Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

American Efforts to Separate Russia from China are Doomed to Fail

By José Niño | The Libertarian Institute | March 20, 2025

Since Donald Trump returned to the White House on January 20, 2025, there was an initial sense of hope that he would wind down the conflict in Ukraine. However, continued flows of military aid to Ukraine and slow progress in the negotiations still make a lasting peace settlement a distant prospect.

The Trump administration’s preference would be to conclude the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine and shift its geopolitical gaze to Asia to contain China. The icing on the cake would be for the United States to have Russia break its “no limits partnership” with China to isolate the East Asian giant. In effect, Trump is attempting to pull a “reverse Nixon” strategy in its foreign policy approach. This strategy aims to improve relations with Russia to balance against China, in contrast to then-President Richard Nixon’s original approach of engaging with Communist China to counter the Soviet Union.

U.S. foreign policy, idealistic grandstanding notwithstanding, is suffused with cynical geopolitical plays. The Trump administration looks to use this sleight of hand against China by playing Russia off against it, even to the point of tricking both Eurasian heavyweights into protracted conflicts. Such a scenario would be every DC strategist’s dream—a Eurasian plane mired in conflict while the United States sits on the sidelines waiting for the moment to waltz in as the dominant power in the Eurasian domain. All of this done without firing a shot.

Heading back to reality: U.S. foreign policy strategists will find that prying Russia from China, much less baiting it into an open conflict with China, will be a tall order. The numerous factors that led to Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972, wherein Sino-American relations were subsequently normalized and exploited to serve as a counterweight against the Soviet Union, are simply not there in the present.

For one, relations between the Soviets and Chinese were already fraught prior to Nixon and his trusty sidekick Henry Kissinger using clever statecraft to woo over the Chinese. Enter the Sino-Soviet split, in which relations between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union (USSR) deteriorated, starting in the late 1950s and intensifying throughout the 1960s.

This rupture in Sino-Soviet relations was brought about by a combination of factors. Following the death of Soviet strongman Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev initiated a de-Stalinization agenda and moved towards peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West, which Chinese leader Mao Zedong perceived as an ideological betrayal and “revisionism.” On Mao’s end, his Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution polices clashed with Khrushchev’s more moderate approach to communism.

The twentieth century split between the two Eurasian giants was not exclusively ideological; it had a geopolitical component as well. China’s growing assertiveness under Mao led to tensions over leadership in the communist world. The USSR’s decision to cut aid to Maoist China in 1960, coupled with the Soviet’s support for India during the Sino-Indian War of 1962, further strained Sino-Soviet relations. Border clashes between the Soviets and Chinese in 1969 underscored their rivalry, as U.S. foreign policy strategists looked from afar with great interest.

Internally, China was also reeling from the disastrous effects of the Great Leap Forward—economic collapse and famine—and growing political intrigue brought about by the Cultural Revolution’s numerous purges of the Chinese political structure. Against this backdrop of heightened tension on the domestic and international fronts, prominent leaders such as Minister of National Defense Lin Biao insisted that China maintain hawkish relations toward both the Soviets and the United States. Lin perceived both the United States and Soviet Union as imperial powers that threatened Chinese interests, standing in contrast to Mao and Premier Zhou Enlai’s efforts to pursue diplomatic ties with the United States to counterbalance Soviet hostility.

However, Lin’s death in 1971 in a suspicious plane crash cleared the way for China’s leadership class to pursue a rapprochement with the United States. Shortly thereafter, China’s positive overtures to the United States culminated in President Richard Nixon’s historic visit in 1972. In turn, the “Chimerica” project was forged with China as the workshop of the world in the liberal economic order.

However, this arrangement in the international order would begin to disintegrate after the United States prosecuted unpopular nation-building ventures in the Middle East and was at the center of the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. This series of events discredited the U.S.-led liberal order among many of the resurging actors on the world stage such as China and Russia. The United States’ penchant for being “agreement incapable” on issues regarding NATO expansion and the Iran nuclear deal lent further credence to the idea that Washington is an erratic diplomatic actor that can’t be trusted to abide by international norms.

As the forces of nationalism and great power competition returned, the very notion of the preeminent powers of the Eurasian plane submitting to the whims of DC seemed fantastical at best. The previously mentioned intricacies of Cold War geopolitics and the United States’ bungled economic and foreign policies of the past three decades makes the realization of a “reverse Nixon” strategy a pipe dream at best. Dialing down tensions with Russia is fine but it should be done without ulterior motives.

Perhaps the United States should start treating countries like Russia as normal political entities as opposed to geopolitical playthings for American strategists to exploit to their heart’s content.

March 20, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Why VOA, known as a ‘lie factory,’ has halted operations

Global Times | March 17, 2025

On March 15 local time, Michael Abramowitz, director of Voice of America (VOA), an international broadcaster whose parent agency is the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), confirmed on social media that he and “virtually the entire staff” of 1,300 had been placed on leave. A day earlier, the White House ordered budget cuts for multiple federal agencies. Funding for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, which are also parts of USAGM, has also been frozen. The so-called beacon of freedom, VOA, has now been discarded by its own government like a dirty rag.

Founded in 1942, VOA became a frontline propaganda tool in the ideological confrontation of the Cold War. In recent decades, under the banner of promoting so-called freedom and democracy, it has broadcast in over 40 languages worldwide, attempting to shape the image of the US as a “moral high ground.”

However, its independence and credibility have long been questioned and criticized. Known for stirring up conflicts, inciting social divisions, and even participating in regime change efforts, VOA is widely recognized as Washington’s carefully crafted propaganda machine for peaceful evolution, earning itself a notorious reputation on the global stage. Similar to Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, its primary function is to serve Washington’s need to attack other countries based on ideological demands.

When it comes to China-related reporting, VOA has an appalling track record. From smearing human rights in China’s Xinjiang to hyping up disputes in the South China Sea, from supporting “Taiwan independence” forces to backing Hong Kong rioters, from fabricating the so-called China virus narrative to promoting the claim of China’s “overcapacity,” almost every malicious falsehood about China has VOA’s fingerprints all over it.

A former VOA employee said that he didn’t realize until he came to China that the VOA news reports he used to read out every day were completely opposite to the real situation in China. The reporter also said that some people working for VOA were dismissed because they suggested increasing positive coverage of China.

Clearly, VOA has never been a “fair and impartial” media outlet, but rather a thoroughly biased “propaganda poison.” Now, in Washington, against the backdrop of reducing federal agency funding, the decision to stop funding for entities like VOA has immediately prompted some anti-China politicians in the US to label this move as “a massive gift” to China, effectively tearing off the fig leaf of VOA as a propaganda tool themselves.

Last month, Elon Musk criticized VOA on X, stating that “Nobody listens to them anymore” and that “It’s just radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1 billion a year of US taxpayer money.” This may reflect the views of a significant portion of the American public.

Perhaps the US government has also realized that continuing to waste substantial national funds on these outdated and ineffective institutions is neither meaningful nor in the best interest of the country. In fact, the continued existence of these institutions only brings more chaos and creates more trouble for the world.

The Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation once publicly criticized VOA for lacking “professional ethics” and using dirty tactics to smear normal interactions and cooperation between Cambodia and China. In 2023, Kyrgyzstan ordered the closure of the local branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and last year, Russia designated Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as an “undesirable organization.”

The recent suspension of employees at VOA evokes memories of the absurd drama in which a certain anti-China think tank in Australia publicly complained about lacking funds due to cuts in US government funding. This further underscores the awkward reality of the industrial chain behind the “cognitive warfare” narrative concerning China: without financial backers, it is difficult to sustain.

As a tool of “cognitive warfare” that became active during the Cold War and has already shown numerous flaws, the positioning of entities like VOA suggests that they should not exist in today’s multipolar world. Whether it is VOA or anti-China think tanks, budget reductions, layoffs, or even complete closures of these institutions are inevitable outcomes, leading them to be swept into the dustbin of history.

In the information age, the monopoly of information held by some traditional Western media is being shattered. The narrative hegemony maintained by VOA as a “lie factory” can be broken at any moment by a short video from the scene posted by a netizen. The carefully constructed “iron curtain of public opinion” they have built is also on the verge of collapse under the impact of countless media and self-media showcasing authentic content. As more Americans begin to break through their information cocoons and see a real world and a multidimensional China, the demonizing narratives propagated by VOA will ultimately become a laughingstock of the times.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Xi Jinping snubs EU invitation to anniversary summit – FT

RT | March 17, 2025

Chinese President Xi Jinping has turned down an invitation to visit Brussels for a summit this year marking the 50th anniversary of his country’s relations with the EU, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

The Chinese leader’s reported snub comes at a time of growing tensions between Beijing and Brussels. Over the past year, China and the EU have clashed over what the EU believes is Beijing’s dumping of certain key goods and its industrial overproduction. Adding to the tension was a wave of retaliatory tariffs placed by the EU on Chinese goods.

Beijing informed EU officials that Prime Minister Li Qiang would meet the presidents of the European Council and European Commission instead of Xi, the FT said, citing two people familiar with the matter.

The prime minister usually attends the summit when it takes place in Brussels, while the president hosts it in Beijing. However, this time the EU wanted Xi to attend given the significance of the meeting, which marks half a century of diplomatic relations, the sources told the outlet.

“Informal discussions are ongoing, both about setting the date for the EU-China summit this year and the level of representation,” an EU official told the FT, while the Chinese ministry was quoted as saying it did not have any information to provide on the matter.

Tensions between the EU and China intensified following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 when the EU accused Beijing of supporting Moscow.

China has adhered to a policy of neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and has firmly rebuffed Western calls to impose sanctions on Russia, opting instead to boost trade with its neighbor. This has led to accusations from the bloc and its NATO allies that Beijing is fueling Russia’s military effort by supplying it with dual-use components that can be utilized in weapons production.

The rift deepened last year after the EU imposed tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese electric vehicles, claiming that Chinese manufacturers benefit from unfair government subsidies. The decision sparked strong objections from Beijing, which retaliated by slapping tariffs of between 30.6% and 39% on the bloc’s brandy imports. The move hit major French cognac producers particularly hard, as they rely heavily on sales in the Chinese market.

China has also filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, arguing that the EU’s “protectionist” actions amount to “an abuse of trade remedies” and violate WTO rules.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Trump hypes up tensions with Iran

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 17, 2025 

On Saturday, US President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon “to launch a decisive and powerful military operation” against the Houthis of Yemen with “overwhelming lethal force” in the most significant military action of his second term, to date. 

The US attacks began on Saturday and continued into Sunday on the Yemeni capital Sanaa and other areas reportedly killing 31 people and wounding 101 so far, most of them children and women. 

Such wanton killing of defenceless women and children can only be seen as an act of cowardice. Trump has blood on his hands. Trump wrote on Truth Social addressing the Houthis, “Your time is up, and your attacks must stop, starting today. If they don’t, hell will rain down upon you like nothing you have ever seen before.”

Thereupon, Trump abruptly digressed to address Iran that it needed to immediately stop supporting the Houthis. Trump threatened, “America will hold you fully accountable and, we won’t be nice about it!” 

Iran has reacted strongly. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Trump has no authority or business to dictate Iran’s foreign policy. Araghchi noted that Houthis are only reacting to “Israeli genocide and terrorism”. The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps General Hossein Salami warned that Iran would give “a destructive response” to any attack.

Trump’s belligerence came within two days of a visit by Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, to Tehran on Thursday to hand over a letter from Trump addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing talks on Iran’s nuclear programme and Iran’s support to resistance groups. Tehran remains open to nuclear talks but has rejected any linkage with its regional policies.

Meanwhile, Tehran has begun circling the wagons as a new phase is beginning in Trump’s foreign policies, with tensions rising steadily over the nuclear issue. The October deadline is drawing closer by the day for invoking the snapback clause in the JCPOA (2015 Iran nuclear deal) to reinstate UN Security Council sanctions will expire, and Iran’s enrichment programme, on the other hand, has apparently reached a point where it already has a stockpile to make “several” nuclear bombs, per the International Atomic Energy Agency.

On March 14, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi hosted a joint meeting in Beijing with the Russian and Iranian deputy foreign ministers where he proposed five points “on the proper settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue”, which, for all purposes endorsed Tehran’s stance. It was a resounding diplomatic victory for Iran.

Interestingly, the Beijing meeting was timed to coincide with the conclusion of a 6-day naval exercise at Iran’s Chabahar Port with the theme of Creating Peace and Security Together between the navies of Iran, Russia and China. A readout by the Chinese Ministry of Defence stated that “The naval exercise enhanced the joint operational capabilities of the three navies to respond to various emergencies and maintain maritime security, deepened military trust and practical cooperation among the navies of the participating countries, and laid a solid foundation for future cooperation.” 

All these developments taken into account, Trump faces multiple challenges at the diplomatic level over the Iranian nuclear issue with Tehran, Moscow and Beijing coordinating their approaches in the crucial six-month period ahead and Tehran giving confusing signals over Trump’s letter to Khamenei. Trump cannot be pleased with the developing situation on the diplomatic track and some pressure tactic becomes necessary against Iran. Simply put, Trump’s egocentric mind took the easy route of punching the Houthis so hard to send an indirect  message to Tehran (and Moscow and Beijing) that he is not to be trifled with.

Indeed, Moscow has lately waded into the Iran nuclear issue and is positioning itself for a mediatory role potentially. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently came out against attaching extraneous issues (eg., verifiable arrangements by Tehran to ensure the cessation of its support for resistance groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria) to the nuclear negotiations. Lavrov said frankly, “Such a thing is unlikely to yield results.” 

Lavrov has also emphasised Moscow’s support for Tehran’s basic stance that any resumption of US-Iran negotiations ought to be stemming from the 2015 nuclear deal known as the JCPOA which carries the approval of the UN Security Council (which of course Trump tore up in 2018.)

Don’t be surprised if Moscow is wading into the US-Iran nuclear standoff with great deliberation when it is tackling on a parallel track Trump’s intrusive calls for cessation of Russian special military operations in Ukraine even while there is much unfinished business which remains to be completed and Ukraine showing no genuine interest in negotiations with Russia — and has actually enacted a law expressly prohibiting such negotiations. 

Specifically, Trump would know he is in no position to get Zelensky to agree to a surrender of weapons by the Ukrainian troops in Kursk — although, Putin has offered that “If they lay down their weapons and surrender, they will be guaranteed life and decent treatment.”  

The crunch time is coming as the Russian deadline for peaceful surrender is about to expire by 6 am Moscow time today. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council wrote on Telegram channel that “should they refuse to lay down arms, they will all be systematically and mercilessly eliminated.” Trump’s nerves must be on edge as embedded within the Ukrainian occupying forces there could be Western mercenaries as well. 

In the circumstances, one feels sorry for the Houthis whom Trump is using as a punchbag to vent his frustrations and suppressed fury against Tehran. Top officials in the Trump administration have openly acknowledged that Tehran is being notified that “enough is enough” — an expression used by Trump’s National Security advisor Mike Waltz to interpret the nuanced message of the air and missile strike against the Houthis.

Certainly, Yemen which has gone through so much suffering does not deserve such bestial attacks. As for Houthis, they are yet to attack any ships despite threatening to do so over Israel’s blockade on all food, fuel and other supplies into the Gaza Strip. The Houthis have accused the Trump administration of overstating the threat of maritime embargo, which is limited only to Israeli navigation until humanitarian aid is delivered to the people of Gaza according to the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel. 

Evidently, the Houthis are neither looking for a showdown with Trump nor are they to be regarded as Iranian proxies. Houthis halted the drone and missile attacks altogether when the Gaza ceasefire was declared in January. Even Trump’s best argument is that Houthis had attacked US ships during the Biden administration. 

Nonetheless, US Central Command described Saturday’s strikes as the start of a large-scale operation that may continue indefinitely. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X, “Houthi attacks on American ships & aircraft (and our troops!) will not be tolerated; and Iran, their benefactor, is on notice, Freedom of Navigation will be restored.” Behind such fictitious rhetoric, Hegseth probably understands that Trump expects him to keep the pot boiling in the Gulf region through the next several months as the Iran nuclear issue approaches a point of criticality.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a readout on Saturday, stated that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Lavrov and informed him about the US decision to attack the Houthis. It said Lavrov, in response, “emphasised the need for an immediate cessation of the use of force and the importance of all parties engaging in political dialogue to find a solution that prevents further bloodshed.” Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, isn’t it? On March 15, Trump forfeited the moral ground to be leading with peace through strength in his foreign policy.

March 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Trump’s protectionism: Unprecedented aberration or a return to the ‘American System’?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 15, 2025

Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.

In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.

It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.

In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.

One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.

This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.

Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.

The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.

During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.

In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.

However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.

It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.

What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.

Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.

All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.

From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran, Russia, China reject ‘unlawful’ US sanctions after tripartite meeting

The Cradle | March 14, 2025

China, Russia, and Iran released a joint statement on 14 March demanding an end to “unlawful” US sanctions against the Islamic Republic after meetings in Beijing between the three countries, which were aimed at jumpstarting stalled nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.

The three countries “emphasized the necessity of terminating all unlawful unilateral sanctions” after talks hosted by Beijing on Friday morning, according to the joint statement read out by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaxou.

“The three countries reiterated that political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue based on the principle of mutual respect remains the only viable and practical option in this regard,” read the joint statement.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov Sergey Alexeevich and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibadi were also present.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry revealed on 12 March that Beijing would host the high-level talks regarding the nuclear issue with Russia and Iran this week, coinciding with growing tension between Washington and Tehran over the Iranian atomic energy program.

Russia also signaled earlier this month that it was willing to help facilitate negotiations between Iran and the US.

US President Donald Trump has been pushing for nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic while simultaneously issuing threats and imposing harsh economic sanctions against the country.

Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have announced their refusal to engage in negotiations under pressure, in line with the position taken by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

A letter written by Trump addressing the supreme leader, which has yet to be published, has reportedly been handed over to Araghchi by Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic advisor to UAE President Mohammed Bin Zayed (MbZ).

On 7 March, Trump said: “I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal.”

Khamenei said in response that “bully governments … insist on negotiations” which are “not aimed at solving problems; they aim at domination.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported last month that Iran significantly increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium by 92.5 kilograms (203.9 pounds) since its previous report in November.

A closed-door UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting attended by representatives of the US, UK, France, and other countries was held on Wednesday. After the meeting, the UK deputy ambassador to the UN, James Kariuki, accused Iran of “dramatically” enriching uranium towards weapons-grade level and said western countries will “take any diplomatic measures to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon,” including the reimposition of sanctions.

Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, in line with a religious fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, as well as the fact that it is a signatory in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Yet it faces constant threats of attack from Israel. Reports from last month cited US intelligence estimates as saying that Israel is strongly considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could potentially come this year.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | 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

Trump Floats Denuclearization Since US Can’t Win Arms Race With Russia, China Without Going Bankrupt

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 07.03.2025

President Donald Trump has floated trilateral US-Russia-China talks on cuts to strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles. Sputnik reached out to one of Russia’s foremost experts on strategic security issues to discuss what’s behind the proposal, and its chances for success.

“Nuclear weapons are precisely one of the areas where competitors outpacing the United States is very visible,” says Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of research at the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.

“Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals combined provide two times preponderance over the United States, or will make two times preponderance in the observable future,” Suslov stressed.

Nuclear talks are the “alternative” for the US to bankruptcy stemming from high defense spending and unsustainable debt, particularly as the US nuclear arsenal is stuck in the 80s and lags far behind competitors, especially Russia, and would take immense resources to modernize, the observer said.

Instead, Trump “wants to channel competition into some other areas, into the areas where the United States largely have advantages,” according to Suslov, from high-precision conventional arms to his “Golden Dome” proposal for a space-based SDI 2.0.

“This is an attempt to reduce competition in the area where the United States is not competitive and to channel the competition into the areas where the United States is competitive, has comparative advantages, technological advantages, in the opinion of the Trump administration,” the expert noted.

Will Trump’s Nuclear Negotiations Push Succeed?

  • “Complete denuclearization is impossible,” Suslov stressed, since nuclear weapons serve as the “ultimate guarantee which prevents war among great powers.”
  • “The only [reason] why NATO and the United States have not started a direct war against Russia yet in the context of the Ukraine war is nuclear weapons,” he said.
  • Russia and China will be unlikely to agree to trilateral talks, the expert believes, since their relations are built on partnership, not deterrence.
  • As for bilateral Russia-US talks, these are possible, “but also [face] huge impediments,” including the need to include the French and British nuclear arsenals into account.
  • “Basically, Macron made it absolutely clear that the purpose of French nuclear weapons is to deter Russia. This is against Russia. The purpose of British nuclear weapons is also against Russia. And they plan explicitly nuclear operations, potential nuclear operations against Russia,” Suslov noted.

Accordingly, Russia’s strategy will continue revolving around insisting “on a comprehensive approach and taking all the factors which impact strategic stability into account,” Suslov predicts.

March 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump: Everybody Should Get Rid of Their Nuclear Weapons

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 6, 2025

President Donald Trump restated his desire to abolish nuclear weapons during a White House presser on Thursday.

“It would be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons. [I know] Russia and us have by far the most,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “China will have an equal amount within four to five years. It would be great if we could all de-nuclearize because the power of nuclear weapons is crazy.”

Currently, nine countries – the US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel – possess nuclear weapons. With global tensions on the rise, several nations, including the US, are adding to their strategic capability.

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Beijing is working to ramp up its production of nuclear weapons. Last year, the agency predicted that China could have over 1,000 nuclear weapons. However, that would still give Beijing a far smaller arsenal than Washington and Moscow, which each have around 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons and thousands more in storage.

Shortly after returning to the White House in January, Trump said he spoke with President Vladimir Putin about denuclearization during his first term, and that the Russian leader was receptive to the idea. “We were talking about denuclearization of our two countries, and China would have come along. China right now has a much smaller nuclear armament than us, or field, than us, but they’re going to be catching [up] at some point,” Trump said.

“I will tell you that President Putin really liked the idea of cutting back on nuclear, and I think the rest of the world, we would have gotten them to follow, and China would have come along too. China also liked it,” he added. “Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about. It’s too depressing.”

Trump has also discussed negotiating a deal with Moscow and Beijing that would see all three countries drastically cut military spending.

However, while Trump has at times voiced support for demilitarization and denuclearization, during his first term in office he scrapped two major arms control agreements, the Open Skies and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force treaties.

Additionally, Trump refused to engage in bilateral discussions with Russia on extending the last nuclear arms control agreement between the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals, the New Start Treaty. He insisted that Moscow must pressure Beijing to make it a trilateral deal, a demand that almost led to the downfall of the landmark deal.

Though President Joe Biden was able to reach an agreement with Putin to extend the treaty for five more years in 2021, it is set to expire next year without another extension.

March 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , , | 1 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

Trump declines to comment on protecting Taiwan island, expresses welcome for Chinese investment in Cabinet meeting

Global Times | February 27, 2025

During his first official Cabinet meeting of his second term on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump refused to comment when asked by a reporter’s question about whether “the US would allow China to take control of Taiwan by force,” Instead, he responded by expressing his desire for Chinese investment in the US, Reuters reported.

“I never comment on that,” Trump said at the White House. “I don’t want to ever put myself in that position,” according to the Reuters report.

Trump claimed he had a great relationship with the Chinese leader. “We want them to come in and invest. I see so many things saying that we don’t want China in this country. That’s not right. We want them to invest in the US. That’s good. There’s a lot of money coming in, and we’ll invest in China. We’ll do things with China. The relationship we’ll have with China will be a very good one,” Trump said.

Some local media outlets in Taiwan noted on Thursday that this was not the first time Trump had declined to make a commitment to the island.

In an article published by CNA on Thursday, it was noted in its headline that Trump refused to make a commitment to the island again.

The CNA report cited an interview of Trump with NBC’s Meet the Press in December 2024, when the host asked, “If China invades Taiwan on your watch, are you committed to defending Taiwan?” Trump responded, “I never say.”

Local media FTV News also published an article on Thursday, saying Trump refused again to make commitment to Taiwan.

Citing articles from The New York Times, Taiwan’s UDN News published an article on Thursday titled “Trump abandons Ukraine, doubts about US support deepened in Taiwan.”

The New York Times noted on Tuesday that In Taiwan, Trump’s stinging comments about Ukraine could feed a current of public opinion arguing that the island has been repeatedly abandoned by Washington and cannot trust its promises.

In response to media reports about the Trump administration release of $5.3 billion in previously frozen foreign aid, including $870 million designated for military assistance to Taiwan, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on Wednesday’s press briefing that China has all along opposed US military assistance to China’s Taiwan region, which has severely violated the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, undermined China’s sovereignty and security interests, and sent a gravely wrong signal to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces.

“We urge the US to stop arming Taiwan and undermining the peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. China will closely follow the situation and firmly defend national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” Lin said.

“‘Protection fees’ won’t protect ‘Taiwan independence’ forces, and the ‘chess pieces’ will inevitably turn into ‘abandoned pieces,'” said Zhu Fenglian, spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, during a press conference on Wednesday.

Her remarks came in response to reports that the secessionist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities on Taiwan island are contemplating arms purchases from the US, ranging from $7 billion to $10 billion, in an effort to gain favor with the Trump administration.

February 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | 1 Comment

Trump’s Defense Budget Proposal to Russia & China Aims to Give US Military Edge

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 26.02.2025

President Donald Trump floated offering Russia and China to join the US in slashing their defence budgets in half when speaking to reporters at the White House on earlier in February, adding that he hoped to take this up with President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping “when things calm down”.

Washington hopes to drag Moscow and Beijing into “deceptive” 50% military spending cuts, staking on their desire to “avoid appearing disinterested in peace overtures by the US,” geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic told Sputnik.

The proposal is a ruse by Donald Trump aimed at rectifying the “disparity between the bloated US military budget” and the “more efficient ones of Moscow and Beijing,” noted the former US Marine.

“A genuine agreement would not be based on a percentage cut, but an equal reduction in […] explicitly capabilities the US has used for decades to project power abroad, including its global-spanning network of military bases, its membership in aggressive blocs like NATO, its sea and airlift capabilities, and various types of missiles and drones (both naval and aerial) the US is right now developing to menace nations like Russia and China along, and within their own borders,” he said.

Even if the US, Russia, and China were to slash military spending by 50%, proportionately America would “still enjoy greater overall spending than both nations combined, speculated the pundit.

Despite this proposal sounding promising at face value, he added, without further details from the US government’s side, it “appears to be an attempt to provide the US an overwhelming military advantage all while appearing to pursue global peace.”

US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States, Russia, and potentially China each reduce their defense budgets by 50%, saying: “One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say: ‘Let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that.”

Following this proposal, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin indicated Moscow’s openness to negotiations: “We are not against it. The idea is good: the US cuts by 50%, we cut by 50%, and if China wants, they can join later.”

China’s defense spending “is completely out of the need of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests, and the need of maintaining world peace,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated at a press conference on February 25.

February 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »