Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Chinese airlines grab market share from US and European carriers who have to fly around Russia

Inside China Business | August 15, 2024

US and European airlines are banned from Russian airspace, and so must route around the world’s largest country. This is causing much longer and costlier flights between North America and Europe, and destinations in Southeast Asia. Chinese, Korean, and Indian airlines still enjoy Russian overflight privileges, however, and can thereby offer shorter and less expensive fares. As a result, Chinese carriers are gobbling up markets and gates across international markets. Chinese airlines already operate with 30% lower costs on a passenger-mile basis compared to US- and European-flagged carriers, and their cost advantages only multiply after adjusting for the issues involving Russian airspace.

Resources and links:

Flight maps from Great Circle Maps http://www.greatcirclemap.com) and Reuters, Unfriendly skies:

How Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is redrawing air routes https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRA…

A year into Russian airspace ban, flight costs and lengths are rising https://globalnews.ca/news/9645165/ru…

Flight Radar, Which major airlines are still flying over Russian airspace? https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wh…

British Airways axes one of its ‘most important’ routes amid Russian airspace ban https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/…

Reuters, British Airways to halt flights to Beijing from Oct. 26 https://www.reuters.com/business/aero…

Reuters, Foreign airlines lose interest in China as domestic carriers expand abroad https://www.reuters.com/business/aero…

Bloomberg, US Airlines Urge Officials to Block Additional China Flights https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…

Europe buying Russian oil via India at record rates in 2023 despite Ukraine war https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo…

Reuters, Airbus wins reprieve from Canadian sanctions on Russian titanium https://www.reuters.com/business/aero…

Closing scene, Qingdao Olympic Sailing Center and Lighthouse, Qingdao, Shandong

October 6, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Video | , | Leave a comment

Iran’s oil production nears pre-sanctions levels: Report

The Cradle | October 4, 2024

Iran’s oil production is running at almost full capacity despite US sanctions, amid Israeli threats to target Tehran’s oil infrastructure in an expanded regional war, Bloomberg reported on 4 October.

The Islamic Republic’s oil output has reached 3.4 million barrels per day, just a few hundred thousand barrels below a previous high of 3.9 million.

After US President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran’s production dropped as low as two million barrels per day.

Iran now sells much of its oil to China at reduced prices, as Beijing has been willing to ignore US sanctions seeking to block the sales.

“Iran is having success exporting thanks to a willing customer in China, the increased sophistication of illicit transportation channels, and the relatively low interest in the US to take action,” said Henning Gloystein and Greg Brew, analysts at Eurasia Group. “There’s a risk that Israel strikes Iranian oil facilities.”

According to Bloomberg, Tehran’s increased sales to China have taken place with the “tacit approval” of the White House, as US President Joe Biden and his advisors have eased sanctions enforcement to keep gasoline prices low.

In August 2023, before the wars in Gaza and Lebanon began, Bloomberg reported that “months of secretive diplomacy” between the US and Iran “have yielded progress on prisoner exchanges, the unblocking of frozen assets, and possibly even Iran’s enrichment of uranium. They also seem to have produced an informal arrangement on oil flows.”

Israel reportedly threatened to bomb Iran’s nuclear or oil facilities following Tehran’s large-scale missile attack on Israel.

Iran fired as many as 400 ballistic missiles at Israel on 1 October in retaliation for its killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut on 27 September.

In an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter, Biden said that his administration has been “discussing” possible Israeli plans to attack Iran’s oil industry in retaliation for the Iranian attack.

Bloomberg added that world oil prices jumped five percent on Thursday after Biden’s comment.

October 4, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Now it’s oil: China, BRICS and OPEC+ build new trading system, locking out US suppliers and banks

Inside China Business | September 27, 2024

China and Iran developed a comprehensive energy market, involving shadow fleets of tankers and a system of rebranding oil for domestic use, or for further export to other Asian countries. Russia has since joined, after sanctions were placed on oil producers and banks there. The result is a parallel economy that now totals millions of barrels per day in shipments to China by OPEC+ countries, and a sharp decline in global demand from Western suppliers. The implications for US and European oil suppliers are very negative, as global crude prices are now far below profit breakeven levels. Already, US oil majors are shelving oilfield development projects, and reducing active rig count. Resources and links: Barrons, BP Says Oil Demand Is Falling, While OPEC Says It’s Rising.

What Gives? https://www.barrons.com/articles/bp-s…

Rigzone, JP Morgan Talks Global Oil Demand https://www.rigzone.com/news/jp_morga…

S&P, Barclays lowers 2024 Brent oil price forecast to $93/b on demand concerns https://www.spglobal.com/commodityins…

Oil Prices Poised To Climb in 2024 Amid Geopolitical Uncertainty https://www.investopedia.com/oil-pric…

CNBC, OPEC is highly bullish on long-term oil demand growth. Not everyone agrees https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/24/opec-…

NPR, Oil prices plunge as demand from China falls https://www.npr.org/2024/09/14/nx-s1-…

Zerohedge, What Sanctions? China Imports Record Amount Of Iranian Oil https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/what…

The axis of evasion: Behind China’s oil trade with Iran and Russia https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs…

Oil price charts from finviz.com/futures and Bloomberg https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ash…

US drillers cut oil and gas rigs for fifth week in six, Baker Hughes says https://www.xm.com/se/research/market…

Average WTI price needed for U.S. oil and gas producers to stay profitable by well status in selected U.S. oilfields as of 2024 https://www.statista.com/statistics/7…

Capital Expenditure (CapEx) Definition, Formula, and Examples https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/…

October 3, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Economic Collapse & the Post-American World

By Glenn Diesen | October 2, 2024

Washington’s declining fiscal responsibility was not resolved after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09 as the US instead kicked the can down the road. The problem has subsequently grown in magnitude as the banking crisis caused by too much borrowing and spending was overcome by borrowing and spending even more to get the economy restarted.

More than 15 years of low interest rates have fueled many asset bubbles, caused malinvestments, ballooned the debt, and laid the foundation for another banking crisis. The US public is deeply indebted, the middle class is shrinking, and the national debt stands at 35,5 trillion dollars. The US now pays 1 trillion dollars a year in interest on this debt.

The contradictions in the economy are evident as the stock market continues a prolonged strong performance as new money is recklessly introduced into the system, while the real economy goes from bad to worse.

The next banking crisis will likely cause a dollar crisis as the US cannot significantly increase the interest rate to save the dollar without sinking the economy, and it cannot significantly reduce the interest rate to save the economy without destroying the dollar. The US simply lacks the tools to deal with the coming economic crisis.

Reversing the Decline Without Addressing the Underlying Problems

The US attempts to revive its economic competitiveness by subsidizing its industries, demanding geoeconomic loyalty from allies, and sabotaging the industries of rivals. Subsidies are financed by debt and there is subsequently a risk that the US will exacerbate the basic problems. The generous subsidies for its industries under the Inflation Reduction Act have encouraged German and other European industries to relocate to the US. Furthermore, disconnecting Europe from cheap Russian energy with sanctions and the destruction of Nord Stream also incentivised energy-intensive European industries to move across the Atlantic. As the war in Ukraine continues and the sense of insecurity in Europe grows, the US can convert European security dependence into geoeconomic loyalty as Europe is also told to decouple from Chinese technologies.

With the future of NATO at risk as the US sets its eyes on Asia, the Europeans attempt to increase their value to Washington by abandoning former ambitions to pursue strategic autonomy and “European sovereignty”, and instead subordinate national interests to the whims of Washington. The gains of Washington’s renewed influence on the old continent will come at a cost as Europe becomes weakened and less relevant, while political alternatives in Europe are increasingly winning elections by challenging Washington and Brussels.

The economic coercion against China to roll back its technological and economic development is failing. The disruptions to supply chains by for example banning the export of computer chips to China resulted in American tech giants such as Intel taking huge losses in terms of revenue and losing thousands of employees as their main customer was China. While the US cannot diversify away from China, China can diversify away from the US by enhancing its technological sovereignty and establishing new technological partnerships. This has striking similarities to the EU’s failure to sever its economic ties with Russia. Russia could diversify away from Europe by reorienting its economy to the East, while Europe could not diversify away from Russia as evidenced by Europe’s economic problems.

American efforts to reshore its production are also disrupted by Chinese counter-sanctions on for example rare earth elements. The US has also discovered that tearing up the supply chains developed over decades creates problems as new competitive supply chains will take many years to establish. The old house is demolished before the new house has been built.

Efforts of “friendshoring” by sourcing supplies from friendly countries such as India also have limited success. India responds to the increased demand by sourcing more materials and technologies from China, which increases the costs to the US and further intensifies India-China economic integration in BRICS. This also has similarities to the EU’s economic coercion against Russia, as the Europeans buy Russian natural resources at a higher cost through third parties. Russia sells some of its resources at a discounted price to its economic partners to make up for the risks of secondary sanctions, and this discount only further increases the competitiveness of Asia vis-à-vis the West.

The US is also unlikely to recover its industrial might due to the heavy financialization of its economy as rent-seeking activities in the economy make it impossible to compete with industrial economies such as China. While China built infrastructure to enhance the economic competitiveness of its companies, the US burdens its companies with many costs that do not contribute to the production process.

US competitiveness worsens as China continues to increase its competitiveness in high-tech, and the profits from the positive trade gap are reinvested in the form of subsidies. The industrial might of China enables innovations, while the growth of patents increases rapidly. These developments are also seen in the education sector as Chinese universities are becoming more competitive and many Chinese researchers in the US even return to China. While American universities still dominate in areas such as finance, law, psychology and marketing, Chinese universities have begun taking the lead for the real economy and thus attract foreign students. The US economy will likely face growing structural problems as an economy cannot be built on the financial activities from growing debt, suing each other, and treating the growing mental disorders.

Finding Solutions

Many of America’s problems derive from imperial overstretch as its economy cannot sustain its military and strategic commitments around the world. Resources are transferred from the core to the periphery, resulting in the degradation of infrastructure, growing economic inequality, social instability, and political polarisation and decline. The US economy, society and political system are exhausted and need deep restructuring and adjustment to the multipolar realities on the ground. The US is unlikely to make the necessary changes due to the prevailing ideology, demonisation of adversaries, crushing of dissent, and lack of political imagination for alternatives. The US will either default on its debt or pay back in devalued dollars by printing its way out of trouble.

There are no simple solutions to America’s economic problems, and we live in a time when political leaders respond to socio-economic complexities with ideological sloganeering and simplistic solutions. The US could have restructured its economy with for example ambitious industrial policies and restoring fiscal responsibility, without an aggressive economic war with China. However, this solution would have required the US to give up on its objective to preserve global primacy.

Too many economic disputes are instead militarised, and the expensive US military is itself overburdened with responsibilities around the world. As the US military transitions to confronting great powers, rival powers have another reason for why they should not invest in US Treasuries or use the dollar as this entails financing their own military containment. The attacks on China’s tech sector and the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds have sent shock-waves throughout the international system as all rules are seemingly suspended under the so-called international rules-based order.

A Post-American World

The rest of the non-Western world can see the coming disaster and is getting out of the splash zone. This is done by constructing a parallel international economic system with new supply chains, tech hubs, energy pipelines, a grain corridor, new commodity exchanges, new bimodal transportation corridors, development banks, digital currencies, payment systems, insurance systems and other important components of the international economy.

Much of the decoupling from the US, including de-dollarisation, is being facilitated by BRICS which creates the economic institutions for a multipolar world order. Historically, liberal international economic systems and free trade occur under an economic hegemony such as with Britain in the 19th century and the US in the 20th century as it creates incentives for the dominant state to embrace liberal economics to organise the world economy under its administration, which cements its economic and political power. BRICS attempts to form a vastly different economic system by accommodating a multipolar system through a “balance of dependence”, in which a multivector foreign policy and economic diversification enable states to avoid excessive dependence on any one state or region. It remains to be seen if BRICS can create a more benign international economic system that harmonises the interests of rival economies, or if it will descend into neo-mercantilism. Either way, the world is making arrangements for the post-American world.

October 2, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | 2 Comments

US universities losing hundreds of billions as top Chinese scientists and researchers go home

Inside China Business | September 29, 2024

Research and Development (R&D) is a major profit center for the top universities in the United States. Besides the nearly $100 billion they earn in grants from the US government and private sources, university-based researchers create patents and inventions that generate many more billions annually.

China is the largest foreign source of scientists and researchers, and they are concentrated in the hard sciences and in engineering, where over 95% of R&D spending takes place. But since 2018, Chinese scientists are increasingly deciding to return to China to set up new research departments. Of those who are still in the US, over 60% admit they are strongly considering moving, and over half now refuse to work on projects that involve funding by US government sources.

To American universities, the loss of these scientists, along with future contributions to scientific research and commercial applications and market value, are incalculable. But losses probably already exceed a trillion dollars, given the departures of so many top scientists in Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, medicine, biochemistry, materials science, nanotechnology, and quantum computing.

Resources and links:

More Chinese Students Are Staying in China to Study https://erudera.com/news/more-chinese…

Surge in Chinese Scientists Leaving US for Home Institutions https://erudera.com/news/surge-in-chi…

Caught in the crossfire: Fears of Chinese–American scientists https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas…

Scientists of Chinese descent leaving the US at an accelerating pace https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/s…

Reverse Brain Drain? Exploring Trends among Chinese Scientists in the U.S. https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-…

Resources on the Patent Revenue Budget Model https://financeandbusiness.ucdavis.ed…

R&D Expenditures at U.S. Universities Increased by $8 Billion in FY 2022 https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24307

South China Morning Post, Nanotech pioneer Wang Zhonglin leaves US to work in China ‘full time’ https://www.scmp.com/news/china/scien…

SCMP, The Chinese scientists leaving top US universities to take up high-profile roles in China, boosting Beijing in its race for global talent https://www.scmp.com/news/china/scien…

Closing scene, Suzhou, Jiangsu

September 30, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

Life, Pre-empted

What would you do to save Democracy? To save America? To save the world? How will you vote in November?

By Scott Ritter | September 25, 2024

If you’re not thinking about the end of the world by now, you’re either braindead or stuck in some remote corner of the world, totally removed from access to news.

Last week we came closer to a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Today we are even closer.

Most scenarios being bandied about in the western mainstream media that involve a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States have Russia initiating the exchange by using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in response to deteriorating military, economic, and/or political conditions brought on by the US and NATO successfully leveraging Ukraine as a proxy to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.

Understand, this is what both Ukraine and the Biden administration mean when they speak of Ukraine “winning the war.”

This is a continuation of the policy objective set forth by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in April 2022, “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” meaning that Russia should “not have the capability to very quickly reproduce” the forces and equipment that it loses in Ukraine.

This policy has failed; Russia has absorbed four new territories—Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk—into the Russian Federation, and the Russian defense industry has not only replaced losses sustained in the Ukrainian conflict, but is currently arming and equipping an additional 600,000 troops that have been added to the Russian military since February 2022.

It is the United States and its NATO allies that find themselves on their back feet, with Europe facing economic hardship as a result of the extreme blowback that has transpired because of its sanctioning of Russian energy, and the United States watching helplessly as Russia, together with China, turns the once passive BRICS economic forum into a geopolitical juggernaut capable of challenging and surpassing the US-led G7 as the world’s most influential non-governmental organization.

As a result of this abysmal failure, policymakers in both the US and Europe are undertaking increasingly brazen acts of escalation designed to bring Russia to the breaking point, all premised on the assumption that all so-called “red lines” established by Russia regarding escalation are illusionary—Russia, they believe, is bluffing.

And if Russia is not bluffing?

Then, the western-generated scenario paints an apocalyptic picture which has a weak, defeated Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in a last, desperate act of vengeance.

According to this scenario, which the US and NATO not only war-gamed out but made ready to implement when these entities imagined that Russia was preparing to employ nuclear weapons back in late 2022-early 2023, the US and NATO would launch a devastating response against Russian targets deep inside Russia designed to punitively degrade Russian command and control, logistics, and warfighting capacity.

This would be done using conventional weapons.

If Russia opted to retaliate against NATO targets, then the US would have to make a decision—continue to climb the escalation ladder, matching Russia punch for punch until one side became exhausted, or preemptively using nuclear weapons as a means of escalating to de-escalate—launch a limited nuclear strike using low-yield nuclear weapons in hopes that Russia would back down out of fear of what would come next—a general nuclear war.

The Pentagon has integrated such a scenario into the range of nuclear pre-emption options available to the President of the United States. Indeed, in early 2020 US Strategic Command conducted an exercise where the Secretary of Defense gave the launch instructions for a US Ohio class submarine to launch a Trident missile carrying W-76-2 low yield nuclear warheads against a Russian target in a scenario involving Russian aggression against the Baltics in which Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon to strike a NATO target.

The insanity of this scenario is that it ignores published Russian nuclear doctrine, which holds that Russia will respond with the full power of its strategic nuclear arsenal in the case of a nuclear attack against Russian soil.

Once again, US nuclear war planners believe that Russia is bluffing.

There is another twist to this discussion.

While the US might assess that Russia would not seek a general nuclear war following the use by the US of low yield nuclear warheads, the problem is that the means of employment of the W-76-2 warhead is the Trident submarine launched ballistic missile.

While the February 2020 scenario had Russia using nuclear weapons first (something which, at the time, represented a gross deviation from published Russian nuclear doctrine and the declaratory policy statements of the Russian President), the fact is the US will not necessarily wait for Russia to kick things off on the nuclear front.

The United States has long embraced a nuclear posture which not only incorporates the potential of a nuclear first strike, but, through declaratory policy statements, actively encourages America’s potential nuclear adversaries to believe such an action is, in fact, possible. David J. Trachtenberg, the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy during the Trump administration, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2019 that a key aspect to the US nuclear posture was “keeping adversaries such as Russia and China guessing whether the US would ever employ its nuclear weapons.”

But the US takes the guesswork out of the equation. Theodore Postol points out, in a recent article in Responsible Statecraft, that a new fuse used on the W-76 nuclear warhead (not the low yield W-76-2, but rather the 100 kiloton version) has turned the 890 W-76 warheads loaded on the Trident missiles carried onboard the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into weapons capable of destroying hardened Russian and Chinese missile silos with a single warhead.

This means that, firing in a reduced trajectory profile from a position close to the shores of either Russia or China, the United States possesses the ability to launch a nuclear first strike that has a good chance of knocking out the entire ground-based component of both the Chinese and Russian strategic nuclear deterrent. As a result, Russia has been compelled to embrace a “launch on detect” nuclear posture where it would employ the totality of its silo-based arsenal the moment it detected any potential first strike by the United States.

Return, for a moment, to the scenario-driven employment of the W-76-2 low yield nuclear weapon as part of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy that underpins the entire reason for the W-76-2 weapon to exist in the first place.

When the United States launches the Trident missile carrying the low yield warhead, how are the Russians supposed to interpret this act?

The fact is, if the US ever fires a W-76-2 warhead using a Trident missile, the Russians will assess this action as the initiation of a nuclear first strike and order the launching of its own nuclear arsenal in response.

All because the United States has embraced a policy of “first strike ambiguity” designed to keep the Russians and Chinese guessing about American nuclear intentions.

And, to put icing on this nuclear cake, Russia’s response appears to have been to change its nuclear posture to embrace a similar posture of nuclear pre-emption, meaning that rather than wait for the US to actually launch a nuclear-armed missile or missiles against a Russian target, Russia will now seek to pre-empt such an attack by launching its own pre-emptive nuclear strike designed to eliminate the US land-based nuclear deterrent force.

In a sane world, both sides would recognize the inherent dangers of such a forward-leaning posture, and take corrective action.

But we no longer live in a sane world.

Moreover, given the fact that the underlying principle guiding US policies toward Russia is the misplaced notion that Russia is bluffing, any aggressive posturing we might engage in designed to promote and exploit the ambiguity derived from the first-strike potential inherent in existing US nuclear posture will, more likely than not, only fuel Russian paranoia about a potential US nuclear pre-emption, prompting Russia to pre-empt.

Russia isn’t bluffing.

And our refusal to acknowledge this has embarked us on a path where we appear more than willing to pre-empt life itself.

We need to pre-empt nuclear preemption by embracing a policy of strict no first use principles.

By choosing deterrence over warfighting.

By deemphasizing nuclear war.

By controlling nuclear weapons through verifiable arms control treaties.

And by eliminating nuclear weapons.

It truly is an existential choice—nuclear weapons or life.

Because they are incompatible with one another.

September 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

The Russia-China grains corridor will completely displace the US, Canada, Australia, and France

Inside China Business | August 31, 2024

Russia and China are developing a transnational grains corridor, connecting Russia’s enormous agricultural production to export markets in China, South Asia, and the Middle East. When complete, Russian production and shipments on this network will exceed 8 million tons per year. China is the world’s largest importer of wheat and grains, and in 2023 imported over 6 million tons of wheat from the United States, Canada, Australia, and France.

Large distribution hubs are being completed in China’s Northern and Central provinces, which will further transport Russian food exports within China, and on to other Asian countries.

The proposed BRICS grains exchange enjoys wide support across the bloc, and will accelerate the decoupling of Global South markets from the Western banking and trading systems, to the detriment of farmers in North America and Europe.

Resources and links:

The Sino-Russian Land Grain Corridor and China’s Quest for Food Security https://asiasociety.org/policy-instit…

BRICS countries back grain exchange idea, Russia says https://gulfbusiness.com/brics-countr…

Russia, China agree to build new grain hub on border https://www.world-grain.com/articles/…

Visual Capitalist, Visualizing the world’s largest consumer markets in 2030 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-…

U.S. Dominance in Corn Exports on the Wane Due to Brazilian Competition https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/202…

The New Land Grain Corridor, website and infographics https://www.nlgc.ru/en/

Closing scene, Chinese rural area outside Guilin, Guangxi province

September 23, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

US Bets on Allies to Bail Out Crippled Shipbuilding Industry

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 21.09.2024

As the US pushes its “China threat” narrative and eyes a potential military conflict with the People’s Liberation Army, one of its vital defense industries – shipbuilding – is in a critical condition.

The US is betting on its ally South Korea to help bail out its crippled shipbuilding industry.

South Korean shipbuilding company Hanwha Ocean recently announced its acquisition of a former naval shipyard in Philadelphia.

Along with the shipyard deal, valued at $100 million, Hanwha secured its first maintenance and repair contract with the US Navy.

The US shipbuilding industry has become notorious for years-long delays and cost overruns. Washington’s allies South Korea and Japan are the world’s largest shipbuilders, and hopes are that they could boost production of both commercial and naval vessels.

But stark new figures show that even with support from Asian firms, it could take the US years to close the gap with China in maritime power.

  • Last year, China had orders for 1,794 large commercial ships, South Korea had 734, Japan had 587 — but the US had just five.
  • While China commands 40 percent of global commercial shipbuilding output, the US accounts for less than one percent.
  • China had over 5,000 oceangoing commercial vessels in early 2023, while the US-flagged merchant fleet had only 177.
  • China’s shipbuilding capacity is over 200 times that of the US, according to a US Naval Intelligence chart cited by media.

The struggle to prop up the floundering US shipbuilding base comes as the US Navy has released its plan for a potential military conflict with China by 2027.

Announcing the Navigation Plan for America’s Warfighting Navy, US Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Lisa Franchetti referred to China as a “pacing challenge” and a “complex, multi-domain and multi-axis threat.”

The plan includes streamlining maintenance for warships, submarines and aircraft, eliminating delays and restoring “critical infrastructure that sustains and projects the fight from shore.”

September 21, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

What has NATO’s ‘expansion’ vaunted by secretary general brought?

Global Times | September 21, 2024

Outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg boasted of his achievements during his tenure in his farewell speech on Thursday, claiming that in 10 years, the number of NATO soldiers on its eastern flank increased from zero to tens of thousands, the number of troops on high readiness rose from thousands to half a million, and the number of its allies spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense increased from three to 23. Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland and Sweden joined the alliance, deepening their relations with countries in the “Indo-Pacific region.” Stoltenberg also summarized five lessons that are key to NATO’s continued “success” in the future, urging the US and Europe not to engage in isolationism, declaring that “freedom is more important than free trade” and NATO “must not make the same mistake with China” as they did with Russia.

In the context of the ongoing poor European security situation, Stoltenberg’s self-boasting is somewhat like “taking the wrong script.” However, when reviewing Stoltenberg’s 10-year term, NATO’s “expansion” indeed stands out as a central theme. In addition to the points he mentioned in his speech, statistics showed that NATO’s military spending had increased by over 30 percent during his tenure, reaching a record $1.185 trillion in 2024. As a transatlantic military alliance, NATO also saw strategic, geographical, and content-based expansion under Stoltenberg’s leadership. Not only did it label China as a “systemic challenge,” repeatedly hyping up the “China threat” and accelerating NATO’s “Asia-Pacificization,” but it also incorporated issues like supply chains, technological and economic security into its agenda.

The key question is, apart from self-proclaiming NATO as being “strong, united and more important than ever,” what exactly have these expansions brought to the world? How much of the 30 percent increase in military spending has flowed into the pockets of the US military-industrial complex, how much security anxiety has been spread around the world, and how much of it has been at the expense of the livelihoods, well-being and social stability of Europe. Is it safer or less safe for NATO countries to provoke confrontation with China by following the US’ China strategy? Is it weal or woe to securitize and weaponize the industrial chain, supply chain, cyberspace and other fields, and inject NATO-style confrontational mentality into areas that could have healthy cooperation and interaction?

If we are to give a more serious and thorough assessment of Stoltenberg’s past decade in office, these are issues that cannot be ignored, and the answers are quite the opposite of the achievements he highlighted. With Europe now facing such a precarious security situation, what responsibility does NATO bear?

It was NATO’s expansion that sowed the seeds of the Ukraine crisis, and its extension into the Asia-Pacific region has exported geopolitical tensions beyond Europe. Under Stoltenberg’s leadership, NATO has further aligned itself with US strategic goals, and all of NATO’s shifts reflected US strategic intentions. The historical evaluation of Stoltenberg, beyond being the second longest serving NATO secretary general due to internal divisions within the alliance, will likely include his image as a “loyal executor” of Washington’s policies and its “vanguard.”

NATO should have ended with the Cold War, its survival and development have always relied on creating security anxieties and engaging in conflicts, repeatedly. On one hand, NATO claims to be a regional alliance, but on the other hand, under the guise of ensuring its own security, it continuously expands globally. It claims to be a defensive organization, yet in the name of defense, it promotes deterrence and stirs confrontation. Stoltenberg attempts to portray NATO as a protector of regional and even global security, but the rhetoric that “military strength is a prerequisite for dialogue” is merely another way of saying “Might makes right.”

On the surface, this speech looks much like a smug war readiness declaration left by Stoltenberg to NATO, but in fact, the words between the lines cannot hide NATO’s own dilemma and loss. Amid domestic political uncertainty in the US, what will the future of NATO be and where will Europe’s sustainable security lie? Behind Stoltenberg, European countries and the world are left with a more divided situation.

Actually, NATO’s 75-year history has proven that it has not made Europe or the world more peaceful and secure. The existence and continuous expansion of NATO have become the root cause of security dilemmas. On the contrary, “long peace” has been achieved in places with less NATO intervention and confrontational mentality. The value of Stoltenberg’s farewell speech and the expansion of NATO he boasted about lies in telling the world that the current world does not need a NATO that provokes camp confrontation and spreads a Cold War mentality, let alone a globally expanding NATO. We urge NATO to “retire” together with its outgoing secretary general, alongside the outdated concepts of Cold War mentality and zero-sum game, the wrong practices of advocating military force and pursuing “absolute security,” and dangerous behaviors that disrupt Europe and the Asia Pacific as soon as possible.

September 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 2 Comments

Supply line sabotage: Why Israel’s terrorism in Lebanon will backfire on West

By Musa Iqbal | Press TV | September 20, 2024 

In an unprecedented act of terrorism, the Zionist regime carried out widespread device detonations across Lebanon over the course of two days this week.

The reckless terror attacks injured thousands and killed dozens, including children and civil workers, sparking outrage worldwide.

Devices such as pagers, walkie-talkies, and solar panels detonated simultaneously across the Arab country, starting from the suburbs of Beirut, killing, maiming, and dismembering Lebanese citizens.

The mouthpieces of the child-murdering regime in Tel Aviv have gone out of their way to claim that the attacks targeted members of the Hezbollah resistance movement.

However, this was not a military operation but cowardly terror attacks orchestrated to instill fear and anxiety in the everyday lives of the Lebanese people.

At the time of the explosions, Lebanese citizens were engaged in mundane activities—driving, working in hospitals, and grocery shopping. The detonation of their devices during these routine tasks demonstrates that the goal was not to strike Hezbollah but to foment widespread fear, panic, and chaos.

It remains unclear how Israeli regime agents gained access to these devices, imported from a European country in the thousands under the label of a Taiwanese firm.

However, it is evident that distributors and producers within the supply chain must have collaborated with Tel Aviv. Standard quality assurance processes ensure products are tamper-proof and safe for consumers.

The implantation of explosives into everyday communication objects used by Lebanese citizens suggests that something within the production process was compromised.

Gold Apollo, a Taiwanese company responsible for producing the targeted pagers, has shifted the blame to a Hungarian firm, BAC CONSULTING KFT, which it claims was responsible for the manufacturing.

In a statement, Gold Apollo noted that according to the cooperation agreement between the two sides, it authorized BAC to use its brand trademark for product sales in designated regions, but the design and manufacturing of the products were solely the responsibility of BAC.

Taiwan has been strengthening its ties with the US in recent years, despite officially adhering to the One China Policy, which recognizes Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China.

Over the last few years, American military and intelligence personnel have been active in Taiwan, and the US has provided millions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry to the Taiwanese government.

Hungary, a member of the European Union, has been largely hostile to the Palestinian cause and a supporter of Israeli occupation and its genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, which has so far killed more than 41,300 people, mostly children and women.

Either country, or both, could have collaborated with the Zionist regime once it became known that pagers used by Lebanese people, including Hezbollah, were being sourced through these vendors.

BAC Consulting is owned by British citizen Cristiana Arcidiancono-Barsony, who has denied responsibility for the Lebanon bombings after a massive global outcry.

Given Britain’s long history of colonialism and collaboration with Zionist forces and the relationship between Zionist tech and tech honchos such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, there is a compelling case that Western technology cannot be trusted.

In fact, this technological terror plot by the Israeli occupation has escalated tensions between the imperialist West and the independence-seeking Global South.

Now, with the push of a button, the Israeli regime—or any entity granted access to this technology—can assassinate anyone via market-distributed technology.

One of imperialism’s key tools is market control: control over what is sold, produced, and licensed. If Western technology is capable of indiscriminate destruction, many will begin to question whether it’s time to step away from US-aligned tech altogether.

The Israeli regime celebrates these terroristic short-term “gains” as a military achievement, but in the long term, they have eroded trust in Western technology and products.

If the West controls supply chains and can detonate devices at will, as seen in Lebanon, can economic cooperation with the West truly be considered voluntary? And after Israel’s latest terrorist actions, is Western tech even worth purchasing?

Notice how, when countries from the Global South opt to buy Chinese, Russian, or Iranian products or welcome cooperation from other US adversaries, American politicians and media swiftly condemn these moves, decrying the spread of so-called “Chinese influence” in foreign markets.

The same dynamic can be observed with the ongoing trend of de-dollarization, prompting figures like Donald Trump to threaten “100 percent tariffs” on countries moving away from the US dollar in trade.

What does this all mean? Simply put, the US goal is to reassert itself globally, primarily through market and dollar dominance, as a means of controlling nations at a widespread level. Controlling a nation’s markets is often more effective than directly influencing politicians.

However, American imperialism cannot have it both ways. Technological terrorism, exemplified by Israeli detonators in pagers, and economic coercion, such as American sanctions, are eroding trust in the West.

For decades, American capitalists and their political representatives have argued that buying American goods and trading with US firms is voluntary and beneficial for participating nations.

Now, as American hegemony declines, the US is scrambling to maintain its influence, as countries turn to alternative models or economic alliances like BRICS and SCO in pursuit of fairer paths to development.

Governments in the Global South, especially those adversarial to the Israeli regime, are likely investigating whether they have compromised technology in their own markets.

It is well known that American tech is frequently used for surveillance—WhatsApp is believed to have played a role in the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh by revealing his location in Tehran.

This development comes as alliances such as BRICS are pushing for their own global currency, and member countries—particularly India, China, Russia, and Iran—have committed to local manufacturing whenever possible, ditching the US dollar.

Iran, for instance, developed its own COVID-19 vaccines due to the West’s long history of medical terrorism, which even extends to American citizens themselves.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, banned the import of Western COVID-19 vaccines, citing a lack of trust. He stands vindicated yet again.

Less than a century ago, the US government conducted the Tuskegee experiments, poisoning Black Americans with placebos or experimental treatments. Johnson & Johnson, the US company behind a COVID-19 vaccine, also participated in the infamous Agent Orange experiments, disfiguring prisoners with chemical residues.

China and Russia, too, have developed their own technology to protect against American surveillance efforts. For example, Huawei phones, a Chinese product, are banned in the US due to fears of “Chinese spying.”

In reality, these phones were developed as a safeguard against US tech giants like Apple attempting to dominate Chinese markets, which would leave China vulnerable to American attacks and surveillance.

We are witnessing the beginning of a long, negative reaction against Western technology. In an increasingly competitive global market, where US influence is waning, Israel’s murderous gambit of rigging devices tied to US supply chains will ultimately backfire and that is for certain.

Governments, corporations, and organizations will seek out technology that cannot be compromised, particularly by threats as dangerous as the Zionist regime, which collaborates with US intelligence.

This terroristic plot will be remembered not only for its moral repugnance but also for its economic repercussions. It signals another bell toll in the decline of US imperialism.

As American influence fades and powers like China, Russia, and Iran offer more attractive alternatives, the world will undoubtedly gravitate toward anything but America.

Musa Iqbal is a Boston-based researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

September 21, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | 1 Comment

How Could Lebanon Blasts Affect Global Security and Attitude to Western Hi-Tech Producers?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 19.09.2024

A series of blasts reportedly involving Taiwanese, Japanese, American, and European-made devices in Lebanon on September 17 and 18 have prompted grave security concerns worldwide.

“Weaponizing mobile communications devices will fill many people with horror and fear,” Marc Ostwald, chief economist at ADM Investor Services International, told Sputnik. “It may, at the margin, dampen demand.”

The Lebanese government attributed the attack to Israel, accusing Tel Aviv of an outright act of terrorism.

Given almost “unconditional support” provided to Israel by some Western countries, some of them may have colluded with Tel-Aviv, said Hasan Abdullah, analyst and researcher at Global Security and Strategy Institute.

“The US is going to be the country that’s going to generate the greatest trust deficit with their customers, primarily because of its very close collaboration with Israel,” Abdullah told Sputnik.

The US has long been one of the largest suppliers of communication equipment, including for military needs, to the Global South, the pundit noted, adding that the recent blasts could alienate the developing world from Western producers.

Earlier, researcher Mehmet Rakipoglu and military analyst Alexei Leonkov told Sputnik they did not rule out US involvement in the Lebanon attack.

The Intercept reported on Wednesday that the US military had explored the possibility of planting remote-activated bombs in innocuous devices starting from the 1960s.

Middle East and other developing countries could eventually turn to Russian, Chinese or Turkish tech firms out of fear that the US involvement could compromise their security, Abdullah said.

Ostwald and Abdullah believe that several measures could be taken to stop the covert bombings, starting with investigations into manufacturing processes and ending with the deployment of international watchdogs to oversee production and supply.

September 19, 2024 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Restoring Military Infrastructure on Pacific Island to Project Power in Region – Reports

Sputnik – 17.09.2024

WASHINGTON – The United States is refurbishing military infrastructure on the Pacific island of Tinian as part of efforts to bolster power projection in the Indo-Pacific region, Newsweek reported on Tuesday.

The US cleared overgrowth on taxiways and runways previously built on the island during the Second World War, the report said, citing recent satellite imagery and Pacific Air Forces spokesperson Capt. Keith Peden.

The US Defense Department established three projects to develop airfield operations on Tinian as part of its Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which focuses on defense planning for a potential conflict with China.

The Pentagon seeks to add refueling, takeoff, landing and parking operations on Tinian, the report said.

The projects will support a variety of aircraft and enable the US Air Force to “rapidly deploy and sustain forces” in diverse environments for both routine and contingency operations, Peden said.

However, China strongly opposes US efforts to bolster forward deployments in the Indo-Pacific region, Chinese Embassy in the US spokesperson Liu Pengyu reportedly said.

September 17, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment