The U.S. Proxy War Against Russia & China Is Increasingly Seen Globally As A Disaster Made By American And NATO Lies
Strategic Culture Foundation | April 28, 2023
It has become patently obvious to the world that the conflict in Ukraine is a dirty and desperate geopolitical confrontation, despite massive Western media efforts to portray it as something else more noble – the usual charade of chivalry and virtue to disguise naked Western imperialism.
The death and destruction in Ukraine is nothing but a proxy war by the United States and its NATO partners to defeat Russia in a strategic gambit. But the unspoken objective does not end with Russia. The U.S. and its Western imperialist lackeys are driven to push for confrontation with China too.
As if taking on Russia is not reckless enough! The Western powers want to double down on their warmongering with China. This is all because the underlying impetus is for Washington and its Western minions to promote U.S.-led dominance of the global order. Russia and China are the main obstacles to that path of would-be dominance, and hence we see this manic drive for aggression stemming from Washington, the executive power of the Western order.
It should be obvious that while the U.S.-led NATO axis has stoked the war in Ukraine to calamitous heights, this same axis is wantonly inciting tensions with China. This observation alone should be enough to condemn the criminality of Western powers.
This week saw the NATO powers deliver depleted uranium weapons to the Kiev regime, while the United States announced that it would be docking submarine nuclear warheads in South Korea, a move that infuriated China which pointed out that Washington was violating decades-old commitments to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. Of course, such perverse provocation is par for the course as far as Washington is concerned. It is done deliberately in a conscious effort to exacerbate tensions and escalate militarism. Peace and security are anathemas to the U.S. (and its minions) whose whole ideological raison d’être is to aggravate war to gratify corporate capitalist addiction – a system that is increasingly bankrupt and dysfunctional, and hence the insane desperation for craving “war-fixes”.
In a scathing speech to the United Nations Security Council this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asserted that the conflict in Ukraine cannot be properly resolved without an understanding of the geopolitical context. In other words, the war in the former Soviet republic which erupted last February has bigger causes than what the Western powers and their compliant news media would try to pretend otherwise.
Defense of Ukraine? Defense of democracy? Defense of international law? Defense of national sovereignty? These are some of the laughable claims made by Washington and its allies. One only has to consider the decades of total trashing of the UN Charter and democratic principles by the United States and its rogue partners in their pursuit of criminal wars to realize that their virtue-signaling over Ukraine is a vile joke.
Lavrov’s address to the Security Council was a stunning rebuke of the hypocrisy and criminality of the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other NATO powers, as well as the European Union. His speech was akin to the scene in the classic old movie The Wizard of Oz when the curtain was pulled back on the buffoonish villain for all to see. Any objective observer would agree with the Russian foreign minister’s excoriating survey of modern history and why the war in Ukraine has tragically manifested. Lamentably, if we fail to understand history and the real causes of conflicts, then we are condemned to repeat the horrors.
Ironically, Western leaders have at times revealed the bigger geopolitical agenda with their own misspoken arrogant words. U.S. President Joe Biden had previously blurted out a call for regime change in Moscow while his senior aides, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, have succumbed to the intoxication of their narcissism and hubris by saying that the purpose of the war in Ukraine is the “defeat of Russia”.
Other NATO senior figures, such as the stupid, conceited Polish leaders and their Baltic buddies, have also come out and stated that the war’s ulterior agenda is to vanquish Russia. The fascist skeletons of their Nazi-collusion past have resurrected their deathly rattles, uncontrollably.
As Lavrov’s address to the Security Council intimates, the systematic violation of the UN Charter by the United States and its Western partners is a deplorable continuation of the Nazi fascism and imperialist barbarism that was supposed to have been defeated in World War Two. The culmination of the constant, unbridled Western imperialist criminality and its state terrorism is the current war in Ukraine and the growing aggression toward China over Taiwan as a pretext.
In all of this, woefully, the Western public has been flagrantly lied to by their governments and media as to the real nature of the war in Ukraine. American and European citizens have been bilked for hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up a Nazi regime in Kiev whose function is to act as a NATO spear-tip against Russia, and ultimately China when the NATO powers feel they are done with Ukraine. (The latter is a futile ambition, as is becoming increasingly evident.)
Journalists and antiwar activists in the West who highlight the malfeasance over Ukraine are either sacked, vilified, censored, or sanctioned into poverty, or even imprisoned.
Nevertheless, the Western public and the rest of the world are increasingly becoming aware of the odious charade. By definition, charades are inevitably untenable.
The Global South – the majority of the 193 nations at the UN – has had it with Western capitalist hegemony and its outrageous neocolonialist privileges. The incremental dumping of the U.S. dollar as an international reserve currency for trade is a testament to the historic shift towards a multipolar order in defiance of Western unipolar elitism. The nations of Africa, Latin America and Asia understand that the U.S.-led NATO war in Ukraine is a desperate last-ditch bid to preserve an imperialist global order which should have been eradicated after World War Two with the establishment of the United Nations, but which, regrettably, was not. Because the root cause of imperialism is the AngloAmerican-led Western capitalist order. The end of World War Two, as with World War One, was but a pause in the historical killing machine.
It is now increasingly evident in the light of leaked documents from the Pentagon that the war in Ukraine is a disaster. The Kiev regime is facing defeat at the hands of superior Russian forces even though that regime has been flooded with weapons by the United States and NATO. Great expectations of a Ukrainian victory that were widely predicted by Western leaders and media have been shown to be empty, contemptible lies.
The side-show of this war is a gargantuan racket. Western arms companies have raked in unprecedented profits, while the NATO-backed cabal in Kiev has skimmed off hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the same Kiev regime that is burning down Orthodox Christian churches, exterminating the Russian language, lionizing World War Two Nazi criminals, and locking up any critical opposition and media.
But the main takeaway is the lies that the United States and Western lackeys, including the entire media industry, have been telling about the proxy war in Ukraine. This war is an imperialist adventure that has been financially ruinous, has destroyed Ukraine, and is driving a dangerous all-out war with Russia and China that could turn into a nuclear armageddon.
We should not be surprised by such blatant lying and deception. President Joe Biden and his administration have been telling barefaced lies to conceal the corruption oozing out of Biden’s own family. Biden and his son Hunter have exploited Ukraine since the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 for personal enrichment. The president has even reportedly got his senior aides to do his bidding to censor intelligence agencies and media from revealing to the public the corruption at the heart of his family. (Risibly, the truth is smeared as Russian or Chinese disinformation!)
The lies that Biden and his administration tell about personal corruption are indelibly coupled with the lies told about the proxy war in Ukraine.
It is increasingly clear that the American public, the European public, and the rest of the world have been duped in multiple ways. The phony war in Ukraine is exposing the deep, stinking well of corruption in this White House. There will be hell to pay.
Meeting of the Defense Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Delhi
By Gilbert Doctorow | April 28, 2023
One quite important event today in global politics is unlikely to receive coverage in The New York Times, The Financial Times, the BBC or Euronews. I have in mind the meeting in Delhi of the defense ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
The SCO is one of the two principal bodies that bring together the nations that are today challengers to the US-dominated world order. The other such body is BRICS.
Whereas BRICS is primarily an economic fraternity with focus on commercial relations among its members, meaning a platform of Soft Power, the SCO is primarily a Hard Power fraternity focusing on the security of its member states. It is also more limited geographically, concentrated on Eurasia. Its founding members were China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Today it also includes Uzbekistan, India and Pakistan. Among the states accorded “observer” status are Afghanistan, Mongolia and Iran. And at its edges as “dialogue partners” are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Egypt, Nepal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Turkey.
There were a couple of outstanding and newsworthy developments at the SCO gathering in India today. One was the speech delivered by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Several minutes from this speech were carried on Russian news channels and what we heard was Shoigu declaring that from the start of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine the Collective West was throwing all of its military assets against Russia.
The other noteworthy development was the side meeting of Shoigu and his Chinese counterpart Li Shangfu. They were shown on television walking side by side to that meeting. Russian news tells us that Li used their meeting to extend an invitation to Shoigu to visit him in Beijing, and that Shoigu accepted.
The impact on the other SCO member states, observers and dialogue partners of these close and fast developing relations between the Russian and Chinese defense ministries cannot be overstated. Today they were all direct witnesses of this fact. Among other things, this spells the end of opportunities for Central Asian states to play Russia off against China in obtaining favors, as Western media believed they were doing. It completely vitiates all efforts by U.S. Secretary of State Blinken over the past several months to pressure these same Central Asian countries into loosening or breaking ties with Moscow. These states are now all caught between a rock and a hard place.
The drama of the Russian-Chinese entente also will bear on the future conduct of India and Pakistan. Here, too, the options for playing games or fence sitting are fast disappearing. For their part, Iran and Saudi Arabia will surely be among the countries taking great comfort in the bloc forming between the states they rely on to pursue a foreign policy independent of diktat from Washington.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023
Ukraine will have to accept Chinese mediation when spring offensive fails
By Ahmed Adel | April 28, 2023
In a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky on April 26, Chinese President Xi Jinping identified negotiations as the only way to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, something that the Ukrainian president has been resistant to.
“Dialogue and negotiation is the only possible method,” Chinese media quoted Xi as saying in his first known conversation with Zelensky since the Russian special military operation began. The Chinese president also stressed that Beijing “will persistently seek peace and synergistically promote negotiations.”
For his part, Zelensky, who for many months has expressed interest in speaking with Xi, said he had “a long and meaningful phone call” with the Chinese president that lasted for an hour. “We discussed a full range of topical issues of bilateral relations. Particular attention was paid to the ways of possible cooperation to establish a just and sustainable peace for Ukraine.”
“There can be no peace at the expense of territorial compromises,” he added, suggesting that perhaps Xi is wasting his time.
None-the-less, after the conversation with Xi, the Ukrainian president signed a decree which appointed former Minister of Strategic Industry Pavel Ryabikin as Ambassador of Ukraine to the People’s Republic of China. This insinuates that the comments from the Chinese leader did not spoil relations between the two countries.
The long absence of a Ukrainian ambassador to China does demonstrate the traditional attitude that Kiev had towards the Asian giant. Now, despite relations improving, Kiev is giving provocative ultimatums on conditions for peace talks when Beijing is searching for peace.
It is recalled that Xi made a state visit to Russia in March and met President Vladimir Putin. During the visit, Xi and Putin affirmed their alignment across many issues, such as dealing with American provocations.
In addition, the Xi-Zelensky call comes only days after the Chinese Ambassador in Paris sparked controversy by suggesting that the Baltic states had no status under international law following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, something which authorities in Kiev could have interpreted as also being aimed against them. This was ultimately rejected by Beijing though, with authorities saying that the ambassador’s comments were his own personal opinion and not official policy.
Beijing announced that China’s Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs, former Chinese Ambassador to Russia Li Hui, will lead a special delegation on crisis settlement in Ukraine. The establishment of a special Chinese delegation to resolve the crisis in Ukraine is a very important step, particularly because Li Hui is an experienced diplomat who has served as China’s ambassador to Russia for many years. On the other hand, people should not harbour any illusions as Washington will likely prevent Kiev from achieving peace with Moscow under Chinese stewardship.
For her part, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow had taken notice of Beijing’s will to enable negotiations with Ukraine following the phone call between Zelensky and his Chinese counterpart.
“We note the readiness of the Chinese side to make efforts to establish the negotiation process,” Zakharova said during a press conference on April 26. She noted that negotiations under current conditions are unlikely and highlighted that Kiev is the one rejecting initiatives by Moscow.
Despite these difficult conditions, China started positioning itself as a peacemaker in the conflict in early 2023 after releasing a proposal for a discussion-based solution to the war. However, the proposal has been completely rejected by Kiev and their Western backers as it included no provision for Russia to withdraw its troops.
Xi also received criticism from the West for attempting to position himself as a mediator whilst visiting Moscow but not having spoken with Zelensky at that point. At the same time, when considering the timing of the call between the two leaders, it suggests that Xi believes there is a possibility for progress, even if Zelensky is attaching stringent demands.
With China successfully reconciling Iran and Saudi Arabia, the country’s decisionmakers also feel confident that they can tackle an even bigger challenge considering Russia and Ukraine are in direct conflict, unlike the two Middle Eastern countries.
Because Ukraine believes it can prevail against Russia on the battlefield and in the spring offensive, there should be no expectations for peace negotiations to begin soon. Evidently though, Beijing said that they are going to take concrete steps in the direction of mediation, a major step in China demonstrating that it is a Great Power with global influence. Once Ukraine’s spring offensive fails, Kiev will have no choice but to reach out to Beijing to help mediate a peace agreement.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Russia cannot lose its UNSC seat despite Western and Ukrainian attempts
By Ahmed Adel | April 27, 2023
The US has a strong ambition to add its allies to the United Nations Security Council to weaken Russia’s influence across the world, or if this fails, to render the organisation useless, akin to the old League of Nations. However, even more dangerous than the US seeking more allies in the UNSC are the initiatives to abolish Russia’s right of veto and take away its status as a permanent member. Kiev raises this suggestion at almost every session of the UN General Assembly.
In this sense, new challenges are being created, especially as UN Secretary General António Guterres stated that the majority of UN member states see the need for reforming the UNSC. Such suggestions must be treated with suspicion though as the US wants to take advantage and weaken not only Russian influence, but also Chinese.
Guterres and the US are clearly trying to push their closest allies, such as Germany, Australia, and Japan, where unsurprisingly American military bases are located, into the UNSC. There are also other countries, such as Turkey, which regularly raise the issue of UNSC reform and complain that the fate of humanity should not depend on five countries – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US.
However, Turkey’s suggestion is problematic as the UNSC would be inundated with permanent membership requests from dozens of middle powers who have equal or greater power than Turkey, such as Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Realistically, at this current junction, an expanded permanent UNSC could only include Brazil and India, the former because it is the most important country in Latin America and the latter because it is on a rapid path towards Great Power status.
None-the-less, Moscow, just like Washington, is in favour of reforming the UNSC, but with significantly different views. While the US and its allies are pushing reforms as a possible way to limit Russian influence, Moscow believes that the Security Council should to be expanded, but to achieve a more equitable world and to not empower Western aggression.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained that the composition of the UNSC should be strengthened by Asian, African, and Latin American countries, which are not represented in the UNSC, with the exception of China in regards to Asia. Therefore, in Moscow’s view, the UNSC should not be expanded only so that the West and its closest allies, such as Japan, can get additional seats. Moscow wants to balance the UNSC because the West has three of five permanent seats despite comprising only a minority of humanity.
It is clear that Lavrov has strategically put the West in a difficult position because if they veto the expansion initiative, it will lead to a backlash from countries like India which believe they have earned a right to a permanent seat in the UNSC. At the same time, Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart must be cautious on expansion so that the UNSC does not transform into a political branch of NATO.
The UN Charter does not provide for a reform procedure, and this especially applies to the UNSC, which is the most important body of the organisation. By recklessly expanding the body, the contradictions and conflicts of interest, which already hinder the UNSC in its current format, would elevate.
Therefore, in the current geopolitical situation, it will be very difficult to reform the UNSC in such a way as to objectively consider the interests of all participants in the process. A permanent UNSC membership is a privilege and not something to lightly contemplate expanding upon.
There is also no legal basis to exclude Russia from the UNSC, limit its status and deprive it of veto rights. The entire architecture of the UN was originally built on the fact that the five great powers, the winners of the Second World War, assumed the role of guarding the global world order. The founding states cannot exclude each other because if one or two pillars are thrown out, the UN would collapse.
If Russia was somehow excluded, it would mark the destruction of the entire system based on international law, on the UN Charter, and would call into question the existence of the UN itself. Russia, however, is a permanent member of the Security Council and has veto power. This practically means that Russia, if the Charter is applied, can only be expelled if it does not exercise its veto power. Therefore, it is impossible to deprive Russia of that right, despite constant Ukrainian attempts.
Hypothetically, there are two scenarios in which Russia could lose its seat in the UNSC – first, if it excludes itself and second, if the UN ceases to exist as an organisation. It is recalled that the Soviet Union was foolishly excluded from the League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, but that organisation ceased to exist. The same fate would befall the UN if Russia was expelled.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Australia’s Defense Review Shows Its Readiness to Side With US in Possible Conflict With China
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 25.04.2023
Implementing all the tasks outlined in Australia’s defense review is a challenge that will take plenty of time, Professor Joe Siracusa, US political expert and dean of Global Futures at Curtin University, told Sputnik.
Australia has rolled out its new defense strategic review, billed by the government as the most significant update of its military planning in nearly 40 years.
The document outlined at least six “priority areas for immediate action,” including the development of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine capability and longer-range strike capacity, speeding up the integration of new technologies into the military, defense workforce retention and recruitment, plus improving strategic cooperation between Canberra and its key partners in the Indo-Pacific.
“These are major changes which are going to take a great deal of effort to realize, because they have neither the capability to produce the boats right now or the ability to manufacture the missiles unless they buy them off the shelf from the Americans,” Siracusa said, referring to nuclear-powered submarines.
The expert argued that the review “does two things: shows that [Australia’s] Labor [Party] is changing the battle plan for the country, and number two, that it’s serious about funding it.”
“It’s been very hard to get this kind of money up in Australia because Australians don’t like to pay a lot of money for defense. […] And so this is a major decision. And once again, it’s a decision taken by a government on a proposal that will take years to come to fruition, when and if it does. This defense plan is sort of a promissory note,” Siracusa claimed.
Joseph Camilleri, emeritus professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne and one of Australia’s leading international relations scholars, in turn, told Sputnik that the goal of the country’s new defense review is “to equip Australian military forces to support the US in any future military confrontation with China.”
According to him, the Australian government looks “to demonstrate that it remains a close ally of the United States and that it will side with it in any future conflict with China.”
Camilleri was echoed by Scott Burchill, Honorary Fellow in International Relations at Deakin University and author of The National Interest in International Relations Theory and Misunderstanding International Relations.
He recalled that the review stipulates a shift in Australian defense policy towards a closer alignment with the US military in the Asia-Pacific outlined under the AUKUS arrangements, which he said “is an incremental rather than a revolutionary change.”
“The emphasis on greater ‘self-reliance’ is welcome and sensible, but the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines and the ‘interchangeability’ foreshadowed under the AUKUS procurements suggest Australia is heading in the opposite direction: to an even closer alignment with US maritime interests in the region,” Burchill pointed out.
He said that Canberra deciding to side with Washington is “a development that will not be lost on the other countries of the region, Australia’s neighbors, who will again question the sincerity of Australia’s desire to more fully integrate with the Asia-Pacific.”
China’s Ambassador To France Taught The West A Lesson About The “Rules-Based Order”
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | APRIL 24, 2023
The “rules-based order” concept is sold by the West as upholding the UN-enshrined system, but it’s really about the arbitrary implementation of double standards designed to advance America’s interests. Certain objective observations are exploited in pursuit of manipulating perceptions about a given issue, which is intended to precondition the targeted audience to support a unilateral change to the status quo that always in one way or another serves the US’ interests.
For instance, the observation that the Communist Party of China (CPC) hasn’t ever controlled Taiwan is exploited to extend credence to the latter’s tacit separatist agenda, which is in turn spun in order to justify the West comprehensively expanding its relations with that island. Chinese Ambassador to France Lu Shaye just taught the West a lesson about how this feels after sharing his thoughts on the legal status of former Soviet Republics.
In his personal view, “Even these ex-Soviet countries don’t have an effective status in international law because there was no international agreement to materialize their status as sovereign countries.” He also referenced Crimea’s original legal status as part of the USSR’s Russian constituent prior to it being gifted by former Soviet leader Khruschev to Ukraine. Since Ambassador Lu shared these thoughts during a TV interview, it was assumed by many that he was officially reflecting a new Chinese position.
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning clarified her country’s stance on Monday in response to a related question from TASS :
“After the demise of the Soviet Union, China was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with the [newly created] countries. Since the inception of diplomatic relations, China has always adhered to the principle of mutual respect and equal treatment while fostering bilateral relations of friendship and cooperation. China respects the sovereign status of the republics that were founded after the Soviet Union disintegrated.”
As can be seen, there exists no change in China’s position, thus meaning that Ambassador Lu was indeed speaking in a personal capacity.
Nevertheless, he didn’t explicitly say so when sharing his thoughts on this subject, though it’s unlikely that this was a faux pas from the man whose civilization-state has literally millennia worth of diplomatic experience. Rather, it was almost certainly the case that he was tasked with indirectly sending them a message on a “plausibly deniable” basis about how the “rules-based order” concept feels whenever it’s applied to imply an impending unilateral revision of the status quo with respect to Western interests.
South China Morning Post columnist Alex Lo compellingly explained this in his piece about how “China’s questioning sovereignty of post-Soviet states is tit-for-tat over Taiwan”. Basically, Beijing finally got fed up the West flirting with tacit Taiwanese separatism, hence why it had one of its most prominent diplomats in that de facto New Cold War bloc make a tit-for-tat comment in the way that Ambassador Lu did. By doing so, China taught the West a lesson that it’ll never forget even if they don’t ultimately learn from it.
If regional military developments take a decisively negative turn against Russia, however, then China might feel forced to arm its strategic partner as a last resort to ensure its national security interests. In that case, the “plausibly deniable” basis upon which China just made its point about the “rules-based order” could be returned to, albeit as a more official position in that case. The chances of events unfolding in that direction remain low, but this scenario adds further context to the examined incident.
EU navies to face off China over Taiwan
By Drago Bosnic | April 24, 2023
In yet another move set to cement the European Union’s status as a geopolitical pendant of the United States, its foreign policy chief Josep Borrell openly stated that he wants the armed forces (or, in this particular case, navies) of EU countries to patrol the increasingly contested Taiwan Strait to “help protect” Taiwan. Borrell gave a more detailed account of the plan for the first time in an opinion piece he authored for the French weekly Journal Du Dimanche. He insisted that the “peace and stability” of China’s breakaway island province is of “crucial importance” for the EU. Borrell also added that the island “concerns us economically, commercially and technologically” and reiterated the “urgency for the EU navies to ensure its protection”.
Borrell’s exact words were: “I call on [the EU] navies to patrol the Taiwan Strait to show Europe’s commitment to freedom of navigation in this absolutely crucial area.”
This comes mere days after a delegation from the US, including the bulk of its MIC (Military Industrial Complex) announced they would visit Taiwan and “discuss its defense“. Even more interestingly, Borrell mentioned “the economic, commercial and technological importance” of Taiwan, which falls perfectly in line with what a Republican congressman from Texas, Michael McCaul, recently said on air with Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet the Press, when asked about why the US should “defend Taiwan”. McCaul bluntly stated that the US would go to war over China’s breakaway island province on the basis of “protecting the world’s semiconductor supply“, although he was quick to revert to the official narrative after Todd tried to clarify it.
However, Borrell’s comments are significantly more consequential, as McCaul, despite his extremely powerful position as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, doesn’t directly shape US foreign policy. On the other hand, Borrell is one of the troubled bloc’s top officials and such statements will surely not be taken too kindly in Beijing. China has never meddled in the internal affairs of a single EU member state, in stark contrast to Brussels. For its part, the EU has directly meddled (and still does) in the questions of Hong Kong, Xinjiang and now Taiwan. All three areas are China’s provinces with varying degrees of autonomy and Beijing (rightfully) considers them to be a matter of its internal affairs.
Borrell’s controversial (at best) statements seem to be indicative of a major (and rapidly growing) divide between the EU as a (geo)political entity and its top member states. The EU’s head diplomat might have been seeking a counterargument to French President Emmanuel Macron’s recently revealed stance voiced earlier in the month that boils down to the EU essentially minding its own business, taking care of its own numerous issues and just leaving China alone. At the time, coming off a visit to Beijing where he met with the Chinese leadership, including President Xi Jinping himself, Macron had stressed that Europe must not be “a direct vassal” of US policy on Taiwan and that it has to achieve the goal of its own “strategic autonomy”.
“The paradox would be that, overcome with panic, we believe we are just America’s followers,” Macron stated, adding: “The question Europeans need to answer … is it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No. The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction… … If the tensions between the two superpowers heat up… … we won’t have the time nor the resources to finance our strategic autonomy and we will become vassals.”
The traditionally Russophobic Poland took this as a sign of “capitulating” to “Putin’s ally” China, as Warsaw is a staunch supporter of US interests in the EU. Recently, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki slammed Macron’s “controversial” comments on Beijing, made just after he met Xi Jinping. At the time, Morawiecki openly mocked the French President’s call for “strategic autonomy”. And while Macron’s stance can hardly ever be considered “pro-Chinese” (provided he even had honest intentions), still, even a semblance of anything that could remotely be seen as “anti-American” is virtual “heresy” in Warsaw. As previously mentioned, this only reinforces the notion of just how divided the EU is.
Obviously, as already stated, Borrell’s comments serve to counterbalance Macron’s stance, but the way in which the EU’s top diplomat chose to do that is as geopolitically unwise as it could possibly be. How is Beijing supposed to react to such rhetoric, particularly in light of US plans to deliver 400 anti-ship missiles to the government in Taipei and accelerate the delivery of over $19 billion worth of other weapons? And this is to say nothing of the effective forming of a “global NATO” or at the very least its Asia-Pacific version in the form of AUKUS, which at some point might even see more active participation of other US vassals and satellite states, including the EU itself. Coupled with NATO aggression against Russia, calling the foreign policy framework of the political West unwise can only be described as an understatement.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Russia-China border region sees surge in investment
RT | April 23, 2023
Ukraine-related Western sanctions against Russia have failed to stop the flow of investment in the country’s far-eastern Khabarovsk Region, bordering on China, Governor Mikhail Degtyarev said this week.
According to the official, a total of 26 new investment projects worth 133 billion rubles ($1.6 billion) were launched in the area in 2022, including a large-scale infrastructure project to build the Pacific Railroad.
“It is comparable to the historical construction of the BAM (Baikal–Amur Mainline railway). It is the first private railroad in Russia to have a length of 500 kilometers. In a short period of time, we have already built 100 kilometers,” Degtyarev stated.
Local projects launched in 2022 include a mining and processing plant at the Kutyn gold deposit in the Tuguro-Chumikansky district, and also the Solnechnaya tin ore processing station. A copper and tin producing plant in the Solnechny district is also nearing completion. The region has also started the development of the Malmyzhsky copper deposit.
Degtyarev also noted that the region last year successfully introduced a simplified procedure for granting land to businesses without them having to bid for import substitution projects, particularly in agriculture, which also drew investors to the area. This year the opportunity was extended to individual entrepreneurs and legal entities involved in import substitution, who can buy a land plot for these purposes for the symbolic sum of 1 ruble.
In his earlier interview, Degtyarev noted that Khabarovsk has been actively boosting cooperation with neighboring China over the past several months, with trade between the region and the Asian powerhouse up 31%, and cargo turnover up by 106% year-on-year as of the end of 2022.
The region also continues working on the Russo-Chinese joint trans-border development territory on Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island, where both Russian and Chinese companies can be residents. They will receive significant benefits for export-import operations, making the territory a de facto free-trade zone.
“We are seeing a turn to the East. There is growth in cargo turnover, growth in industrial production as a whole, and growth in the gross regional product. The Eastern part of the country is now pulling the economy, because the Western regions, unfortunately, faced treacherous sanctions and the collapse of logistics chains,” the official stated.
China’s role in the Yemen war ceasefire should not go unnoticed
RT | April 19, 2023
Eight and a half years of the Yemeni civil war has seen the Arab country torn into shreds.
Estimates suggest at least 350,000 people have died from the war or its consequences, which began in 2014. This includes approximately 85,000 children under the age of five who have died of starvation. Basic civil infrastructure and supply chains have collapsed, and typically treatable communicable diseases like cholera have claimed countless lives.
The war is primarily between the Yemeni government of Rashad al-Alimi, who took over in 2022 from Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, and the Houthi armed movement. The conflict escalated significantly when Saudi Arabia became involved in 2015 by backing Hadi (and now al-Alimi) in what is seen as a proxy war between Riyadh and Tehran, who is rumored to be supporting the Houthis.
Some of my first memories as a writer and college radio host was speaking to victims of the war and learning about the situation on the ground.
Fortunately, it now looks like the war might come to a close. US media reported on April 6th that a ceasefire had been struck between warring parties at least through the end of this year. Then, on April 7th, Lebanese news outlet Al Mayadeen reported that Riyadh had informed the Yemeni presidential leadership council of its decision to end the war and close the Yemen file once for all. This was further corroborated by a Reuters report, confirming that Saudi delegates would travel to the capital Sana’a to discuss a “permanent ceasefire.” And indeed these talks just wrapped up on April 14th and are expected to have a follow-up.
What is apparent from this situation, and what I had previously noted, is that the thawing of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia would likely lead to an end to the conflicts in Yemen and Syria. We are now seeing that play out. Most importantly, it was not US President Joe Biden – who had promised to end the conflict – but China that set the stage for this diplomatic achievement. And it’s not even a secret among US commentators since outlets like The Intercept, heavily quoting foreign policy experts, are giving China the credit.
It is difficult to compare such horrors but in my years speaking with victims of conflict, including Ukrainian refugees now, or previously with Afghans, Syrians and others, some of the most striking stories I’ve heard are from Yemenis. It is undoubtedly one of the most brutal and total wars seen in modern history, yet almost entirely off the radar for most Western media for nearly a decade.
Despite all of its diplomatic capital and links to the Middle East, somehow Washington managed – despite promising to halt the conflict – to be so anti-peace that it has driven perennial enemies to the table. And now, as the recently reported, CIA Director William Burns “expressed frustration” with Riyadh over its rapprochements with regional adversaries. Apparently, the US feels ‘blindsided’ by the deluge of peaceful resolutions – things it could never even fathom, apparently – and it’s angry with Riyadh, hitherto one of America’s largest arms importers.
Of course, buried under this frustration is a sense of loss. Anyone with some degree of familiarity with US politics and especially US foreign policy knows it is dominated by big money. In foreign affairs, this is primarily the military-industrial complex, which thrives off war and hatred. Peace is bad for business. And thus, the owners of US officials – the people who bankroll their campaigns and/or their bosses’ campaigns – are probably ticked.
Such a reaction explains why US diplomacy is inherently antithetical to peace. The US has been involved in numerous conflicts in the Middle East for some three decades, arguably more. With all of this history between Washington and its ‘partners’ in the region, it has extraordinarily little to show for it. The truth is that the US has stoked, proliferated and literally profited from sowing discord and conflict.
On the other hand, China wants to do business in other ways. Beijing is, to be fair, the fourth largest arms supplier in the world – but, according to Statista, it only has a global market share of 5.2% compared to Washington’s 40%. Chinese companies want to sell their goods or services, develop infrastructure and sell affordable and reliable products. This creates a political environment where stability, predictability and orderliness are cherished values.
As such, Chinese diplomacy is largely to thank for the expected conclusion of the gruesome human tragedy that has been the war in Yemen. Counter to what Washington spews about their so-called “rules-based international order” that no one can ever seem to articulate, Beijing believes in the post-WWII status quo – international law, the United Nations, sovereignty and diplomacy. And that is precisely why a growing number of high-level European officials, including most recently French President Emmanuel Macron, believe China can also help mediate the conflict in Ukraine.
Bradley Blankenship is an American journalist, columnist and political commentator. He has a syndicated column at CGTN and is a freelance reporter for international news agencies including Xinhua News Agency.
Biden regime to supply Taiwan with 400 Harpoon anti-ship missiles: Incompetence compounded by obvious death wish
By Gilbert Doctorow | April 18, 2023
The News Review discussion on Press TV, Iran shortly after noon today focused on the announced plans of the Biden Administration to supply Taiwan with Harpoon missiles. Though delivery will not begin for some years, the release of these plans by Bloomberg late yesterday could not have come at a worse time for American interests: precisely in the midst of Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu’s four day visit to Moscow. This timing gives the Russians and Chinese the perfect opportunity to discuss scenarios of joint response to the threat such missiles would pose to Chinese ambitions for reunification with Taiwan, by force if necessary. It also pushes the two countries still closer together, to the detriment of American national security.
The reason given by Bloomberg for supplying Harpoons to Taiwan is to enable them to thwart any invasion from mainland China. However, as we saw last week in the PRC’s massive naval exercises in the sea around Taiwan that in effect simulated a blockade of the island, China can bring Taiwan to its knees without putting a single soldier on Taiwanese soil. In this case, the Harpoons represent an attempt by the United States to foil a blockade. However, it should be clear to anyone with sense that for the Harpoons to pose such a threat they must first arrive in the island and China has every possibility and reason to ensure that will not happen. What we have here is precisely the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in reverse, with the USA planning to deliver weapons to an island off the shores of its rival for global leadership, or enemy, if you will. It is simply stunning that the ‘best and the brightest’ of today advising the Oval Office have no memory of past Great Power confrontations and apparently no ability to foresee the next moves of their chess partners.
I trust that readers will enjoy this brief interview. My fellow panelist is a well spoken analyst based in Beijing.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023
China, Russia circle wagons in Asia-Pacific
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | APRIL 19, 2023
The official visit by Chinese State Councilor and Defence Minister General Li Shangfu to Russia on April 16-19 prima facie underscored the two countries’ emergent need to deepen their military trust and close coordination against the backdrop of worsening geopolitical tensions and the imperative to maintain the global strategic balance.
The visit carries forward the pivotal decisions taken at the intensive one-on-one talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow through March 20-21. In a break with protocol, Gen. Li’s 4-day visit was front-loaded with a “working meeting” with Putin — to quote Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. (here and here)
Li is no stranger to Moscow, having previously held charge of Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission who was sanctioned by the US in 2018 for purchasing Russian weapons, including Su-35 combat aircraft and S-400 surface-to-air missile systems.
Song Zhongping, prominent Chinese military expert and TV commentator, forecast that Li’s trip would signal the high level of bilateral military ties with Russia, and lead to “more mutually beneficial exchanges in many fields, including defence technologies and military exercises.”
Last Wednesday, US Commerce Department announced the imposition of export controls on a dozen Chinese companies for “supporting Russia’s military and defence industries.” The Global Times hit back defiantly that “as China is an independent major power, so is Russia. It’s our right to decide with whom we will carry out normal economic and trade cooperation. We cannot accept the US’ finger-pointing or even economic coercion.”
Putin said at the meeting with Li on Easter Sunday that military cooperation plays an important role in Russia-China relations. Chinese analysts said Li’s visit is also a signal jointly sent by China and Russia that their military cooperation will not be impacted by the US pressure.
Putin had disclosed in October 2019 that Russia was helping China to create an early missile warning system that would drastically enhance the defensive capacity of China. Chinese observers noted that Russia was more experienced in developing and operating such a system, which is capable of identifying and sending warnings immediately after intercontinental ballistic missiles are launched.
Such cooperation demonstrate a high level of trust and require a possible integration of Russian and Chinese systems. The system integration will be mutually beneficial; stations located in the North and West of Russia could provide China with warning data and, in turn, China could provide Russia with data collected at their Eastern and Southern stations. That is to say, the two countries could create their own global missile defence network.
These systems are among the most sophisticated and sensitive areas of defence technology. The US and Russia are the only countries which have been able to develop, build and maintain such systems. Certainly, close coordination and cooperation between Russia and China, two nuclear-armed powers, will profoundly contribute to world peace in the present circumstances by containing and deterring US hegemony.
It cannot be a coincidence that Moscow ordered a sudden check of the forces of its Pacific Fleet on April 14-18, which overlapped Li’s visit. The inspection took place against the background of the aggravation of the situation around Taiwan.
Indeed, in early April, it became known that the American aircraft carrier USS Nimitz approached Taiwan; on April 11, the US began a 17-day military exercise in the Philippines involving over 12,000 troops; on April 17, news appeared about the dispatch of 200 American military advisers to Taiwan.
The US Global Thunder 23 strategic exercises at Minot Air Base in North Dakota, (which is the US Air Force Global Strikes Command) began last week where a training was conducted to load cruise missiles with nuclear warheads on bombers. The images showed B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers being equipped by the flight technical personnel of the base with AGM-86B cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads on the underwing pylons!
Again, exercises of US aviation and fleet forces have been increasingly noticed in the immediate vicinity of Russian borders or in regions where Russia has geopolitical interests. On April 5, B-52 Stratofortress circled over the Korean Peninsula allegedly “in response to nuclear and missile threats from North Korea.” At the same time, South Korea, the US and Japan conducted trilateral naval exercises in the waters of the Sea of Japan with the participation of aircraft carrier USS Nimitz.
Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev recently drew attention to Japan’s growing capability to conduct offensive operations, which, he said, constituted “a gross violation of one of the most important outcomes of the Second World War.” Japan plans to purchase around 500 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the US, which can directly threaten most of the territory of the Russian Far East. The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is working on developing Type 12 land-based anti-ship missiles “in order to protect the remote islands of Japan.”
Japan is also developing hypersonic weapons designed to conduct combat operations “on remote islands,” which Russians see as options for Japan’s possible seizure of the Southern Kuriles. In 2023, Japan will have a military budget exceeding $51 billion (on par with Russia’s), which is slated to increase to $73 billion.
Actually, during the latest surprise inspection, the ships and submarines of Russia’s Pacific Fleet made the transition from their bases to the Japanese, Okhotsk and Bering Seas. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said, “in practice, it is necessary to work out ways to prevent the deployment of enemy forces to the operationally important area of the Pacific Ocean – the southern part of the Sea of Okhotsk and to repel its landing on the Southern Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Island.”
‘Loudly on the quiet…
Surveying the regional alignments, Yuri Lyamin, Russian military expert and Senior Fellow at the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a leading think tank of the military-industrial complex, told Izvestia :
“Considering that we have not settled the territorial issue, Japan lays claim to our South Kuriles. In this regard, checks are very necessary. It is necessary to increase the readiness of our forces in the Far East…
“In the context of the current situation, we need to further strengthen defence cooperation with China. In fact, an axis is being formed against Russia, North Korea and China: the USA, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and then it goes to Australia. Great Britain is also actively trying to participate… All this must be taken into account and cooperation should be established with China and North Korea, which are, one might say, our natural allies.”
In highly significant remarks at a Kremlin meeting with Shoigu on April 17 — while Li was in Moscow — Putin noted that the current priorities of Russia’s armed forces are “primarily focusing on the Ukrainian track… (but) the Pacific theatre of operations remains relevant” and it must be borne in mind that “the forces of the (Pacific) fleet in its individual components can certainly be used in conflicts in any direction.”
The next day, Shoigu told Gen. Li, “In the spirit of unbreakable friendship between the nations, peoples, and the armed forces of China and Russia, I look forward to the closest and most successful cooperation with you…” The Russian MOD readout said:
“Sergei Shoigu stressed that Russia and China could stabilise the global situation and lessen the potential for conflict by coordinating their actions on the global stage. ‘It is important that our countries share the same view on the ongoing transformation of the global geopolitical landscape… The meeting we have today will, in my opinion, help to further solidify the Russia-China strategic partnership in the defence sphere and enable an open discussion of regional and global security issues.”
Beijing and Moscow visualise that the US, having failed to “erase” Russia, is turning attention to the Asia-Pacific theatre. Suffice to say, Li’s visit shows that the reality of Russia–China defence cooperation is complicated. Russia–China military-technical cooperation has always been rather secretive, and the level of secrecy has increased as both countries engage in more direct confrontation with the US.
The political meaning of Putin’s 2019 statement on jointly developing a ballistic missile early warning system extended far beyond its technical and military significance. It demonstrated to the world that Russia and China were on the brink of a formal military alliance, which could be triggered if US pressure went too far.
In October 2020, Putin suggested the possibility of a military alliance with China. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ reaction was positive, although Beijing refrained from using the word “alliance”.
A working and effective military alliance can be formed quickly if the need arises but their respective foreign policy strategies rendered such a move unlikely. However, real and imminent danger of military conflict with the US can trigger a paradigm shift.
Lula supports de-dollarization on his trip to China, but that is not enough
By Lucas Leiroz | April 18, 2023
Lula’s trip to China was marked by several signals about what may be his foreign policy in his third term. In his speeches, Lula suggested that he will continue to bet on partnerships with the global south and emphasized his criticism of organizations linked to or controlled by the US. Lula’s trip was well received by Chinese partners and brought new hope to bilateral and intra-BRICS relations.
Undoubtedly, the most prominent point in his pronouncements was his support for the de-dollarization of international economic relations. Lula questioned the need to use the dollar as a global commercial currency and expressed his support for the “idea” of creating a currency for the BRICS – or starting to trade in national currencies.
“Why can’t we do trade based on our own currencies? (…) Who was it that decided that the dollar was the currency after the disappearance of the gold standard? (…) Why can’t a bank like that of the BRICS have a currency to finance trade relations between Brazil and China, between Brazil and other countries? It’s difficult because we are unaccustomed [to the idea]. Everyone depends on just one currency”, he said during a press conference.
With this, Lula reiterated what he had mentioned previously, during a trip to Argentina, in which he proposed the creation of a currency for Mercosur and another for the BRICS, both with the aim of advancing economic de-dollarization. To his supporters, this sounds like a big sign that Lula is distancing himself from the US and turning towards greater participation in building a multipolar world. However, this seems like an overly optimistic analysis.
De-dollarization is part of the multipolar world, but it is not its essence. Many countries, even US allies, have been seeking to de-dollarize their international transactions in recent years. Japan, for example, has traded with Beijing without the dollar since 2011, as well as Australia since 2013. Also, the EU has traded with Iran without the dollar since 2020. France recently started its de-dollarization process and Switzerland will certainly start this process soon, as it began to get rid of some of its dollar reserves.
In fact, economic de-dollarization is a technical and pragmatic measure, whose purpose is much more to generate economic benefits than to operate any geopolitical transition. In Brazil, the measure has even been supported on a large scale by businessmen and parliamentarians linked to the agribusiness sector, which is the main segment of the Brazilian economy and whose biggest partner is precisely China. Recognizing the Chinese interest in de-dollarization, there is internal pressure from the Brazilian business community for Lula to de-dollarize the economy. Therefore, it is a technical and pragmatic issue that does not mean much for Lula’s foreign policy agenda.
It is also necessary to emphasize that before traveling to China, Lula repeatedly stated that the main subject of his meeting with Xi would be to discuss the Ukrainian crisis. He planned to show his “peace club” proposal to the Chinese president and garner support, but apparently this was not a relevant topic in the talks. Both presidents limited themselves to generic declarations of support for peace and negotiations, without any more emphatic mention of Lula’s “peace club” project.
Considering that Lula planned the terms of his project in advance with American and European politicians, having even signed a joint statement with Biden condemning the Russian special military operation, it is most likely that Xi has refrained from giving any deep support to the Brazilian president. China and Russia are at their closest moment in history, with unlimited cooperation in all areas. Certainly, Xi would not agree to participate in a “peace club” supported precisely by the states that are waging war against Russia. Therefore, the Ukrainian subject ceased to be the main topic of the tour.
Furthermore, Lula signed interesting agreements with China in the field of space cooperation. A memorandum of understanding was also made in the semiconductor sector. The balance of the trip was positive for Brazil and advanced the de-dollarization agenda, but it did not significantly change the analyses that point out that Lula is closer to the West in this third term. In the same sense, Lula also did not revoke his support for prioritizing the EU-Mercosur agreement over the China-Mercosur agreement, which shows that his position of ambiguity remains.
It seems that Lula plans to continue maintaining this ambiguity. He develops his foreign policy based on a merely multilateralist, not a multipolar, mentality. Lula and his team are acting as if the current world scenario were the same as in his first terms, when there was no possibility of contesting the US unipolar geopolitical order, with the emerging countries only seeking greater economic development through multilateralism.
This reality has absolutely changed, and it is now possible to build a really polycentric system, where emerging countries also have a political role, not merely focused on economic and commercial development through multilateral cooperation. It is hoped that Lula’s team will realize this in time and take more relevant measures towards multipolarity, ignoring American pressure.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.