort to allocate that share in line with its strategy have converged.

The idea of a NATO Defense Bank is also on the agenda. Nine countries laid its groundwork during the Ankara summit. If realized, it would tie a military-industrial model more closely to financial capital.

Turkiye 3.0: NATO’s central frontline state

For Turkiye, NATO 3.0 also signals a new phase.

NATO 1.0 covers the period from the alliance’s founding to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In that time, Turkiye was integrated into US strategy, diluting its founding emphasis on independence and anti-imperialism, eroding aspects of its secular character through the Green Belt project, and absorbing its human capital within anti-communist programs.

NATO 2.0 spans the period from 1991 to 2026. In these years, NATO expanded toward Russia, dismantled Yugoslavia, and intervened across West Asia. Turkiye’s role was again shaped within US strategy, this time through “moderate Islamism.”

NATO 3.0 is defined by Europe taking on security responsibility against Russia, the pursuit of a West Asian order under Israeli dominance, and a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific.

Within this framework, Turkiye is positioned as a security enforcer for Europe, encouraged to normalize relations with Tel Aviv to secure a place in the regional order, and drawn into efforts aimed at countering Iran.

In effect, Turkiye is being placed at the center of NATO’s frontline. The naval command under construction in the Bosphorus is directed toward Russia, while the new NATO Corps headquarters in Adana is oriented toward West Asia and Iran.

Washington’s ‘Asian NATO’ objective

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte effectively represents US leadership within the alliance. His statements reflect Washington’s position rather than Europe’s.

His remarks before and during the summit pointed to a longer-term objective. Rutte argued that Russia was working closely with North Korea, China and Iran, adding that NATO “cannot be naive” and had to remain united.

At its core, NATO 3.0 reflects an effort to use the alliance first against Beijing’s partners—Russia and Iran—and, over time, against China itself. The push to reorient NATO toward Asia follows from this.

For the past four years, leaders of the IP4 countries have been invited to NATO summits. In Ankara, discussions with these states focused on expanding cooperation in defense industries and advanced technologies.

Washington is pressing these partners toward closer military alignment, at times resembling a sub-alliance—an “Asian NATO.” Proposals to open a NATO liaison office in Tokyo—though contested, notably by France—form part of this effort.

Washington, however, has continued to push for a broader NATO role in Asia. As Rutte put it, “The security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are closely interconnected,” reinforcing efforts to extend the alliance’s focus beyond its original geographic remit.

Expectations from NATO 3.0

Following the Ankara Summit, NATO 3.0 is expected to serve different priorities:

  • For the US: aligning NATO with its Asia-Pacific strategy.
  • For Europe: maintaining US involvement in European security even as direct support shifts.
  • For Turkiye: expanding a military-industrial growth model.

For countries across the Global South, NATO is widely viewed as an outdated military alliance whose role has run its course.

 

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US Strategy and the shift to NATO 3.0

Latin American media, businessman rebut US’ claim of China ‘taking over’ Panama Canal

By Tang Luyi and Tao Mingyang – Global Times – July 3, 2026

The US’ latest claim that China is trying to take control over Panama Canal has drawn rebuttals from Spanish-language media outlets, while a Chinese businessman based in Panama told the Global Times that the canal’s core operations rest entirely in the hands of the Panamanian authorities, making the claim of the so-called Chinese pursuit of control of the canal completely groundless.

US President Donald Trump claimed ⁠on Wednesday that the US will not let ‌China ⁠take over the Panama Canal, Reuters reported. In delivering remarks at the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, Trump claimed “China is trying to take over the Panama Canal, and we’re not going to let that happen,” according to the NBC.

The remarks quickly drew criticism from Spanish-language media. Colombian news magazine Semana cited a statement from the Chinese Embassy in Panama, which said that China has never participated in the management or operation of the Panama Canal, nor has it ever interfered in the canal’s affairs. The embassy said China has always respected Panama’s sovereignty over the canal and recognizes it as a permanently neutral international waterway.

Trump’s claim that the Panama Canal was sold to Panama “for one dollar” in 1977 has been widely questioned by historians, Panama-based newspaper La Estrella de Panamá reported.

The Torrijos-Carter Treaties were signed by the Panamanian and US governments in 1977, establishing that the Panama Canal would be turned over to Panamanian control on Dec 31, 1999, and the treaties were the outcome of bilateral negotiations between the two countries, according to the report.

The report noted that this is not the first time the US has used the Panama Canal as a political bargaining chip, and that the Panamanian government has repeatedly reaffirmed that sovereignty over the canal belongs to Panama, and that it is a permanently neutral international shipping waterway.

Refuting the false narrative that “China is controlling the Panama Canal”, a Chinese businessman surnamed Xu, who has been engaged in trade in Panama for a long time, told the Global Times on Friday that core functions of the canal – including channel scheduling, transit approval and the setting of toll rules – are entirely in the hands of the Panamanian authorities.

Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison only obtained commercial operating rights for cargo handling and warehousing at terminals on both ends of the canal through open bidding, which constitutes market-based supporting investment and by no means amounts to overall control of the canal, Xu said, noting that all Chinese vessels transiting the canal pay tolls in full under the same standards applied to shipping companies worldwide, and the claim that China seeks control of the canal is completely untenable.

In the eyes of the Panamanian public, it is the US that has long and deeply shaped the geopolitical security landscape surrounding the canal, Xu said. Relying on historical treaties, the US retains the power to send troops to Panama if it unilaterally determines a security risk exists, and has repeatedly exerted pressure on the country through various means. By hyping the “China threat” narrative, the US is in fact seeking a pretext to maintain its hegemony over the waterway, he said.

Panama’s public and business communities widely recognize the value of cooperation with China, Xu noted. Since the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and Panama in 2017, China has helped resume local infrastructure projects and supported the development of Panama’s coffee industry through the platform of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, with the practical cooperation winning broad recognition from various sectors in the country, he said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on April 29 that it is the US that has framed normal affairs concerning relevant terminals as issues of politics and security, and it is the US that has been making pretenses and slandering others with rumors.

“China’s position on the Panamanian ports issue is clear and [China] will firmly defend its legitimate rights and interests. We urge relevant countries not to be blinded and utilized by those with ill intention,” Lin said.

July 3, 2026 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , , | Comments Off on Latin American media, businessman rebut US’ claim of China ‘taking over’ Panama Canal

Wired for War: Pax Silica is AI slavery disguised as strength

RT | June 27, 2026

The EU has signed on to ‘Pax Silica’, a US initiative seemingly designed to shut China and others out of the global AI supply chain and extract resources from Europe for the benefit of Washington’s military-industrial complex.

“America and Europe belong together; our histories are braided, our destiny intertwined,” US Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg declared at a summit in Washington on Tuesday. “But we share more than a past. We share a purpose – to build a future that answers to our values and is worthy of our inheritance.”

What is Pax Silica?

Representatives from the EU, Germany, and Greece signed the pact at Tuesday’s summit, bringing the total number of ‘Pax Silica’ signatories to 19. They are:

  • Argentina
  • Australia
  • Chile
  • European Union
  • Finland
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • India
  • Israel
  • Japan
  • The Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Qatar
  • Republic of Korea
  • Singapore
  • Sweden
  • The Philippines
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United Kingdom

‘Pax Silica’ evokes imperial Rome in both name and practice. Its signatories agree to “partner on strategic stacks of the global technology supply chain,” including raw materials, energy, logistics, semiconductor manufacturing, computing, software, and models. They pledge to reduce “excessive dependencies” on nations that “undermine innovation and fair competition,” – an implicit reference to China – and “protect sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure from undue access, influence, or control,” – again, a reference to China – in exchange for access to this “full stack of technological advancements that are shaping the AI economy.”

The pact is largely the creation of Helberg, a China hawk and former adviser to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, whose growing power RT has already covered in our ‘Wired for War’ series.

Jacob Helberg and Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp attend the Hill & Valley Forum 2025 in Washington DC, April 30, 2025 ©  Getty Images;  Jemal Countess

Who is in Pax Silica and who is against it?

Notably absent from the list of signatories is France, where President Emmanuel Macron has spent years pushing for “digital sovereignty.” France, and Europe more broadly, he argues, need to end their reliance on American technology and develop homegrown alternatives. To that end, the French government has ditched US-made videoconferencing software, swapped Microsoft Windows for Linux, traded Palantir’s data analytics software for the French-developed ChapsVision, and invested public funds in Mistral AI – one of the continent’s few promising AI companies.

Does Pax Silica undermine national digital sovereignty?

Pax Silica is explicitly opposed to the notion of digital sovereignty. In a blog post published immediately after Tuesday’s summit, Helberg declared the concept “backward and counterproductive.” A world of sovereign nations building their own AI ecosystems, he wrote, would be “a planet of subscale clones, each heroically reconstructing last year’s breakthrough while the breakthrough itself moves on without them.”

Instead, Pax Silica members can pool their resources, with each nation playing to its own strengths. “One partner’s compute meets another’s minerals, a third’s talent, a fourth’s capital, and the result is not a sum but a multiplication,” he wrote.

On the surface, Helberg’s sales pitch makes sense. The Netherlands is the home of ASML, which manufactures 100% of the world’s most advanced EUV semiconductor lithography machines; Israel is a chip design and military tech superpower; Australia has the world’s fourth largest rare earth mineral reserves. By bringing these countries into a formal pact, the US denies China access to these spoils and shares them among its allies instead.

Who does Pax Silica empower most?

In reality, Pax Silica is less of a partnership and more of an imperialist resource grab. Washington’s partners provide raw materials, logistics, knowledge, and labor, but the US currently controls 75% of the world’s compute – the processing power necessary to build, train, and run large-scale AI workloads. Ultimately, the American companies that control this raw power will decide how it is used.

While this compute will be theoretically made available to Pax Silica signatories, the treaty is carefully worded to remind them that full access is not guaranteed. The US, it states “will endeavor to provide access to trusted partners to the full stack of technological advancements that are shaping the AI economy.” Washington is obligated only to try, not to do.

Chained by the pact to Washington’s new Cold War against China, the Europeans cannot look to Beijing if they end up shut out of US computing infrastructure. Likewise, the EU’s self-inflicted energy crisis – a result of Brussels trading cheap Russian gas for pricier American liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports – means that Europe will never be able to build and run this infrastructure for itself.

How does Palantir stand to benefit from Pax Silica?

Pax Silica undoubtedly serves the US geopolitical aim of isolating China – and possibly Russia – and strangling its technological growth, but it also serves the interests of Palantir and its fellow defense-tech behemoths, some of whom have admitted that their growth model depends on military confrontation with Beijing and a potential world war in the Indo- Pacific.

Palantir needs all the computational horsepower and raw materials it can get to power its autonomous weapons and AI operating systems, and if relations between the West and China deteriorate to the point of military conflict, the company stands ready to supply the weapons that will be used by the US military.

Karp has recently called on the US to prepare for a three-front war against China, Russia, and Iran; Palantir’s marketing material includes images of its ‘Gotham’ operating system tracking the movements of Chinese warships in the South China Sea. A representative of America’s Frontier Fund – which invests in Palantir – told a panel in 2023 that in the event of a “kinetic event in the Pacific…some of our investments will 10x, like overnight.”

“Great power competition with China remains top of mind as we continue to invest in moving more of Palantir’s mass west of the international date line,” the company’s operations chief, Shyam Sanka, said during a 2024 earnings call.

Although Helberg left Palantir last year to take his position at the US State Department, he spent the previous year working for Palantir and the American government at the same time. While still advising Karp, Helberg served on the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, from 2022 to 2024. In this role, he lobbied for increased tariffs on Beijing, a ban on TikTok, and the exclusion of China from the global AI supply chain.

How have China and Russia responded to Pax Silica?

Beijing has not directly addressed Pax Silica, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry instead calling on the US and its partners to “adhere to the principles of a market economy and fair competition and work together to maintain the stability of the global supply chain.” The ministry has directly condemned previous efforts by the US to lock China out of the tech supply chain, including the US-Japan-South Korea-Taiwan ‘Chip 4 Alliance’. Beijing has referred to this coalition of chipmaking nations as a brazen attempt by Washington to “dominate the global semiconductor production and supply chain.”

The Russian government has not commented on Pax Silica, but Moscow likely views any moves that increase the West’s power vis-a-vis its main trading partner with concern. Russia’s own access to rare earths and energy is not imperiled by the pact, with Russian mining CEO Andrey Trenin writing last year that Russia’s “path to a sovereign integrated AI industry must begin with [its] unique Arctic rare-earth metal deposits” and the creation of investment zones in the country’s frozen north.

Pax Silica: Membership is a security risk

By signing the pact, the Pax Silica states are signing up for great power competition and all of the risks it carries. In some cases, signatories are risking more than economic sovereignty. In the Philippines, which signed the pact in April, work has already begun on a 4,000-acre ‘Economic Security Zone’ on the island of Luzon where a number of key AI-related industries will be based.

The US initially wanted sovereignty over the zone and diplomatic immunity, but Manila rejected Washington’s demands. Negotiations over the zone’s status are still ongoing, but even if the Philippines retains full sovereignty over the area, Filipino nationalists fear that its role as a node in the US military’s AI supply chain could open the Philippines up to retaliation from China.

Helberg has written off these worries as “disinformation,” claiming that concerns over sovereignty risk delaying the Pax Silica project. However, they must be widespread if Helberg felt compelled to pen a 1,200-word blog post writing the concept of digital sovereignty off as a “trap.”

A warning from Middle Earth

Palantir derives its name from the obsidian seeing stones in JRR Tolkien’s ‘The Lord of the Rings’, through which the dark lord Sauron communicates with his vassals and spies on his enemies. In their dealings with the company, and with Washington, European proponents of Pax Silica would do well to remember how, in the film adaptation of the novel, the wizard Gandalf responds to Saruman’s use of a Palantir: “there is only one Lord of the Ring… And he does not share power!”

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , | Comments Off on Wired for War: Pax Silica is AI slavery disguised as strength

Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 23, 2026

The Arctic has been one of the main critical points of Donald Trump’s strategy since his rise to power. The increase in American presence (military and civilian) in the region is part of Trump’s broader strategy to “control the Western Hemisphere.” The main challenge for the U.S. is to try to overcome Russia’s long-standing presence in the region – as well as China’s growing presence. Many analysts doubt the American capacity to neutralize the advance of its geopolitical rivals in Arctic technology.

Recently, the U.S. has made Arctic affairs a strategic priority in its foreign and defense policy. Several of Trump’s supposedly “irrational” actions (such as his obsessive pursuit of annexing Greenland) are based on a relentless effort to expand American influence in the Arctic region. This is consistent with Trump’s hemispheric strategy, which can be summarized as reducing U.S. global presence (tacitly accepting a multipolar reality), while compensating for this retreat by strengthening positions in the western half of the world.

Obviously, several recent events have undermined Trump’s original hemispheric strategy. His illegitimate and anti-strategic decision to go to war in the Middle East, for example, was one of the greatest violations of MAGA principles in foreign and defense policy. On the other hand, a substantial part of the original strategy persists, as can be seen, for example, in interventions in Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba) and in the Arctic. Trump seeks to consolidate an exclusive American sphere of influence in the western half of the planet, and a large Arctic portion clearly “belongs” to that half.

Among the main U.S. measures to expand its presence in the Arctic is the increase in military activity. Washington sees deterrence capability as a central element in its containment strategy of the “Russian-Chinese presence” in the region, which is why there has been a gradual escalation of NATO military activity in the Arctic. In recent times, specialized joint military exercises have been carried out by NATO countries in Arctic zones, making this one of the most important topics on the alliance’s strategic agenda.

In this context, the Pentagon has sought to align its initiatives with NATO’s operational axis in the High North, prioritizing a logic of joint exercises at high latitudes that emphasize full interoperability between land, naval, and air forces. This approach is not limited to climate training, but reflects an attempt to establish a permanent standard of joint readiness in polar environments, where the degradation of sensors, communications, and logistics requires continuous multinational coordination. In practical terms, this translates into more frequent cycles of combined Arctic and sub-Arctic exercises, integrating U.S. and allied commands under unified planning and response structures.

At the same time, there is a projected increase in the U.S. and NATO military presence in the region, with significant forces deployed in regular rotations and a strengthened naval presence in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. This includes recurring transits of allied naval groups, the maintenance of a continuous presence of nuclear submarines in strategic patrol areas, and the intensification of strategic bomber operations along routes crossing the High North as a form of deterrence signaling. Together, these measures aim to create a permanent layer of military pressure and surveillance, raising the cost of any alleged attempt by Russia or China to challenge the region.

However, there is a clear problem in this entire scenario that the U.S. seems not yet to have realized: Russia’s status quo in the Arctic is quite secure. The country has, over decades, developed all kinds of appropriate technologies specifically designed for the polar environment. For obvious reasons of survival in the northern part of its own territory, Russia has historically been forced to become a major Arctic power, with a vast fleet of icebreakers and an entire specialized industrial sector dedicated to science and technology specifically for the Arctic. For Russia, this has never been a matter of extravagance or expansionism, but of survival in its own strategic environment.

More recently, China, which is not an Arctic country, has begun expanding its presence in the region through cooperation with Russia. As Russian-Chinese integration advances within the framework of the unlimited strategic partnership, with both countries engaging in various forms of political and economic cooperation, it is natural that their converging interests in Arctic affairs facilitate Beijing’s participation in the region. The Chinese do not have a military strategy for the Arctic, focusing instead on logistics, economics, and science, but even this concerns the West.

Indeed, Western countries, especially the U.S., are in an endless race. They aim to surpass decades of Russian presence in the Arctic in just a few years. The West does not even possess a specialized Arctic technical-industrial sector like Russia, and is far behind in capabilities such as navigation (especially icebreakers), geolocation, infrastructure construction, and overall operational capacity in the Arctic. It is worth questioning how long it will take for the West to even approach Russia’s level of Arctic technology – let alone surpass it -, especially at a time of deep Russian-Chinese integration, in which Moscow can rely on China’s industrial heartland as a partner to further strengthen its Arctic sector.

In the end, the American strategy seems destined to fail. The U.S. inherited much of its geopolitical thinking from the British, and this appears to have come at a high cost. Classical geopolitical theorists historically ignored the Arctic, since the region was seen as inhospitable and impossible to explore, focusing instead on well-known strategies of containing Eurasia – which became an American specialty. Now, however, the Arctic is accessible to humans thanks to modern technology, but the U.S. does not have a geopolitical strategy for this new reality.

Perhaps the best path for Trump would be to reduce his hemispheric ambitions, acknowledging that control of the Arctic is no longer among the achievable goals for the United States. It is important to remember that this obsession with Arctic conquest was inherited and deepened, but not created by Trump. Even before he took office, Democrats had already launched an expansionist military strategy in the region during the Biden administration, under the 2024 Arctic Strategy. So, if Trump truly wants to reverse the harmful legacy of his predecessor, revising Arctic policy could be a good initial step.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , | Comments Off on Is there a future for the U.S. strategy in the Arctic?

Military aid to Ukraine vital for ‘US hegemony’ – Republican senator

By Lucas Leiroz | April 30, 2026

Despite initial attempts by Donald Trump to establish diplomatic dialogue with Russia on the Ukrainian issue, there are still many politicians in the US interested in taking the conflict to its ultimate consequences. Even among Republicans themselves, there are several “hawkish” figures trying to boycott the peace process and promoting the escalation of the conflict.

In a recent statement, Republican senator Mitch McConnell asserted that the US urgently needs to increase its military assistance to Ukraine. He justified his claims by stating that supporting Kiev is necessary for the US to preserve its status as a global superpower. He believes it is vital for the US to maintain this status, and that intervention in Ukraine is necessary to prevent the US from losing its recognition as a “world leader”.

McConnell harshly criticized the way Trump and the American military are conducting the policy of support for Ukraine. He believes that current US efforts are insufficient, and that the country needs to invest more heavily in assisting the fascist regime. He also stated that it is a mistake to transfer responsibility for this assistance to Europe, since it is up to the US, as a “world leader,” to promote this type of initiative.

The senator also advocated for a massive presence of American military instructors on the battlefield. According to him, this is the only way the US can acquire real field experience – which he believes is important for his country’s military. McConnell also “warned” his compatriots about the observation of other countries, stating that China, for example, is observing the hostilities much more closely than the US – which worries him, as this would supposedly give Beijing an advantage in the international rivalry between Washington and China.

“[Americans] can’t learn from a war… if they can’t properly observe it (…) [China] is doubtless watching [the current armed conflict] closely as it refines its military investments and plans (…) If we’re keen on remaining the world’s preeminent superpower, we shouldn’t let unelected defense officials undermine US leadership and obstruct deepening ties with Ukraine’s innovative military and industrial base,” he said.

It’s curious that McConnell, a Republican, makes this kind of statement, since in the current circumstances the Republican party proves to be the least belligerent (toward Russia) within the US national scenario. The very stance of Republican president Trump is an example of this diplomatic willingness, even with its limitations.

Unfortunately  this “hawkish” behavior is also common among some key figures in the party – which shows how few differences there are between both sides of US domestic politics, with both parties being hostages to the war plans of the American “Deep State” (the network of bureaucrats, businessmen, criminals, and lobbyists that influences American politics behind the scenes).

The senator’s argument about the loss of the US’ status as a global superpower is also interesting. Washington will certainly remain a superpower, regardless of the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict. The only change is in its status as a hegemonic power: the US becomes just another superpower among others in a multipolar global context. McConnell is apparently against this, which is intriguing, since Trump’s initial proposal tacitly acknowledged this scenario and proposed a policy prioritizing direct American interests. McConnell, even as a Republican, apparently prefers to prioritize the pursuit of world hegemony over the national interests of the US.

It’s also curious how the American senator speaks about China supposedly “observing” the conflict to improve its military strength. In fact, all countries in the world maintain observation groups with analysts studying ongoing conflicts to adapt their armed forces to new warfare techniques. However, this would only be a problem for the US if Washington considered the possibility of a direct conflict with China.

Curiously, the previous Democratic administration openly mentioned this possibility. Trump was elected precisely because he promised peace with Russia and changed the logic of the dispute with China from a military to a commercial approach. Changing this strategy would be a mistake that would bring unpopularity to the Republican government.

Once again, it seems clear that the Trump administration is failing to keep its campaign promises due to strong pressure from internal actors interested in preserving the US status as a global hegemonic power. Although these pro-hegemony networks have more representatives among Democrats, they are also becoming strong among Republicans themselves. Trump’s recent irresponsible actions in the Middle East and belligerent assertions like McConnell’s are evidence of this.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

April 30, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Comments Off on Military aid to Ukraine vital for ‘US hegemony’ – Republican senator

US squares up to China over Panama Canal

RT | April 29, 2026

The US has announced a six-nation coalition aimed at pressuring China to relinquish its interests in two ports in the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of infringing on Panama’s sovereignty and politicizing global trade. China has called the claims “baseless.”

The development is part of a pattern of US efforts to push China out of Latin America. The US National Security Strategy calls for non-Western “competitors” to be prevented from owning or controlling key assets in the Western Hemisphere.

Last year, US President Donald Trump claimed that China is “operating the Panama Canal” and threatened to “take it back.”

The US State Department issued a joint statement on Tuesday with Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago, saying they support Panama against what they describe as external pressure from China.

”Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” the statement read, adding that Panama “must remain free from any undue external pressure,” and that freedom in the region is “non-negotiable.”

China rejected the accusations, with the Foreign Ministry hitting back on Wednesday against what it called a smear campaign.

”It is the United States that is politicizing and over-securitizing the port issue… hypocritically posturing and spreading rumors and smears everywhere,” spokesman Lin Jian said, dismissing the claims as “baseless and a complete distortion of facts.”

Lin urged the countries involved not to “be deceived or used by forces with ulterior motives” regarding the port inspections, which he said were conducted lawfully.

The US-led campaign follows a ruling in January by Panama’s Supreme Court that annulled contracts held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings for the Balboa and Cristobal, two key ports at the canal’s entrances – a move that the US has backed.

The Chinese company, which managed the terminals for nearly three decades, has contested the ruling, alleging unlawful expropriation, and has launched international arbitration, seeking over $2 billion in reparations.

April 29, 2026 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , , | Comments Off on US squares up to China over Panama Canal

Iran War Supporters Invent a New and Absurd Justification: It Is All About China

By Cole Crystal – SYSTEM UPDATE – March 9, 2026

Before Operation Epic Fury began, the Trump administration spent very little energy trying to justify the looming war with Iran. The few defenses they did offer were banal platitudes, just echoes of the case for the Iraq War from more than twenty years ago: that Iran was weeks away from obtaining a nuclear device, that their ballistic missile program posed a significant threat to American assets and allies in the region, and that the Iranian people deserved liberation via regime change.

But not long after the bombing began, a new (admittedly more creative) justification emerged online and in the pro-Israel media that war supporters assume will be more persuasive to those doubting the wisdom of yet another Middle East conflict. The war with Iran, we are now told by many, is not really about Iran at all. It is, instead, all about China.

“Some argue Israel dragged the U.S. into war,” a post from The Free Press reads, “But this conflict is bigger than Israel and Iran — it’s about China.” Another article from The Spectator, a British conservative outlet, sang the same tune: “Trump’s ultimate target in this war is China.” Glenn Beck, on March 2, unveiled C.R.I.N.K., or “the new Axis Powers of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea,” as a way to “understand why Trump attacked Iran.” Fox News’ Jesse Watters told his audience last week that “we are killing two birds with one stone: we stop the number-one sponsor of terror, and we checkmate the Chinese.”

A viral graphic circulated by the Free Press about the motivations for the American-Israeli war against Iran.

At the very least, if China were really the motive, one would have expected the Trump administration to offer this theory — “this is the chance to counter America’s greatest geopolitical rival” — as a major justification to the American people. One would think they would be particularly motivated to do so, given the consensus of polling data showing that public support for this war is far weaker than for any American war in decades.

But Trump officials never mentioned China as a core motive. In fact, even now, the administration and its backers have hardly mentioned China. This is a theory invented out of whole cloth by Iran-war supporters and/or Trump supporters, grasping for some cogent reason why this new war is in Americans’ interests.

Late last week, Senator Lindsey Graham claimed that this conflict is “a religious war” waged by “radical Islamic terrorists.” On March 2, House Speaker Mike Johnson explained to a group of reporters that the United States “determined, because of the exquisite intelligence that [it] had, that if Israel fired on Iran,” then “[Iran] would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets.” Therefore, the House Speaker insisted, because the U.S. would be attacked either way, it had to hit Iran with Israel. President Trump announced on Friday that the U.S. intends to select “GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s)” for the Iranian people, in order to make their country “economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.”

These politicians, and many more inside and around the administration, are not talking about China. It has not been cited as a significant motivator for starting this war. Yet if China is really the reason, did the most prominent war supporters simply forget why they went to war, or did they decide it was best to present a false, pretextual case to the American people about why this war was necessary?

Admittedly, this new justification is, at least on the surface, cogent, even if pretextual. China is the most powerful geopolitical competitor to the U.S. No other country buys more sanctioned crude oil from the Iranians, and only Russia has worked more closely with Iran to beef up its military. In 2021, Iran signed a 25-year partnership with China that would reportedly bring $400 billion to Iran’s energy industry. Various weapons deals between the two countries have been reported in recent years, including one to purchase Chinese supersonic missiles that can sink American ships.

Still, none of these events really pertain to, let alone prove, this new claim — that this war with Iran is somehow really about China. At most, they suggest that China may be negatively affected, losing access to cheap oil and its investments. If simply being negatively impacted by this war is the standard for it being “about” another country, then this war is also about Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the rest of the Middle East.

Indeed, many countries could be harmed by the Trump-Netanyahu war in Iran. Japan’s economy could face severe consequences if oil is trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. The South Korean economy last week erased nearly half a trillion dollars, marking the largest drop in their stock market’s 46-year history. Is the war about both of these East Asian countries as well?

Further complicating this point is that China has not exclusively invested in or done business with Iran. Indeed, the People’s Republic has, at least publicly, invested more in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates. (That aforementioned $400 billion agreement between Beijing and Tehran still has not materialized.)

Nor is China the largest buyer only of Iran’s oil. It is also often the leading export destination for Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Omani, Saudi, and Qatari crude. Chinese money, in all its forms, is present across the Middle East, from port construction to the telecommunications industry. What’s more, the Chinese are filling gaps that have opened as a result of American reluctance or negligence.

American foreign policy in the Middle East, including wars, has far more often boosted Chinese interests than undermined them. When the United States in the mid-2010s refused to sell MQ-9 Reaper drones to the Saudis and Emiratis, China filled the gap by selling its CH-4 Rainbow and GJ-1 Wing Loong II models. After the United States invaded Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people, the Chinese were still the first to secure foreign contracts. (To this day, the Chinese are a dominant player in Iraq’s oil industry.) President Biden’s poor relations with the Saudis reportedly played a role in their consideration of settling contracts in Chinese yuan.

One would be forgiven for thinking that many of China’s relationships exist not because of an ideological competition with the U.S., but because capricious or draconian American policy often creates the conditions for Chinese success. This is no less true with Iran, as even the articles proffering this all-about-China theory acknowledge.

“Squeezed by decades of American sanctions and increasingly isolated,” the Israeli journalist Haviv Rettig Gur writes in The Free Press, “Iran turned to China as its economic lifeline.” This lifeline, moreover, “[is] the main reason the Islamic Republic has not gone bankrupt,” according to the conservative Hudson Institute, which is also pushing this about-China theory for the Iran war (see, for instance, its article titled, “The Iran Strike Is All About China”). In other words, the U.S. — not the Chinese — created the conditions for a competitor’s presence in the Middle East.

Theories like this one raise another problem. All of these arguments struggle to provide a comprehensive explanation of how China will be “devastated” by regime change in Iran, but they paint a fairly clear picture of how Iran became dependent on the People’s Republic. Of course, the U.S. gaining total control of the Middle East has implications for Chinese commerce and strategy, as these articles acknowledge. But no serious journalists or scholars have argued that China can currently project military power across the globe, with or without Iran.

Is that not why many of these ideologically aligned institutions warn about China’s nascent, but developing, blue-water navy? If one believes China will one day ‘imperialize’ like the U.S., Americans can wrest the Panama Canal from Chinese companies, attack China’s allies, and encircle the Chinese mainland — for now. Those kinds of actions could very well devastate China. (It would not be the first time Western powers have done something like it.) But Iran is hardly a necessary component of said devastation. If the U.S. really wants to wreck China, it does not need to pulverize Persia.

On top of all this, many of the videos and articles that have virally promoted this claim — that this war is about China, not Iran — seem to ignore the very foreign policy establishment that gave them this war. Mainstream American scholarship on China has been fairly clear: from a strategic perspective, the Chinese are perfectly happy to allow the United States to remain entangled in the Middle East because, by definition, it delays an American “pivot to Asia.” Bizarrely, some of these articles acknowledge this, making the Orwellian argument that the U.S. has to go to war with Iran in order to stop going to war in the Middle East.

And, of course, it would be difficult to ignore the lowest-hanging fruit. Far and away the most common thread that exists between those promoting this all-about-China theory is a devotion to Israel: the Free Press, the Hudson Institute, the Spectator, Fox News, etc. All of these institutions constitute the pro-Israel establishment in the U.S. and U.K. So, when Haviv Rettig Gur writes that Marco Rubio “struggled to explain” why the U.S. was at war with Iran, it is not because Rubio denied that Israel forced America’s hand. He, in fact, confirmed that Israel had compelled an American strike.

Apart from various reports that confirm Rubio’s initial account, such as in the New York Times and the Financial Times, Antony Blinken (his predecessor) recently described an identical story: that the Israelis tried to pressure former President Obama into war with Iran by claiming that if he failed to act, they would strike Iran alone. But, according to Rettig Gur, “It’s hard to take [Rubio’s] explanation at face value,” so the Secretary of State’s candor can be disregarded for another, entirely dreamed up claim. Rettig Gur continues, “If the trigger was simply an Israeli strike, America could have told the Israelis to sit tight. … Goodness knows the U.S. has the leverage to do it again.” That statement seems highly accurate. Unfortunately, some unclear entity — most likely China — prevented the United States from doing that.

Altogether, the claim that Trump went to war with Iran to fight China is more sensational than substantive. It entertains theories of 4D Chess when Yahtzee is a more apt comparison. The Trump administration is rolling the dice for Israel: it has already financed their genocide in Gaza, vaporized prayer circles in Yemen, destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities, granted Benjamin Netanyahu’s wildest wishes, and is now officially at war with Iran. For any hawks eager to embroil the United States in a head-to-head clash with the People’s Republic, the question is not if this latest war was about China — it is whether any of them will be.

Cole Crystal (@colecrystal) was producer and editor for SYSTEM UPDATE with Glenn Greenwald and now has the same title for this Substack. Before joining, he worked for media outlets in the United States. He graduated from Cornell University with a bachelor’s degree in government and online social movements.

March 10, 2026 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Sinophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran War Supporters Invent a New and Absurd Justification: It Is All About China

The US’ self-directed ‘China nuclear threat’ will only be a waste of effort: Global Times editorial

Global Times | February 27, 2026

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio again touched upon China in terms of nuclear weapons negotiations, claiming that any nuclear arms treaty must include China. In the same few days, CNN published an “exclusive report,” citing so-called intelligence sources, to hype up the so-called “Chinese nuclear test.” These coordinated efforts are just a carefully orchestrated show by Washington. Earlier this month, Christopher Yeaw, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Arms Control and Nonproliferation at the US Department of State, disclosed a so-called “breaking news,” claiming that China conducted nuclear testing in 2020, causing a stir in international public opinion. Since then, the “China nuclear threat” rhetoric, directed by Washington, has been launched.

With high-ranking officials making statements, the so-called “insiders” disclosing information to the media, and a number of mainstream media outlets echoing the sentiment, Washington’s elaborate efforts are clearly driven by self-interest. The intention is obvious: Simultaneously with Yeaw’s alleged “Chinese nuclear test” revelations, he also conveniently stated that the US will return to testing on an “equal basis.” This timing coincides with the expiration of the New START Treaty between the US and Russia, a time when the US faces immense international pressure. Clearly, hyping up the “Chinese nuclear threat” is a two-pronged approach: It allows the US to deflect responsibility for deliberately delaying or even abandoning US-Russia nuclear negotiations, while simultaneously providing a fig leaf for its shady ambition to resume nuclear testing.

Washington’s close monitoring of China’s nuclear development is no secret. Take last year as an example. The Arms Control Treaty Compliance Report published in April focused solely on Russia’s suspected supercritical tests, while the Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China released in December detailed the so-called ‘China’s nuclear arsenal expansion and missile deployments,’ making no mention of so-called nuclear tests. It’s worth noting that these reports, in order to prove the so-called “China threat,” gathered various rumors from different sources. If there were truly “concrete information,” would Washington have kept it hidden from 2020 until now? Why didn’t it disclose it in official reports, but instead waited until the expiration of the New START Treaty between the US and Russia to release it? Moreover, global seismic networks, including the US Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior, did not record any abnormal seismic events at that time.

But this blame-shifting spectacle isn’t merely friction between China and the US. The US possesses more than 5,000 nuclear warheads, a considerable number of which are deployed in a ready-to-launch posture. It also stations tactical nuclear weapons in six NATO countries capable of conducting nuclear strikes. Under such circumstances, how could China engage in so-called “equal negotiations”? As the country with a vast nuclear arsenal and the greatest impact on global strategic balance, the US should shoulder special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament and demonstrate genuine sincerity. The reality, however, is that Washington not only shows no intention of reducing its arsenal, but is accelerating nuclear expansion. Should Washington fail to restrain its nuclear ambitions, the consequences for the world would be disastrous.

Facts indicate that the US itself has become the greatest hidden danger to global nuclear security. It has withdrawn from multiple international arms control agreements, while continuing to modernize its nuclear arsenal, develop new nuclear weapons, expand the scope of nuclear strike capabilities, and even lower the threshold for nuclear use. By introducing nuclear deterrence into regional conflicts, it has seriously undermined the stability of the global nuclear security architecture. More ironically, while frequently accusing other countries of “developing nuclear capabilities,” the US simultaneously engages in nuclear deterrence cooperation with its allies, transfers nuclear technology, and deploys nuclear equipment abroad. The double standard is evident.

It is the strong expectation of the international community that the US assumes its due responsibility as a major power in safeguarding global nuclear security. What Washington should do first is stop shifting blame. It should immediately resume strategic stability dialogue with Russia and discuss follow-up arrangements to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. In addition, AUKUS, which has raised concerns about nuclear proliferation, should be halted, and Washington should exercise restraint over its “close ally” Tokyo’s increasingly swelling nuclear ambitions. The waste contamination left behind by dozens of US nuclear tests in the South Pacific also urgently requires remediation. In the nuclear issue, Washington has many pressing responsibilities to fulfill, rather than “finding faults” with China.

Nuclear arms control is a shared security issue for all humanity. Safeguarding it requires major powers to take proactive responsibility. During the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, China said it is willing to maintain communication with all parties and exchange views on the work of the Conference and on the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. China has long participated in and supported a range of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation mechanisms – actions and contributions that are visible to the international community. Washington’s elaborate scheme, full of hidden motives, lacks both persuasiveness and credibility, and will ultimately be a waste of effort. Hopefully, it could do something genuinely meaningful that contributes to world peace and security.

February 26, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Sinophobia | , | Comments Off on The US’ self-directed ‘China nuclear threat’ will only be a waste of effort: Global Times editorial

Populations in key NATO nations balk at sacrifices for military spending – poll

RT | February 13, 2026

People in key NATO nations are reluctant to tighten their belts to fund increased defense spending, despite believing that the world is “heading toward global war,” according to a Politico poll published on Friday.

The poll, which surveyed at least 2,000 people from the US, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany each, found that majorities in four of the five countries think “the world is becoming more dangerous” and expect World War III to break out within five years.

Nearly half of Americans (46%) consider a new world war ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ by 2031, up from 38% last year. In the UK, 43% share this belief, up from 30% in March 2025.

French respondents matched British levels at 43%, and 40% of Canadians expect war within five years. Only Germans remain skeptical, with a majority believing that a global conflict is unlikely in the near term.

The survey suggested a stark disconnect, however, between the growing alarm and willingness to pay for a defense buildup. While respondents support increased military spending in principle, support fell dramatically when specific trade-offs were mentioned.

In France, support dropped from 40% to 28% when those being surveyed were told about the potential financial and fiscal consequences. In Germany, it fell from 37% to 24%, with defense spending ranking as one of the least popular uses of money.

The survey also suggested significant skepticism about creating an EU army under a central command, with support at 22% in Germany and 17% in France.

While the poll suggests that Russia is perceived as the ‘biggest threat’ to Europe, Canadians view the administration of US President Donald Trump as the greatest danger to their security. Respondents in France, Germany, and the UK rank the US as the second-biggest threat – cited far more often than China.

The findings come after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte urged members states in December to embrace a “wartime mindset” amid the stand-off with Russia. This also comes amid Western media speculation that Russia could attack European NATO members within several years. Moscow has dismissed the claims as “nonsense,” while accusing EU countries of manufacturing anti-Russia hysteria to justify reckless militarization.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Beijing cancels Panama deals after court blocks Chinese port operations

The Cradle | February 5, 2026

Chinese authorities have asked state-owned companies to suspend talks on new projects in Panama, in response to the Central American nation’s cancellation of a contract with China’s CK Hutchison Holdings to operate two ports along its strategic canal, Bloomberg reported on 5 February.

According to sources familiar with the matter, Panama’s decision could jeopardize billions of dollars in potential Chinese investments.

Chinese authorities also asked shipping companies to consider rerouting goods through other ports if the extra cost is not prohibitive, and have stepped up inspections of Panamanian imports, such as bananas and coffee.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian issued a statement saying that the Panamanian Supreme Court ruling “ignores the facts, violates credibility,” while harming the interests of Chinese companies.

Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison responded to the Supreme Court decision by initiating international arbitration proceedings against Panama.

CK Hutchison has operated Panama’s Cristobal and Balboa ports for decades. The ports lie at opposite ends of the Panama Canal – the strategic waterway that connects the Pacific and Caribbean Oceans, and through which roughly three percent of global seaborne trade passes.

The move comes amid US President Donald Trump’s campaign to counter Chinese influence over strategic infrastructure in the Americas.

Following his election last year, Trump argued that it was “foolish” of the US to hand over control of the canal to Panama. The US built the canal in 1904 and handed it back to Panamanians nearly a century later, in 1999.

Trump has also complained about the fees Panama charges the US to use the waterway.

Amid pressure from Washington, Panama also withdrew from China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in February last year.

At the time, Beijing stated it “firmly opposes the United States using pressure and coercion to smear and undermine Belt and Road cooperation. The US side’s attacks … once again expose its hegemonic nature.”

Twenty Latin American nations have participated in the BRI since Beijing initiated it in 2013.

Current Chinese infrastructure projects in Panama include a $1.4-billion bridge over the canal, a cruise terminal constructed by China Harbour Engineering Co., and a segment of a metro line by China Railway Tunnel Group Co.

In Latin America, Trump is seeking to revive the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine. It states that Washington will not allow European powers to interfere in the Western Hemisphere as they had in colonial times, asserting that the region would be regarded as a sphere of US interest.

Trump used the doctrine as one of his justifications for bombing Venezuela and abducting its president, Nicholas Maduro, on 3 January.

The US president claimed that Maduro was hosting “foreign adversaries in our region” and acquired “menacing offensive weapons that could threaten U.S. interests and lives.”

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Sinophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries