Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Does the AUKUS have a future?

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 3, 2025

The Trump administration’s review of the AUKUS pact exposes deep uncertainties in U.S. commitment and capabilities, offering Australia a strategic opportunity to reconsider its role in the trilateral alliance.

Conceived during the Biden era to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region, the trilateral treaty involving Australia, the UK, and the US appears to have been hit by the Trump administration’s distaste for multilateral defence pacts. Underneath, however, also lie serious problems affecting American ability to live up to the pact’s demands, presenting Australia a rare opportunity to walk away from the pact.

The AUKUS in Disarray

When the Trump administration launched early in June a “review” of the multibillion-dollar AUKUS pact, it sent a shockwave across the Pacific, causing Canberra to tremble. The review announcement, according to the US Department of Defence, is meant to ensure that the pact is properly aligned with the President’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda. In effect, part of it means asking both Australia and the UK to raise their shares of the cost of the programme, which was originally supposed to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia before the allies make a new fleet by sharing cutting-edge research and technology. Both the UK and Australia have thus far not confirmed their readiness to meet America’s demands. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told his Australian counterpart in early June that the country should increase defence spending to 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product, echoing demands that the Trump administration has been making of allies in Europe. But Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said this week that “I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence. Simple as that”. There is, thus, a very clear disagreement affecting the pact.

In reality, this dissonance is not difficult to understand, given that the pact was signed by leaders in all three countries no longer in power. This is particularly the case in the US, where the Trump administration has a credible history of withdrawing from agreed pacts. The first Trump administration, for instance, withdrew from the Iran-nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015–a decision that directly paved the way for the Iran-Israel war and the US recent bombing of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. In addition, President Trump also withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) immediately after assuming office in 2016. Will the AUKUS be put into the dustbin of history similarly?

Many in the US share this fear. A letter addressed to defence secretary Pete Hegseth, signed by five Republican and Democrat lawmakers, urged the Pentagon to back the Pact. Their fears are only compounded by the fact that the review is headed by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of the AUKUS. In a speech last year, he publicly questioned why the US would give away “this crown jewel asset when we most need it.” In Australia, however, the review means not only a potential end of the pact itself but also an assessment about the extent to which Canberra can rely on Washington to build its defences. If Trump scraps the AUKUS, or even if he significantly alters its provisions, Washington’s standing in the Indo-Pacific region will be majorly diminished.

Facing Practical Problems

For the US, however, what matters more than its standing in the Indo-Pacific region is its capacity to project power in an uncompromising manner. At the heart of the review—which once again is aimed at making the pact properly align with Trump’s America First agenda—are practical problems facing America’s ship building industry. Can America build enough (Virginia-class) submarines for its own use by 2030, i.e., when it is supposed to transfer (some of its) its existing submarines to Australia?

For the pact to work—which is supposed to transfer 18 submarines to Australia by 2040–the US needs to be able to produce at least two submarines every year until 2028 and 2.33 per year thereafter. However, reports show that the US shipbuilding industry is in serious disarray, facing workforce shortages and budget constraints, making it problematic to meet sales to Australia and address a production backlog. These challenges have limited production to about 1.2 submarines per year since 2022. Because the US is unable to meet the pact’s demands and because meeting these demands could put Washington’s own strategic needs in jeopardy, the Trump administration might find the pact violating its America First agenda. In that case, the AUKUS might hit the bottom of the Pacific sooner than expected.

Is this bad news for Australia?

If the US withdraws from the AUKUS, does it necessarily mean bad news for Australia? While AUKUS might give Australia access to (used) submarines, the downside of this pact is that it also massively increases Canberra’s dependence on the Anglo-American axis. On the contrary, if the US withdraws from the pact, it gives Canberra strategic flexibility to manage its ties with the US and the EU and China in ways that best serve its national interests. In fact, the second scenario works best for Australia in all possible ways.

The purpose of the AUKUS is not simply to enhance Australia’s capability, but also to establish it as a proactive player in the Indo-Pacific region. However, there is little denying that China and Australia don’t have any direct disputes between themselves, making it highly unlikely that China will ever want to attack Australian territory. On the other hand, Australia can do well to manage its ties with China—which is also its largest trading partner—by further deepening its trade ties with Beijing.

The Trump administration’s decision to review—and possibly scrap or downgrade—the AUKUS could be a blessing in disguise for Canberra. A realistic counter review by Canberra should allow it to pursue alternative approaches.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

NATO To Take ‘Quantum Leap’ in Military Spending, Pledging 5% of GDP Baseline

By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | June 24, 2025

Each member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is expected to ink a pledge to raise military spending to 5% of GDP over the next ten years. This is more than double the current 2% goal. Responding to President Donald Trump’s demands for greater spending, member states will agree to the new baseline in the Netherlands during an alliance summit this week. On Monday, the eve before the summit, this proposal was referred to as a “quantum leap” by Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Under the compromise deal, by 2035, each member state will commit a minimum of 3.5% of their GDP to “core military needs,” along with 1.5% to be earmarked for cybersecurity, infrastructure, and other security components.

“The defense investment plan that allies will agree [to] in The Hague introduces a new baseline, five percent of GDP to be invested in defense,” Rutte told reporters.Despite alliance concerns over Madrid’s refusal to commit to the 5% spending figure, which would necessitate a military yearly budget of nearly $90 billion, Rutte emphasized Spain will not be allowed to “opt-out.” He said, “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etcetera, because we all have to chip in.”

Moreover, Rutte insists the new spending will go toward producing thousands of tanks and a five fold increase in the production of air defenses. The NATO chief declared, “Our focus is ensuring that we have all we need to deter and defend against any threat.” Rutte added the summit will see strong support for Ukraine and noted the “most significant and direct threat facing this alliance remains the Russian Federation.”

The alliance has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties with Ukraine losing roughly 20% of its territory.

With the US taking the lead, by 2021, defying Russia’s core security concerns and provoking conflict, Ukraine was being treated as a de facto NATO member. Rutte’s predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that, under his leadership in the lead up to the war, the Washington-led bloc refused to take potential membership for Kiev off the table in negotiations even though Moscow had made clear that would prevent an invasion.

The policy has not changed. “Last year in Washington, NATO allies agreed that for Ukraine there is an irreversible path of Ukraine to enter NATO. And that is still true today, and it will still be true on Thursday after this summit,” Rutte told reporters.

However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly will be “largely sidelined” at the summit’s main event. With Biden gone and Trump now in office, Rutte said Europe will work to cover the difference in US spending on the Ukraine war. He added that Europe and Canada have spent $40 billion on the war thus far this year. Washington is still providing Kiev with military and other aid, along with targeting intelligence.

Rutte’s comments also took aim at Tehran, the NATO chief said his “greatest fear” is Iran gaining a nuclear weapon that would give it a “stranglehold” over Israel. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and prior to Tel Aviv’s unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic, the consensus among US intelligence agencies was Tehran is not trying to build nuclear weapons. Israel – which is not a party to the NPT – has an undeclared nuclear arsenal estimated to contain as many as 300 warheads.

The US carried out an illegal act of war, bombing Iran’s internationally safeguarded nuclear energy facilities over the weekend. This is a blatant violation of the UN charter. Trump ordered the massive attack without congressional authorization as required per the US Constitution. When questioned about the legality of the strikes, Rutte proclaimed “I would not agree that [what the US did] is against international law.”

Trump is demanding a $1 trillion US military budget. While Rutte is currently focused on Moscow and fueling the Ukraine war, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth recently boasted he is preparing the American military to defend the island of Taiwan, to “fight and win — decisively” a war with China.

June 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , | 1 Comment

China hits back at US over vilification

RT | June 1, 2025

Washington is “vilifying” Beijing, the Chinese foreign ministry said on Sunday. The accusation follows remarks made by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is deliberately ignoring calls for peace from nations in the region, according to the ministry.

Earlier, Hegseth claimed that China poses a real and potentially imminent threat, and urged Washington’s allies in the Indo-Pacific region to increase defense and security spending.

“Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region and instead touted a Cold War mentality of bloc confrontation, vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely labeled China a ‘threat’,” the ministry said in a statement.

Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Saturday, the defense secretary accused Chinese authorities of seeking to fundamentally alter the region’s status quo and aiming to “become a hegemonic power.” Hegseth also raised the issue of Taiwan, which relies on the US for its defense – accusing Beijing of preparing to invade the territory.

The Chinese foreign ministry described the comments as “deplorable” and “intended to sow division” in the Asia-Pacific. It emphasized that the only country that “deserves to be called a hegemonic power” is the US, which it accused of undermining peace and stability in the region.

Responding to Hegseth’s remarks on the self-governing island, the ministry reiterated that the issue is entirely China’s internal affair. It stressed that no foreign nation has the right to interfere and warned the US against using the Taiwan issue as leverage against Beijing.

Taiwan has long been a source of discord between Beijing and Washington. While China advocates peaceful reunification, it has warned that any move toward formal independence could trigger armed conflict. Beijing contends that certain elements within the US government are pushing Taiwan toward that outcome.

China has also repeatedly criticized US-led joint military drills in the Indo-Pacific, arguing that they destabilize the region and provoke tensions over Taiwan.

In addition to geopolitical disputes, the two nations are at odds over trade. US President Donald Trump has blamed Beijing for America’s significant trade deficit with China.

In May, both countries agreed to pause the tariff hikes introduced the previous month for 90 days, while maintaining a baseline 10% duty on mutual imports. Earlier this week, Trump accused China of violating that agreement.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Want to Understand US Action in the Middle East? Look at the Wolfowitz Doctrine

By Makia Freeman | Freedom Articles | May 2015

The Wolfowitz Doctrine, a document authored by Zionist neo-con Paul Wolfowitz, is the key to understanding the United States’ geopolitical policy and behavior. The Wolfowitz Doctrine is the unofficial name given to the early version of the Defense Strategy for the 1990s: The Regional Defense Strategy report for the 1994–99 fiscal years. It was later released by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1993. It brazenly advocates that America do everything in its power to retain its global hegemony and superpower status, including ensuring that Russia, China, Iran and other regional powers – but especially Russia – be prevented from attaining enough power to seriously challenge the US. In short, it’s another US blueprint for total global supremacy.

There are many quotable passages from the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Here’s one which sums up its aims:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.”

Following in the Footsteps of the Wolfowitz Doctrine: Trilateralist Brzezinski and His Grand American Chessboard

The Wolfowitz Doctrine was not created in a vacuum, of course. It has a strong history of American arrogance and cockiness behind it, and it inspired numerous works after it. Just look at co-founder of the Trilateral Commission (along with David Rockefeller) and big-time NWO insider Zbigniew Brzezinski (the very same guy who bemoaned that it was easier to kill than control people). Brzezinski is an avowed Russophobe who for decades has been pushing for America to encircle Russia and capture the lion’s share of Eurasia.

Brzezinski has also mentored Obama, was present in the Carter administration and clearly has had a lot of influence on American foreign policy; you can see him in this video organizing the Mujahideen to fight against the former Soviet Union, tricking them by saying that “God is on your side”. How the conspirators love to use religion to control people!

In his book The Grand Chessboard, written in 1997, Brzezinski writes:

“The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitrating role.”

” … the expansion of NATO is essential. By the same token, a failure to widen NATO … would shatter the concept of an expanding Europe and de-moralize the Central Europeans. It could even reignite currently dormant or dying Russian geopolitical aspirations in Central Europe.”

Brzezinski and his ilk have been and are still concerned with just one thing: power. It’s presupposed that might is right and that American supremacy is moral. The pervading issue is always: how can America expand or at least maintain its global power?

From the Wolfowitz Doctrine Came … PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses and a Catalyzing New Pearl Harbor

Wolfowitz is perhaps better known not for writing the Wolfowitz Doctrine but for co-authoring Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a report released in September 2000 by Zionist neocon think tank PNAC (The Project for a New American Century). The PNAC membership list is a “Who’s Who” of American Zionist New World Order conspirators – in addition to Wolfowitz the list includes Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagan, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and many others. The report contains the now infamous sentence:

“This process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Hence, there is strong evidence that the writers of this document knew exactly what was coming – and therefore had 9/11 foreknowledge. As I covered in the article Who is Jeb Bush, Really? – Part 2 – Jeb’s PNAC & Money Laundering Past, current presidential candidate Jeb Bush was among the signatories of this document.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine Explains the Gross Hypocrisy of the USA

The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly and unabashedly pushes for complete US supremacy at the cost of any other value. If it is truly the guiding principle of US foreign policy and geopolitical maneuvering, as it appears to be, it comes as no surprise then that America is such a hypocrite on the world stage. To put on a good face on the world stage, and feed the propaganda that it only promotes democracy and peace, the US is forced to use rhetoric claiming it values the promotion of democracy, the promotion of human rights, the self-determination of people and nations, and the elimination of terrorism. Yet, whenever any of these “values” conflict with the ideals set out in the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the US always chooses its own supremacy over them.

As Michael S. Rozeff writes:

“The U.S. condemns separatism in Ukraine and aids Kiev in attacking its own people with heavy and advanced weapons of all kinds. This is because the superpower agenda is served by steering Ukraine into the Western camp. At the very same time, the U.S. condemns China for indicting a professor who is a vocal separatist and critical of Chinese policy in Xinjiang. Hence, we observe the U.S. against separatism in Ukraine but supporting it in China. This is because the U.S. is applying pressure on China wherever it thinks this will succeed in diminishing China as a power … Numerous other instances of U.S. hypocrisy can be understood in this way. The U.S. will support democracy but then ignore elections and support dictators … It will condemn terrorism and then arm terrorists. This is because the overriding agenda is the Wolfowitz Doctrine.”

The Demonization of Russia and the Smear Campaign Against Putin

In alignment with the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Western, Zionist MSM (Mainstream Media) is constantly telling us how bad Russia is and how aggressive Putin is, yet the facts reveal otherwise. It’s easy to see the demonization of Russia and the smear campaign against Putin as desperate attempts of the Anglo-American NWO to control the information war and paint themselves as the victim instead of the aggressor. Consider the following facts:

– The US has pumped at least $5 billion into regime change in Ukraine (as admitted by Zionist neo-con Victoria Nuland, wife of Zionist neo-con Robert Kagan), forcibly removing the legitimately elected government of Yanukovich and installing a puppet regime of Neo-Nazis answerable to Washington’s demands. Nuland also got caught saying “Fuck the EU” to US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt in a leaked phone call. After the coup, the Ukraine people all of a sudden found themselves with a Nazi-like government whose first decision was to ban the Russian language!

– Crimea has been a province of Russia since 1758, and only became part of Ukraine when Soviet head Khrushchev handed it over to Ukraine at a time when both Crimea and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union (the whole thing was purely administrative). Therefore, Russia has had its Black Sea fleet based in Crimea for over 250 years, and a leasing agreement with Ukraine gave them the right to have 25,000 troops there. In a referendum deemed impartial and fair, 96% of Crimeans voted to return to Russia. There was no “annexation of Crimea“.

Putin-led Russia is standing in the way of American supremacy by suggesting we form a multi-polar world, rather than one led by US military might. Swedish analyst Ingemar Wärnström quotes Putin as saying:

“What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.”

Conclusion: The Wolfowitz Doctrine is the Guiding Force

To believe the US really cares about anything other than its own global imperial ambitions is foolish. The Wolfowitz Doctrine has laid it all out in black and white – and America’s support for Zionist Israel, the fake War on Terror, the demonization of Russia and Iran, and many other geopolitical events make much more sense when you realize its the driving force behind American diplomatic and military action.

Ultimately, it would be most precise to say that the NWO conspirators are using the military might of America to forge a unipolar One World Government. This really isn’t about America. It’s about using America as a tool to achieve the New World Order, then discarding it, stripping it of power and relegating it to the same level as all other nations, under the heel of the international banksters who yearn to rule the world.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative news / independent media site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.

Sources:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/naarpr_Defense.pdf
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
https://thefreedomarticles.com/brzezinski-easier-to-kill-than-control/
http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
https://thefreedomarticles.com/who-is-jeb-bush-really-part-2/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/u-s-implements-the-wolfowitz-doctrine/
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexrP27MMdU
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg
https://www.rt.com/news/international-observers-crimea-referendum-190/
http://newsvoice.se/2015/09/07/swedish-analyst-the-smear-campaign-against-putin-and-the-us-agenda-part-1/

May 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

UK to step up cyberattacks on Russia and China – minister

British Defense Secretary John Healey © Getty Images / Antonio Masiello
RT | May 29, 2025

London will significantly step up offensive cyber operations against Russia and China, UK Defense Secretary John Healey announced on Thursday following the inauguration of the country’s new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command.

In a statement quoted by The Times, Healey claimed that “the keyboard is now a weapon of war” and said the UK’s new cyber command would coordinate both defensive and offensive operations, including hacking into enemy systems to disrupt attacks and spread of propaganda.

Asked whether this would include Russia and China, Healey responded: “Yes.”

Healey’s statement marks the first time a British minister has explicitly confirmed cyberattacks on other states. While UK ministers had previously confirmed cyber operations against non-state actors like Islamic State, they have not until now acknowledged attacks against other countries.

Healey’s comments come ahead of the publication of a strategic defense review on Monday. According to The Times, the review will stress that cyberattacks on Britain, allegedly being carried out by Russia and China, are “threatening the foundations of the economy and daily life.”

Both Moscow and Beijing have consistently denied accusations of carrying out cyberattacks against Western nations, characterizing the claims as baseless and politically motivated.

Additionally, Russian officials have in recent months repeatedly raised concerns over what they describe as Western Europe’s continued militarization and aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric, said to be in response to the alleged threat posed by Moscow.

The Kremlin has vehemently denied having any hostile intent towards any western country, and has accused European politicians of “irresponsibly stoking fears” to justify increased military expenditures, which Moscow had labeled an “incitement of war on the European continent.”

May 29, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Sinophobia | | Leave a comment

Are Chinese Soldiers Fighting in Ukraine?

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | April 14, 2025

If Chinese soldiers are fighting in the Russian armed forces in Ukraine, that is not the big story. The big story is the effect the claim could have on the possibility of peace.

Ukraine has not yet even proven the months old claim of the presence of North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia on Russian soil. Now they are making the much more provocative claim that Chinese soldiers are fighting for Russia on Ukrainian soil.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on April 9 that the Ukrainian armed forces had captured two Chinese soldiers fighting in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. He then said that Ukrainian intelligence has uncovered 155 Chinese citizens who are “fighting against Ukrainians on the territory of Ukraine” and that they “believe that there are many more of them.”

Independent journalists and organizations have not had access to the two prisoners in order to verify the truth of the claim. Ukraine has provided a video and documents listing names and passport documents. Media outlets have seen them, but CNN and The Independent both say that they have not been independently verified.

There are tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese living in Russia. And even if the captured soldiers are from China, that does not mean they were sent by China. They could have enlisted on their own as mercenaries, a possibility that two former U.S. intelligence officers “with knowledge of the issue” now say U.S. intelligence believes to be the case. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the claim that many Chinese citizens are fighting in the Russian army “totally unfounded,” and said that “the Chinese government always asks Chinese citizens to stay away from conflict zones, avoid getting involved in any form of armed conflict, and especially refrain from participating in any party’s military operations.”

Zelensky, though, has made the provocative claim that the Chinese government is allowing its citizens to fight in Ukraine. Asked whether China had a policy of sending soldiers to Ukraine, Zelensky answered, “I don’t have an answer to this question yet. The Security Service of Ukraine will work on it…We are not saying that someone gave any command, we do not have such information.” However, he added that “[o]fficial Beijing knows about this” and did not prevent it.

Zelensky then escalated the claim, saying, “The Chinese issue is serious” and calling on “the U.S. and the rest of the world for a response.”

It is that threat to the peace process and not the possible presence of Chinese soldiers that is serious and significant. Mercenaries from many countries have been welcomed by both Ukraine and Russia since the beginning of the war. Al Jazeera reports that, not only Chinese, but Nepalese and Indians have fought for Russia. They also report that Colombians, Sri Lankans, Indians and Americans have fought for Ukraine. At least nine Canadians have been killed in Ukraine, and more are known to have fought there. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed in March 2024 that 1,005 Canadian mercenaries have fought in Ukraine. They also claim that 2,960 have come from Poland, 1,113 from the United States, 356 from France and others from the United Kingdom and Romania. Ukraine says their international legion comprises around 20,000 fighters from fifty countries.

More seriously, it is not just mercenaries who have arrived in Ukraine. A leaked March 2023 Defense Department document reveals the presence of 97 NATO special forces in Ukraine. A recent New York Times article reports that more than three dozen military advisers were sent to Kiev and that CIA officers were in Kharkiv and “command posts closer to the fighting.” The British prime minister’s office has confirmed that the United Kingdom has boots on the ground in Ukraine. The presence of French forces has also been revealed, and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski confirmed that “NATO soldiers are already present in Ukraine.”

Unless the Chinese government has a policy of sending troops to fight alongside Russia in Ukraine, which would be serious, since it could draw China into the war, it is not the alleged presence of Chinese soldiers that is dangerous. At a time when peace talks are at a fragile beginning, and U.S. President Donald Trump is insisting on both sides showing they are serious about peace, it is the provocative statements coming out of Kiev that are potentially serious.

“Russia’s involvement of China, along with other countries, whether directly or indirectly, in this war in Europe is a clear signal that Putin intends to do anything but end the war,” Zelensky said. “This definitely requires a response. A response from the United States, Europe, and all those around the world who want peace.” The suggestion that Putin is not serious about negotiating undermines U.S. led negotiations.

The statements are also ill timed and hazardous. The United States and China are engaged in a trade war. It is a volatile time to provide Washington with a cause for turning up its anger against China. Zelensky intends the presence of Chinese soldiers to evoke an American response. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the U.S. is “aware of those reports” and that “It’s disturbing with the Chinese soldiers having been captured,” though the White House has not confirmed the claim. National Security Spokesman Brian Hughes said that “if the Chinese government is allowing their citizens to fight on behalf of the Russia government, this would be a concerning escalation and the U.S. will consider options moving forward.”

Beyond challenging the peace process, the comments coming out of Kiev are provocative to China, questioning its credibility and its lack of involvement in the war. Equally importantly, it challenges any potential role of China both in the negotiations before the end of the war and in security arrangements after the end of the war: both potentially important roles for China.

Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrii Sybiha, said that “Chinese citizens fighting as part of Russia’s invasion army in Ukraine puts into question” not only “China’s declared stance for peace” but even that it “undermines Beijing’s credibility as a responsible permanent member of the UN Security Council.”

If the two captured soldiers turn out to be from China, and if they turn out to be mercenaries fighting without the approval of China, then their presence in Ukraine is not the big story. If the claims being made about them and about China resonate in the White House, then the effect of the claims could make difficult peace talks even more difficult. And that is what the potential big story would turn out to be.

April 14, 2025 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Trump touts record $1 trillion Pentagon budget

RT | April 8, 2025

US President Donald Trump has announced that his administration has approved a record defense budget of around $1 trillion despite an ongoing campaign to cut federal spending.

Trump made the remarks during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday.

“We are very cost-conscious but the military is something that we have to build and we have to be strong because you have a lot of bad forces out there now,” Trump said. “Nobody’s seen anything like it.”

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stressed that “we intend to spend every taxpayer dollar wisely – on lethality and readiness.”

The defense secretary under the previous administration of President Joe Biden, Lloyd Austin, had proposed increasing the defense budget by roughly $50 billion more than projections for the fiscal year 2026.

In contrast to both Trump and Austin, in February the Pentagon proposed cutting spending by 8% but prioritizing expenditure on technologies such as drones, submarines, and defense operations at the US-Mexico border and operations related to deterring China.

The current US Defense Department budget is $895.2 billion. Despite the vast sums allocated to defense, the Pentagon has failed to pass an audit for seven consecutive years since the procedure was established.

Trump’s pledge for expanded military funding comes as his administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has implemented widespread federal spending cuts. Under DOGE, led by Elon Musk, roughly 280,000 federal workers have been laid off in recent months.

April 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Sinophobia | | Leave a comment

USAID in Myanmar: A Legacy of Soft Power Manipulation?

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 31.03.2025

Democrats and the mainstream media continue to blame US President Donald Trump’s USAID cuts for crippling Myanmar’s earthquake response, despite his pledge of aid.

Trump and Elon Musk have slammed USAID for fraud, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it had “strayed from its original mission.” what was USAID REALLY doing in Myanmar?

Pushing Woke Agendas

Musk’s DOGE axed a $45M DEI scholarship program in Myanmar, launched in 2024 to fund 1,000 students in SE Asia and online at the University of Arizona. It was less about education and more about grooming future US allies against China, insiders told Radio Free Asia. Media reports say many in Myanmar also fear the programs erode local culture and values.

Terrorism Allegations

Myanmar’s ruling State Administrative Council (SAC) urged the US in 2024 to rethink funding activities “which some label as terrorism.”

“We believe the US is manipulating Myanmar to counter China’s influence in the region,” the military government told US media. “Despite the US presenting itself as a champion of democracy, the aid disproportionately benefits Myanmar’s opposition groups.”

Media Manipulation

USAID redirected $42.4M to advocacy groups post-2021. A now-frozen $1M was set for ‘independent’ media like Mizzima, seen as an anti-government mouthpiece. The group Human Rights Myanmar said the frozen funds “are vital for organizations challenging military rule and promoting democracy, which advance US interests by upholding American values and countering China’s authoritarian influence.” USAID’s Myanmar partners reportedly also include CARE International, which runs gender-focused projects and the Overseas Irrawaddy Association which relocates activists.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Chinese Embassy in Canada refutes allegations of China’s interference in Canadian elections

Global Times | March 26, 2025

In response to a media question regarding claims by an official from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that China might attempt to interfere in Canada’s elections, a spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in Canada stated that China firmly opposes the baseless slander and defamation of China without factual evidence.

It has been reported that an official from the CSIS stated that Canada’s elections could face the threat of foreign interference and the CSIS is closely monitoring China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, when questioned on this, the spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in Canada said that the Chinese side has repeatedly stated its position on the so-called issue of foreign interference, firmly opposing the baseless slander and defamation of China without factual evidence.

China follows the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and has never, nor has any interest in, interfering in Canada’s internal affairs. The label of “foreign interference” will never be placed on China, the spokesperson said.

The Canadian election is a domestic issue for Canada and is not related to China. However, the Chinese side firmly opposes linking Canada’s internal affairs with China-related factors and firmly opposes using China as a topic in this context, the spokesperson added.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

A new American empire: Trump, Russia, and the end of globalism

The US is resetting, but not how the world expected

By Vasily Kashin | Profile | March 5, 2025

Donald Trump’s return to the White House is shaping up to be nothing short of a political revolution. The new administration is rapidly dismantling the old order, purging the ruling elite, reshaping both domestic and foreign policy, and cementing changes that will be difficult to reverse – even if his opponents regain power in future elections.

For Trump, as for all revolutionaries, the priority is to break the existing system and consolidate radical transformations. Many of the principles that guided US policy for decades – sometimes for over a century – are being deliberately discarded. Washington’s global strategy, long built on expansive military, diplomatic, and financial influence, is being rewritten to serve Trump’s domestic political needs.

The end of the American liberal empire

For the past 100 years, the US has functioned as a global empire. Unlike traditional empires built on territorial expansion, the American empire extended its reach through financial dominance, military alliances, and ideological influence. This model, however, has become increasingly unsustainable. Since the late 1990s, the costs of maintaining global hegemony have exceeded the benefits, fueling discontent both at home and abroad.

Trump and his allies seek to end this ‘liberal empire’ and return America to a more self-reliant, mercantilist model – one reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries under President William McKinley. Trump has openly praised this era, viewing it as the golden age of US prosperity, before the country took on the burdens of global leadership.

Under this vision, America will reduce unproductive foreign expenditures and refocus on its natural advantages: Vast resources, an advanced industrial base, and the world’s most valuable consumer market. Rather than policing the world, Washington will wield its economic power more aggressively to secure trade advantages. However, the transition to this model carries significant risks, particularly in a highly globalized economy.

A shift in global strategy

Trump’s policies are driven by domestic concerns but will have major implications abroad. His administration is systematically dismantling key institutions of the old order, including those that irritated Moscow. For instance, USAID – a major vehicle for American influence in the post-Soviet space – has been gutted. Ironically, Trump had more motivation to destroy USAID than even Russian President Vladimir Putin, given that its resources had been repurposed for domestic political use by Trump’s rivals.

If the US abandons its liberal empire model, many sources of tension with Russia will disappear. Historically, Moscow and Washington had relatively stable relations throughout the 19th century. If Trump’s America reverts to a more isolationist approach, Russia will no longer be a primary target of US interference. The main friction point will likely be the Arctic, where both nations have strategic interests.

China, however, remains Trump’s top adversary. Beijing’s state-led economic expansion is fundamentally at odds with Trump’s mercantilist vision. Unlike Biden, who sought to counter China through alliances, Trump is willing to go it alone – potentially weakening Western unity in the process. His administration is expected to escalate economic and technological warfare against Beijing, even if it means alienating European allies.

Europe’s strategic uncertainty

One of Trump’s most disruptive moves has been his open hostility toward the EU. His vice president, J.D. Vance, recently delivered a speech in Munich that amounted to direct interference in European politics, signaling support for right-wing nationalist movements that challenge the EU’s authority.

This shift is forcing Europe into an uncomfortable position. For years, China has viewed Western Europe as an ‘alternative West’ with which it could engage economically without the same level of confrontation it faces with the US. Trump’s approach could accelerate EU-Chinese ties, especially if Western European leaders feel abandoned by Washington.

There are already signs that European policymakers may loosen restrictions on Chinese investments, particularly in critical industries such as semiconductors. At the same time, the ambitions of some Europeans for NATO expansion into the Indo-Pacific may falter, as the bloc struggles to define its new role in a post-globalist US strategy.

Russia and China: A changing relationship

For years, Washington fantasized about splitting Russia and China apart. But Trump’s new approach is unlikely to achieve this goal. The Russia-China partnership is built on strong fundamentals: A massive shared border, complementary economies, and a shared interest in countering Western dominance.

If anything, the shifting geopolitical landscape could push Russia into a position similar to that of China in the early 2000s – focusing on economic development while maintaining strategic flexibility. Moscow may reduce its efforts to actively undermine the US and instead concentrate on strengthening its economic and security ties with Beijing.

China, meanwhile, will bear the brunt of Trump’s new American empire. The US will no longer rely on alliances to contain Beijing but will use direct economic and military pressure. While this may make life more difficult for China, it does not necessarily mean the US will succeed. China has been preparing for economic decoupling for years, and Beijing may find opportunities in a more divided Western world.

The road ahead

Trump’s return marks a fundamental shift in global power dynamics. The US is moving away from being a liberal empire and toward a more transactional, power-based foreign policy. For Russia, this means fewer ideological conflicts with Washington but continued competition in key areas like the Arctic.

For China, Trump’s policies present a direct challenge. The question is whether Beijing can adapt to a world where the US is no longer just containing it but actively trying to roll back its economic influence.

For Western Europe, the picture is bleak. The EU is losing its privileged status as America’s primary partner and is being forced to fend for itself. Whether it can navigate this new reality remains to be seen.

One thing is certain: The world is entering a period of profound transformation, and the old rules no longer apply. Trump’s America is rewriting the playbook, and the rest of the world will have to adjust accordingly.

Vasily Kashin, Political Science PhD, Director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies, HSE

This article was translated and edited by the RT team.

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Sinophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Perestroika then and now

By Přemysl Janýr | March 3, 2025

Vienna – In the 1980s, Eastern Europe was caught in the tension between the inflexible ideological framework of the Communist Party and the burgeoning desires of the populace for economic and political transformation. For those entrenched in power, it was about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival was at stake, as the legitimacy of their rule was precarious and the societal mood was increasingly inhospitable.

These rulers sought solace in ideological manipulation and censorship. The state-controlled media cast the West as the ultimate adversary, perpetrating ideological subversion through the dissemination of bourgeois propaganda spread by enemies of the socialism with the goal of toppling the socialist regime by violent means. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s allure lay in its exemplary living standards, relative freedom, and human rights and its intentions to overthrow the socialist system was substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.

Then, in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev emerged as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, introducing Perestroika — a sweeping set of economic and political reforms aimed at making the Soviet Union and the broader Eastern Bloc competitive with the West. This sparked widespread anticipation among the populace, yet also stirred anxiety among the Eastern European power structures: Gorbachev’s initiatives contained elements that threatened their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the hitherto adversary as ally.

The social divide grew more profound. The hopes of the populace in satellite nations were pinned on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures that he had previously established. Yet, from the perspective of the Eastern European elite, Gorbachev had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.

Within four years, the Eastern Bloc crumbled, and two years later, the Soviet Union followed suit. The previously dominant CPSU was outlawed, and its remnants in Eastern Europe swiftly switched allegiance to the former adversary.

History, it seems, has a peculiar way of repeating itself. In the early 21st century, a parallel schism is forming in Western societies. The very elements that made the West appealing for four decades — traditional values, social welfare, peace, human rights, liberty, and democracy — have been ruthlessly curtailed. The ruling establishments are embroiled in the spread of panic over COVID-19 and are actively participating in the Ukraine war and the genocide in Gaza.

Western Europeans are increasingly placing their trust in emerging populist parties, spanning both the right and left wings of the political spectrum. For the entrenched establishment, it is about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival is at stake. Their grip on power and the pathways that lead to it are laden with activities that could be unequivocally deemed criminal. The evolving societal climate does not appear promising for them either.

Their salvation, they believe, lies in media manipulation and censorship. The mainstream narrative consistently vilifies Russia and China as ominous dictatorships, wages campaigns against disinformation, the Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism spread by agents of Putin. The West, it claims, faces an imminent attack from Russia. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s credibility has been eroded by its own actions, and the notion of a Russian attack is substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.

In 2025, Donald Trump re-entered the political arena as the US President, initiating MAGA, a movement to combat the deep state and cleanse American society of obscure financial and power structures. This stirred great hope among many Americans, but also significant apprehension among the established elite. MAGA represented not just a challenge to their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the West’s adversary as potential ally.

The social rift grew wider. The residents of Western satellites pinned their hopes on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures. Yet, from the perspective of those structures, Trump had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.

The trajectory seems clear: the eventual disintegration of the Atlantic bloc and the shift of its remnants to the former adversary. Will the collapse of the hegemonic power come next? It’s a reasonable prediction.

But let’s go a step further. The euphoria of the Cold War’s end and the unbridled optimism for a future of comprehensive peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights were soon overshadowed by their gradual erosion. In retrospect, the new hegemon had only its own global world domination in mind from the beginning. This led to new conflicts across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Can we expect history to repeat itself after the fall of the Atlantic bloc? Not necessarily. The emerging superpowers of China, India, and Russia do not share the western legacy of colonialist exploitation. The BRICS+ coalition presents itself as a multipolar community of equals, emphasizing cooperation over competition.

Still, we must remain cautious, for the 1990s taught us that optimism can be fleeting. A society that neglects its history is destined to repeat it. Over the past 25 years, we have amassed a treasure trove of tragic lessons to learn from and be vigilant against.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Is It Foreign Aid or Covert Action?

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • February 21, 2025

There has been considerable controversy surrounding the Trump administration decision to cutback on government agencies that are ostensibly committed to charitable, educational and other nation building activities both overseas and in the United States. This spending, amounting to scores of billions of dollars, has helped produce budget deficits that ballooned in the twenty-first century, largely due to the surge in overseas activity that occurred after the trauma of 9/11 when the United States decided that it had to serve as policeman for the rest of the world to make itself safe. As the US is now verging on bankruptcy due to its unsustainable debts, the second incarnation of the Trump Administration has focused on cutting budgets in areas that it considers to be enemy occupied, often meaning “woke” or institutionally allied to the Democrats. Social programs as well as the bloated defense department spending were considered to be suitable targets so starting during the first week in February, the White House brought down the hammer when it went after a number of government agencies, inter alia calling for huge cuts in Pentagon spending and the complete elimination of the Education Department.

The White House also shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), firing nearly all of its 10,000 employees, reportedly leaving only little more than 600 employees in place to assist in the shutting down or downsizing of facilities in the US and in foreign countries. Also, about 800 awards and contracts that are administered through USAID were reportedly being canceled. There have reportedly been some judicial delays in the firings due to the complexity of removing thousands of employees and families from overseas offices and housing, though the pause is likely to be only temporary.

Tax dollars are traditionally used corruptly to fund projects and policies dear to the hearts of politicians, which is why Ron Paul and others have called for sweeping audits, including of the Federal Reserve system and the Pentagon in particular. This hidden spending is particularly difficult to identify if the program is somehow linked to foreign policy and/or national security, which have traditionally been protected from scrutiny by denying nearly all public access to sensitive information based on the “need to know” principle to safeguard sources and vulnerable activities.

USAID was founded in 1961 during the John F. Kennedy administration to unite several foreign assistance organizations and programs under one agency. At first it was seriously intended to be a mechanism for the US to aid in health, disaster relief, socioeconomic development, environmental protection, democratic governance and education. Its focus, however, eventually became to guide development in parts of the world that suffered from what were considered to be dysfunctional governments and institutions in terms of American interests. USAID has always been funded by the federal government and its upper management has worked closely with the Department of State, to which it is technically accountable, and the intelligence agencies in particular. Its budget in 2023 was $43 billion. Trump’s reduction in force (RIF) of USAID has been accompanied by a shake-up in its management, its remaining responsibilities now being in the hands of the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has considerable experience in special agency management after having served on the Board of the National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) Republican subsidiary component, the International Republican Institute (IRI). NED, which operates extensively overseas, has also been stripped of funding by Trump.

The dismantling of USAID does not necessarily mean the organization will completely go away, it will just be much reduced and under new management. It will likely have a new mission, though no one is at this point sure what that will mean. And USAID and NED are not alone as the presidential memo has called for a halt to the funding of all the government components that are dependent on taxpayer generated funds to provide what is perhaps euphemistically referred to as “foreign aid.” USAID and NED do have humanitarian projects, i.e. feeding the hungry, but they are primarily politically driven. The NED component IRI puts it this way on its website “Our mission at IRI—advancing democracy worldwide—is a battle with many fronts. I am proud to say that IRI is supportive of every endeavor that will bring freedom to more people. We have made progress in our mission by giving hope to those who wish to protest on a city street, run for office, or cast a ballot.”

So the aid organizations overtly have a political role, but how does it translate in practice and does it extend to playing favorites with the US media and political parties? Trump has put it another way, declaring that USAID leaders were “radical left lunatics.” This is what he claims on his website Truth Social:

“LOOKS LIKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLEN AT USAID, AND OTHER AGENCIES, MUCH OF IT GOING TO THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA AS A ‘PAYOFF’ FOR CREATING GOOD STORIES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS. THE LEFT WING ‘RAG,’ KNOWN AS ‘POLITICO,’ SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED $8,000,000. Did the New York Times receive money??? Who else did??? THIS COULD BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL, PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IN HISTORY! THE DEMOCRATS CAN’T HIDE FROM THIS ONE. TOO BIG, TOO DIRTY!”

There are, in fact, credible reports that the 2019 impeachment of Trump was driven by the actions and disinformation coming from CIA, FBI and USAID operatives, so it is plausible to assume that Trump is now settling scores. Beyond that, USAID and NED are both notorious for their roles in the business of covertly supporting opposition political parties worldwide and assisting in regime change. Billionaire philanthropist George Soros, through his network of organizations, received $260 milllion from USAID for funneling funds to non-governmental-organizations (NGOs) connected with Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which are known for advocating for radical policies and regime changes globally. Soros is also a Democratic Party favorite and major fund raiser, having recently received at a White House ceremony the honor of the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented in absentia to his son Alex from outgoing President Joe Biden.

As a result, both USAID and NED have been banned from foreign countries, including Russia, due to their meddling in local politics. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who was often a target of USAID activity, immediately thanked Trump for his decision to cancel USAID. Both USAID and NED were deeply involved in Eastern Europe. Former Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has revealed that the aid agencies were deeply engaged in the multiple source $5 billion dollar multiyear US “investment” in Ukraine that culminated in regime change in 2013 and led to the current war with Russia. In government circles it has frequently been asserted that USAID and NED and other such organizations now do what the CIA used to do routinely in terms of regime change between its founding and the 1990s.

One might suggest that recent US governments, operating through their various subsidiaries like USAID and NED have been funding just about everything to control a world community in line with American interests. Mainstream media worldwide that is directly or indirectly funded reportedly includes journalists, news outlets, and activist NGOs and sites – and that’s just through USAID. That would appear to include Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, Politico, PBS, The Financial Times, The Atlantic, The Daily Telegraph, as well as much more media in the developing world. The anti-China hysteria media “ecosystem” currently depends on US government funding, and is already complaining about the impending shutdown of USAID support. To cite only one example of how it is packaged, Reuters news service has received millions in funding from the US government specifically for “active social engineering.”

Labor unions are also funded by USAID which is also behind the recent political unrest in Slovakia. It has also paid for multiple coup attempts in Venezuela, funded high profile trips for Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to improve his image and popularity, and funded al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria to successfully overthrow the government in Damascus. Going back to Trump’s first term of office, it is interesting to observe that most of the “aid” to opposition parties to overthrow Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela was delivered during 2019, so Trump, guided by hardliners John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, was not at that time shy about regime change. In fact, Voice Of America (VOA), which often served as a CIA mouthpiece, even reported that Trump had tripled aid to opposition figure Juan Guaido to $56 million. Those asking themselves why Trump has now decided to “oppose” the very semi-covert agency that he’s also been using for regime change have a point, but it might be appropriate to see the shakeup as a warning against government information, law enforcement and intelligence agencies again becoming tools of the Democratic Party politicians.

Defenders of USAID are arguing that the agency is being maligned, that in addition to its political profile it is heavily engaged in promoting health and wellness worldwide. The head of USAID under Joe Biden was the highly controversial and very much “woke” Samantha Power, who claims somewhat disingenuously that the agency budget of $38 billion in 2023 included something like $20 billion in spending that should appropriately be described as humanitarian. Those who are the recipients of the programs, mostly in the third world, will consequently suffer from the defunding of aid. If that is actually so, it perhaps would make sense to roll such programs into a mechanism that would not be tied to regime change and corruption of local governments and media.

There is some question even in Congress concerning whether there will be a new centralized aid agency and what it will be called or do now that it has been reduced in size and will likely have a tiny budget relative to what it once enjoyed. It is early days and the answer to that question will likely emerge before too long, but it should be pointed out that at no point has Rubio or anyone else in the Trump administration actually condemned aggressive US engagement abroad or claimed they will bring it to an end. The State Department has even officially said the only goal is to ensure the good things that USAID did will continue by “advancing American interests abroad.” Given some of the recent aggressive positions taken by the Trump Administration over Gaza, Panama, Canada, Mexico, Iran and Greenland as well as the tendency on the part of its top officials to increase pressure on perceived adversaries, it may be that the US isn’t changing course at all. It quite plausibly might be doubling down, and organizations like USAID and NED, even if their names, roles and leadership change, will likely be integral to that process.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

February 21, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Sinophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »