Instruction: Write an article about: Ucrania admite que Rusia no planea invadir, pero EEUU y RU suministran armas mientras Alemania y Francia quieren la paz. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Alemania, EEUU, Francia, Reino Unido, Rusia, Ucrania

Output:
El presidente de Ucrania llama a la calma y su ministro de defensa admitió que “no hay motivos para creer” que Rusia está planeando una invasión, mientras que Estados Unidos y Reino Unido envían armas y tropas.

(You can read this article in English here.)
El ministro de defensa de Ucrania, Oleksii Reznikov, admitió que Rusia no tiene planes de invadir y le dijo al parlamento de su país que “a partir de hoy, no hay motivos para creer” que Moscú va a atacar pronto.
Mientras los líderes de Ucrania afirman esto claramente y piden calma, Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y algunos estados miembros de la Unión Europea amenazan una guerra, por afirmaciones infundadas de que Rusia está preparando una invasión.
Los grandes medios de comunicación de EEUU han avivado las llamas de la guerra.
Citando a funcionarios anónimos de las agencias de inteligencia de EEUU, CNN publicó una elaborada teoría de la conspiración, afirmando que Moscú planea atacar a los rusoparlantes en el este de Ucrania en una “operación de bandera falsa” para justificar una invasión. CNN no ofreció ni una pizca de evidencia para corroborar esta extraordinaria acusación.
El gobierno británico, igualmente sin ninguna prueba, acusó a Rusia de planear invadir Ucrania para instalar un régimen “títere”.
Pero el gobierno de Ucrania reconoce que esto es sólo propaganda, y sabe que Moscú no está planeando una operación ofensiva.
El medio norteamericano Associated Press (AP) reconoció esto en un informe del 25 de enero, titulado “Líderes ucranianos: mantengan la calma, la invasión rusa no es inminente”.
“Los líderes de Ucrania el martes [25 de enero] le aseguraron a la nación que una invasión de la vecina Rusia no era inminente”, escribió AP.
El presidente Volodímir Zelenski le dijo al público ucraniano que mantuviera la calma.
La salida de algunos diplomáticos occidentales de Ucrania fue simplemente “parte de un complejo juego diplomático” que están jugando, dijo Zelenski.
AP citó al ministro de defensa, Oleksii Reznikov, quien dijo al parlamento que “no hay motivos para creer” que Rusia pronto invadirá.
“No se preocupen, duerman bien”, dijo Reznikov. “No es necesario que hagan las maletas”.
El ministro de defensa de Ucrania dijo al canal de televisión ICTV, “A partir de hoy, las fuerzas armadas de Rusia no han creado grupos de ataque, lo que indicaría que estuvieron listos para lanzar una ofensiva mañana”.
Agregó que la posibilidad de una invasión rusa durante los Juegos Olímpicos en Beijing era “baja”.
Mientras que los líderes ucranianos llaman a la calma, algunos gobiernos occidentales parecen estar impulsando la guerra.
Estados Unidos envió 200.000 libras de llamada “ayuda letal, incluyendo municiones” a Ucrania, lo que reforzó los $2.700 millones de dólares en apoyo que Washington ha entregado desde 2014.
2014 fue el año en que Washington y Bruselas respaldaron un violento golpe de estado en Ucrania e instalaron un gobierno pro occidental, irónicamente lo que Londres acusa ahora a Moscú.
Reino Unido también entregó unos 2000 misiles antitanque a Ucrania, y envió decenas de tropas de élite.
The shipment – and $2.7 billion USD since 2014 – demonstrates U.S. commitment to helping Ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of growing Russian aggression.  ???? #partnershipstrong [2/2] pic.twitter.com/scPFWM3we7
— U.S. Embassy Kyiv (@USEmbassyKyiv) January 22, 2022

Sin embargo, no toda Europa hace ruido de sables. Alemania y Francia han demostrado que no quieren guerra.
Alemania hasta ha impedido que Estonia, miembro de la UE y de la OTAN, envíe armas a Ucrania.
Y en un reconocimiento implícito de que Berlín no está de acuerdo con su campaña belicosa, Gran Bretaña envió armas a Ucrania en una ruta tortuosa, evitando Alemania.
El presidente francés, Emmanuel Macron, por su parte, quiere desescalar la situación. París pidió un diálogo con Rusia sobre Ucrania, y se ofreció a albergar negociaciones diplomáticas.
Macron acaba de asumir como presidente del Consejo de la Unión Europea, lo que le da a sus palabras una importancia adicional.
Berlín y París están preocupados por el grave daño que un conflicto de este tipo podría causar a las economías europeas, que todavía están integradas con Rusia.
Los países que exportaron gas a la UE, en 2020 y 2021
La UE depende en gran parte de las importaciones rusas de gas y petróleo. Moscú sigue siendo el mayor exportador de energía a la UE.
Los países que exportaron petróleo a la UE, en 2020 y 2021


Instruction: Write an article about: US ambassador lectures China ‘threat’: ‘We’re the leader in this region (Asia)’!. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: AmCham China, American Chamber of Commerce in China, Antony Blinken, Chamber of Commerce, China, Iran, Israel, Myron Brilliant, Nicholas Burns, Thomas Nides, Victoria Nuland

Output:
In an interview with the Chamber of Commerce, US Ambassador Nicholas Burns referred to China as a “threat”, “great challenge”, and “very difficult government”, stating arrogantly, “The United States is staying in this region. We’re the leader in this [Indo-Pacific] region”.

Washington’s ambassador to Beijing referred to China as a “threat” and “great challenge”. He stated arrogantly, “The United States is staying in this region. We’re the leader in this region”, referring to the Indo-Pacific.
The ambassador, Nicholas Burns, insisted, “We’re going to hold our own out here. And I feel optimistic – I’m just concluding my first year as ambassador – about the American position in this country [China] and in this region”.
In an interview with the US Chamber of Commerce, Burns made very aggressive comments, going so far as to blame China for the coronavirus pandemic, claiming Beijing is not being “honest about what happened three years ago in Wuhan, with the origin of the Covid-19 crisis”.
The ambassador simultaneously praised the “bipartisan support in the Congress between Republicans and Democrats for a really robust American policy to defend our interests out here in the Indo-Pacific, to compete with the Chinese”.

Burns said all of this at a February 27 event organized by the Chamber of Commerce, the most powerful corporate lobby group in Washington.
The panel discussion, titled “American Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty”, also featured the US ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, and the third in command of the State Department, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland.
Nuland is a hard-line neoconservative who was a key sponsor of a 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral President Viktor Yanukovych and installed a pro-Western regime, setting off the war that continues to this day.
This Chamber of Commerce event on “American leadership” came one day before the US Congress held the first hearing of its hawkish “Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party”. The committee’s chairman, Republican Congressmember Mike Gallagher, described Washington’s new cold on Beijing in extreme terms: “This is not a polite tennis match. This is an existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century — and the most fundamental freedoms are at stake”.
Great conversation with my friend @MyronBrilliant and two public servants I admire, Thomas Nides @USAmbIsrael and Victoria Nuland @UnderSecStateP, at the @USChamber InSTEP event about U.S. leadership in the world.  Watch here: https://t.co/Vt0xO8yRtn
— Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) February 28, 2023

On the Chamber of Commerce panel, Ambassador Burns said “China is going to be one of the great challenges for Americans going forward”. He added, “This is obviously a very difficult moment in the US-China relationship”.
Referring to this “difficult relationship”, Burns complained that the Xi Jinping administration is “a very difficult government here in the People’s Republic of China”.
The ambassador insisted that the US is not waging a new cold war on China and Russia, but rather a forceful campaign of “competition”.
“From my perspective, sitting here in China, looking out at the Indo-Pacific, our American position is stronger than it was five or 10 years ago. It’s the strength of our alliances; it’s the strength of our private sector; it’s our innovative capacity and our R&D capacity which comes from our research institutions and our Big Tech companies”, Burns said.
He called for “competing” with Beijing in four areas – military, economy, technology, and human rights:
One of the great advantages we have right now, in dealing with a very difficult government here in the People’s Republic of China, in a competitive relationship, is that we have large-scale bipartisan agreement that we ought to be competing with China for military power in the Indo-Pacific.
Competing in the economic and trade sphere for a much more level playing field for American business, because it’s not level right now.
We’re certainly competing on technology.
And of course we defend our values. We defend human rights. We take issue, great issue, with what the Chinese have done in Xinjiang, and Tibet, and Hong Kong, with the lack of religious freedom here.
And I think there’s large-scale agreement, frankly, in our country, and also between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, that we’ve got to be competing in those four areas.
Burns hysterically condemned “the balloon incident”, calling it “an outright violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States”, adding that “President Biden was absolutely correct in ordering the shoot-down of that balloon”.
The ambassador didn’t mention that US government experts have acknowledged that the Chinese balloon likely had crossed into US territory by accident, due to unforeseen weather conditions.
He also failed to note that the US military later spent roughly $2 million to shoot down a $12 hobbyist balloon.
Burns depicted Chinese tech firms as threats to US national security. “Technology is going to remain a contested area”, he insisted, stressing that “there are real limits” on the ability of “Chinese companies to invest in companies in the United States in technology areas that we deem to be important for our national security”.
The ambassador gloated:
The Chinese believe, the Chinese leadership, that the East is rising and that the West, particularly the United States, was declining.
I think two years into this administration, and on a bipartisan basis, I can say the United States is a strengthened position in the Indo-Pacific, and now the United States and NATO, and the United States and the European Union, are beginning to see the threat from China and the competition from China in the same way.
Burns also called for strengthening US military support for Taiwan, asserting, “It is our obligation, obviously, to maintain our own military strength in and around Taiwan, in this part of the world, to make sure that the Taiwan authorities have the ability to deter any kind of Chinese offensive action, now or in the future”.
In a Freudian slip, the US ambassador accidentally referred to Taiwan as a “country”, stating, “We want to live in a world where big countries can’t push small countries around – or in this case, not a country, but the Taiwan authorities”.
The Chamber of Commerce event highlighted the incestuous relationship between US corporations and top diplomats in the State Department.
The panel was moderated by the Chamber of Commerce’s executive vice president and head of international affairs, Myron Brilliant.
He opened the discussion by approvingly quoting former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who declared, “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future”.
Brilliant said, “We’re going to pose the question today: Is America still the indispensable nation? Do we have the tools we need to project our leadership in a time of economic and geopolitical uncertainty?”
All of the US diplomats on the panel responded by insisting, yes, the US is still the “leader” of the world.
As ambassador, Burns’ main job is to act as a liaison for US corporate interests.
“Supporting U.S. businesses here in China is one of my top priorities”, Burns tweeted proudly in June 2022, after meeting with the American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham China).
Supporting U.S. businesses here in #China is one of my top priorities. Thanks to @AmCham_China Government Affairs Conference and its 150+ participants for the opportunity to speak with you. pic.twitter.com/b4FWolrrb0
— Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) June 24, 2022

Burns collaborates very closely with representatives of US corporations, meeting with the AmCham at least once per month.
I had an important meeting with @AmCham_China. We want to help the 1100 U.S. businesses here compete on a more level playing field and meet challenges from the lockdown. pic.twitter.com/RCmvajUcNL
— Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) May 25, 2022

In May 2022, he complained that US corporations in China want “a more level playing field”.
Upon meeting with the AmCham yet again in April, Burns reiterated, “I strongly support American businesses”.
Thanks to the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai for today’s discussion with ?? companies. I strongly support American businesses and their employees as they face difficult challenges during the Shanghai lockdown. @AmChamSh pic.twitter.com/kFxPaQfRIL
— Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) April 25, 2022

Burns’ pro-corporate concerns were similarly reflected in a landmark speech delivered in May 2022 by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The top US diplomat essentially declared a new containment policy toward China, while complaining about its socialist policies and “market-distorting policies and practices, like subsidies and market access barriers, which China’s government has used for years to gain competitive advantage”.
Like Burns, Blinken called for a “level playing field” for US corporations, lamenting, “Unlike U.S. companies and other market-oriented firms, Chinese companies don’t need to make a profit – they just get another injection of state-owned bank credit when funds are running low”.
The February 2023 Chamber of Commerce event echoed this neoliberal economic ideology.
The Chamber of Commerce vice president, Brilliant, complained about China’s “emphasis on state-owned enterprises and the regulatory behavior of the government”.
Referring to the US “competition” with China and Russia, Brilliant said, “I think the private sector role in this has never been more important in working with our government, and we continue to do that”.
He underscored his life goal is “to work with the private sector and ensure that we continue to see that close cooperation between the public and private sector”.
Brilliant also lamented that Germany is too soft on China and India is too soft on Russia.
The US ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, who was also on the panel, spoke openly of the incestuous relationship between the Chamber of Commerce and State Department.
Nides told Brilliant, with a very casual tone, “You and I are good pals. We’ve spent a lot of time talking about things. I’m honored to be your friend”.
The US ambassador referred to the interaction between them as “the game”: “Listen man, you and I have known each other for a long time, we’ve had lots of fun enjoyable trips together, a lot of activity. You represent what’s great about getting in the game”.
Nides continued: “As the three of us have gotten into the game at different points, you’ve been in the game at a really important time, which is that the relationship between the business community and government is critical. None of us forget that”.
He added: “I’ve had the honor to be in business. I’ve had the honor to be in the government. The reality is business and government need to work together; they need to have common agendas”.

As US ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns has taken a very hawkish tone.
In February, when the Chinese Foreign Ministry published a devastating report called “US Hegemony and Its Perils”, documenting Washington’s crimes around the world, Burns attacked it angrily as “crude propaganda” that is “unworthy of a great power”.
This is crude propaganda and unworthy of a great power. The United States remains ready for meaningful cooperation to tackle shared global challenges. https://t.co/ZsntCxDIML pic.twitter.com/AEepa7X06b
— Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) February 23, 2023

Under former President George W. Bush, Burns served as US ambassador to NATO, as well as under secretary of state for political affairs, the third-most powerful position in the State Department.
He is a close ally of Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative under secretary of state for political affairs.
In the February 27 Chamber of Commerce vent, Burns heaped praise on Nuland, commenting on “what a pleasure it is to serve with people like Toria Nuland, who is one of my closest friends and closest partners in the US foreign service”.
In her remarks on the panel, Nuland stated, “Obviously, we are now at the end of the post-Cold War period. We’re in the post-post-Cold War period”.
“So to me, unfortunately, it feels a lot like it did at the beginning of my career, that we have large powers contesting the rules of the road that favor freedom. They are doing it by threatening their neighbors, by coercing countries around the world”, Nuland added.
“And therefore US leadership, which has always been essential, is even more essential”, she said.
Nuland left the event earlier explaining, “I gotta run off and see Canadians and work on another hot problem, which is Haiti”.
Nuland has been part of a group of Western hawks pushing for military intervention in Haiti. Canada has already deployed military planes and ships to the Caribbean nation, as Haitians warn of mission creep leading to a new Western occupation of their country.
Also on the February 27 Chamber of Commerce panel was US Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides.
He denounced what he called a dangerous “axis” between Iran, Russia, and China.
Blasting Tehran for selling drones to Moscow, Nides warned, “If you think there’s not an axis here between Iran and Russia, and God hopefully not China, it should be a wake-up call to all of us”.
The US ambassador boasted that support for Israel remains bipartisan, despite the far-right extremist government in Israel, which includes representatives of a neo-fascist party and was compared to Nazi Germany by mainstream liberal newspaper Haaretz.
“We have an unbreakable bond with the state of Israel. Regardless of who the prime minister is, regardless of the situation on the ground, that is not going to change”, he reaffirmed.
Nides fearmongered about Iran, saying he is collaborating closely with Israel, and “we’re working on this day and night to make sure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon”.
The US ambassador expressed staunch support for the anti-government protests in Iran. Nides added, “We don’t support regime change, I guess publicly anyway”.


Instruction: Write an article about: NATO seeks to prevent Eurasian challenger to US world dominance, admits ex CIA chief Mike Pompeo. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: China, CIA, Hudson Institute, Mike Pompeo, NATO, Russia

Output:
Neoconservative ex CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted NATO seeks to prevent a “Russian-Chinese axis” and “pan-Eurasian colossus.” He described the new cold war as a battle over “economic hegemony” and resources, in a speech outlining Washington’s imperial strategy.

Neoconservative former CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted that the NATO cartel seeks to “prevent the formation of a pan-Eurasian colossus” that could challenge Washington’s empire.
The United States must remain “the dominant force in the world,” and “for an awfully long time to come,” he insisted.

Pompeo made it clear that the new cold war between the US-EU-NATO bloc on one side and the Eurasian bloc led by China and Russia on the other is a battle over “economic hegemony,” and is rooted in control over fossil fuels and other resources.
“We must prevent the formation of a Pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China,” Pompeo implored. “To do that, we have to strengthen NATO, and we see that nothing hinders Finland and Sweden’s entry into that organization.”
Neoconservative ex CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted NATO seeks to prevent a “Russian-Chinese axis” & “pan-Eurasian colossus”
He described the new cold war as a fight over “economic hegemony” to maintain US dominance
Full video: https://t.co/gEpcTTNtJe pic.twitter.com/oiIjaY4Kp7
— Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) July 5, 2022

The former CIA and State Department chief said this in an extremely hawkish speech on June 24, titled “War, Ukraine, and a Global Alliance for Freedom.”
Pompeo delivered the bellicose remarks at the Hudson Institute, a neoconservative Washington-based think tank where he serves as a “distinguished fellow.”
In addition to receiving funding from the Pentagon, the Hudson Institute is financed by large corporations such as ExxonMobil and billionaire oligarchs like the Kochs and Walton family.
To stop a "Pan-Eurasian colossus" from forming, @mikepompeo stresses the importance of #Finland and #Sweden joining @NATO as well as #Russia's resulting increase in military capability if they are denied entry. pic.twitter.com/er0BKvcjEK
— Hudson Institute (@HudsonInstitute) June 29, 2022

Pompeo’s insistence that NATO must dedicate itself to destroying any alternatives to US unipolar hegemony exposed the hollowness of claims that the US-led military alliance is “defensive.”
NATO’s professed commitment to “human rights” and “democracy” is also clearly contradicted by the fact that one of its founding members in 1949 was the fascist dictatorship of Portugal.
In 2019, Pompeo quipped, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses.”
In his latest speech at the Hudson Institute this June, Pompeo mapped out a hardline US strategy for the new cold war against both Russia and China.
Pompeo condemned the Joe Biden administration for ending the US military occupation of Afghanistan in 2021, after 20 years of war.
He argued that “America’s undisciplined withdrawal from Afghanistan was interpreted by Vladimir Putin as a green light,” and had weakened Washington’s hegemony.
Pompeo made no effort to hide his goal: continued US imperial domination of the planet, without any challengers.
“In America, we live in the greatest nation in the history of civilization,” he claimed.
“We are not in decline, but rather we are a nation that will be ascendant, and we will be the dominant force in the world, and a force for good in the world, as we have been for the last decades, for an awfully long time to come. You can bank on it.”
In order to maintain US dominance, Pompeo forcefully detailed how the United States is waging a new cold war to contain the “Russian-Chinese axis.”
As secretary of state under former President Donald Trump, “I traveled the world, alerting the world to the threat from the Chinese Communist Party,” he explained.
“China stated intent is to displace the United States as the world’s preeminent power,” Pompeo claimed.
“We must not ever allow the communist model for development to proliferate,” he stated. In terms of China’s economy, Pompeo said, “We should force them to become more like us.”
He stressed that Washington must “do its global leadership role in confronting the Chinese Communist Party.”
Pompeo’s singular obsession with kneecapping China extended beyond the country’s government to Chinese people. Using xenophobic rhetoric, he warned that the “Chinese communists” are “inside the gates.”
Echoing bigoted anti-Semitic tropes, Pompeo warned of the “Chinese problem,” claiming “they have their teeth into America. They attend our school board meetings. They attend our county commission meetings.”
He even complained that there were “360,000 Chinese students, pre-Covid, studying in the United States of America.”
Pompeo argued there is a “necessity of forming a new global alliance for freedom, which has to contest, which must contest, both Russian and Chinese aggression.”
To this end, he called for expanding the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, the anti-China alliance between the United States, Japan, India, and Australia.
Pompeo said South Korea, Britain, and France should be added to the Quad. He also argued that the AUKUS military pact between the US, UK, and Australia “should be folded into this expanded security alliance,” aimed at countering China.
To wage this new cold war on both China and Russia, Pompeo argued the US should base its geopolitical strategy on what he called the “three lighthouses for liberty”: Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
He proposed that “linking these three bastions with NATO, as well as the new and expanded security framework for the Indo-Pacific, will form a global alliance for freedom.”
“By aiding Ukraine, we undermined the creation of a Russian-Chinese axis bent on exerting military and economic hegemony in Europe, in Asia, and in the Middle East,” he said.
Pompeo boasted that the Trump administration “did not hesitate in supplying Ukraine with weapons, such as the Javelin.”
He also gloated that the proxy war in Ukraine is a warning to China over Taiwan.
Pompeo openly called for supporting separatism in Taiwan, declaring, “It is my steadfast view that our government should immediately confer diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, for it is a free and sovereign country.”
Allowing Taiwan to remain as part of China “would severely reduce American influence in the Indo-Pacific. America’s status as a superpower would be placed in jeopardy,” he argued.
Washington must maintain influence over Taiwan, Pompeo went on, because it is “a primary technological and economic partner of the United States,” and the “principle supplier of high-end semiconductors to the United States’ economy.”
At the heart of the US new cold war on China and Russia is a struggle for control of resources, Mike Pompeo stressed.
“It is my conviction that America and the West must acknowledge the centrality of hydrocarbon energy to the world’s geopolitics,” he said.
He insisted that the United States must “regain our energy dominance.”
“Energy and economic security along with military strength are the pillars upon which geostrategic power and peace rest,” he added.
The former CIA and State Department chief warned that, if NATO doesn’t stop Moscow, “Russia will become a juggernaut, dominating fossil fuels.”
Invoking Ronald Reagan, Pompeo described the former Soviet Union as “the evil empire.” He insisted that NATO must “prevent Russia’s reconstitution of the Soviet Empire,” because it, “if rebuilt, even in small measure, would dictate world fossil fuel supplies, causing massive economic hemorrhaging in America and throughout the globe, affecting every single American.”
Pompeo transparently described the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war, arguing it serves US interests because it weakens Russia while US soldiers don’t have to put their lives on the line.
He condemned the idea of peace talks, maintaining, “America and the nations of the world cannot continue the pretense that the war in Ukraine can end in a negotiated peace, which mollifies Russia, for such a peace cannot be negotiated with Vladimir Putin. Ukraine must win this war. It must win this war decisively.”
“The war can be won,” he claimed. “This war can be won if America and our allies supply a range of our most capable conventional weapons to Kiev.”
Pompeo called for providing Ukraine a “surface to air missile system that engage both aircraft and missiles.”
He also heaped praise on Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, likening him to George Washington.
Pompeo was clear that Ukraine should be added to NATO, claiming it is “silly” that it would cross Russia’s security redlines. “I’m not worried about escalation,” he said.
He also called for the further militarization of Europe, chiding, “They need to do some soldiering.”
Pompeo proudly credited the US government for overthrowing the Soviet Union, in a bipartisan anti-communist crusade during the first cold war.
“Nine, count them, nine American presidents from each of our political parties, nine American presidents dismembered the Soviet empire, at enormous great human cost,” he said. “To allow it to even begin to be reconstituted is unthinkable.”
While much of his speech was devoted to how the United States is a force for “freedom,” “democracy,” and “human rights,” Pompeo also insisted that Washington should strengthen its alliance with the dictatorial absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia, in the name of countering the “Iranian regime,” which he described as a kind of Biblical “evil.”


Instruction: Write an article about: Report: Over 1.2 million killed in US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Afghanistan, Hans von Sponeck, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Iraq

Output:
At least 1.2 million people were killed in 12 years of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a scientific report by the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

No fewer than 1.2 million people were killed in 12 years of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a scientific report.
The study Body Count: Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the “War on Terror” was authored by the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW).
The executive summary of the report reads (emphasis added):
The purpose of this investigation is to provide as realistic an estimate as possible of the total body count in the three main war zones Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan during 12 years of ‘war on terrorism’. An extensive review has been made of the major studies and data published on the numbers of victims in these countries. This paper draws on additional information such as reports and statistics on military offensives and examines their completeness and plausibility. It applies interpolation to calculate the figures for those periods for which no information is available. Even now, 13 years after this war began, there has still been no equivalent study.
This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.
Dr. Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general and UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, detailed in the preface of the report how official US government figures for deaths and injuries are grossly underestimated.
“Governments and civil society know now that on all counts these assertions have proved to be preposterously false,” von Sponeck wrote. “Facts are indeed stubborn.”
Physicians for Social Responsibility, the US affiliate of IPPNW, added, “Unfortunately, these deaths have been effectively hidden from our collective consciousness and consciences by political leaders seeking to pursue military solutions to complex global issues with little, if any, accountability.”
The report also estimates that — once again, in a conservative estimate — the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost at least $3 trillion tax dollars.
Today, the conditions of life for peoples in both nations are significantly worse. Former Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya lamented in a 2013 interview that, in her country, “imperialism and fundamentalism has joined hands.”
Joya said:
[The] consequences of the 12 years of occupation of U.S. and NATO, unfortunately, was more bloodshed, crimes, women rights, human rights violations, looting of our resource and changing of our country into mafia state, as during these 12 bloody years tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed by occupation forces and terrorist groups.
Afghanistan remains under US occupation, in spite of Obama’s constant insistence he would remove troops by 2014.
In Iraq, the government was completely destroyed. Al-Qaeda had no significant presence in the country when the US invaded; it was the illegal US occupation that brought extremists into Iraq.
The chaos of the US war and occupation destabilized not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East, eventually leading to the rise of ISIS, the Frankenstein’s monster of US war.
In the horrific 9/11 attacks, 2,977 Americans were killed. The US government responded to this act of terror with a merciless campaign of state terror. In the subsequent “War on Terror” and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq — the latter of which had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks — more than 1.2 million Iraqis and Afghans were killed.
This is a ratio of more than 400 to one.


Instruction: Write an article about: UK foreign secretary demands Russia ‘withdraw’ troops from Russia, confuses it for Ukraine. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Britain, Liz Truss, Russia, Sergey Lavrov, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

Output:
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss demanded that Russia “withdraw” troops from its own sovereign territory, confusing it for Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it was “like speaking to a deaf person,” and “facts bounce off”

(Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.)
The British government has become an international laughing stock after its foreign secretary demanded that Russia “withdraw” troops from its own territory.
The UK’s top diplomat then confused Russian territory for Ukraine, and insisted that Moscow did not have sovereignty over its southern regions.
On February 9, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss arrived in the Russian capital to meet with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.
In a tweet, Truss demanded that “Russia must immediately withdraw its forces and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face severe consequences.”
Truss appeared to be confused, because Moscow does not have troops in Ukrainian territory. Russian troops have been deployed near the Ukrainian border, but they are firmly in Russian sovereign territory, so it was unclear how Moscow could “withdraw” them from its own country.
In Moscow to meet Foreign Minister Lavrov and make clear that Russia must immediately withdraw its forces and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face severe consequences.
Any incursion would be a huge mistake. Diplomacy is the only way forward and Russia must pursue that path. pic.twitter.com/weIAnr60Nh
— Liz Truss (@trussliz) February 9, 2022

Truss is an avowedly right-wing politician from the Conservative Party. She has served in several different ministries in the UK, but has little foreign policy experience.
Her lack of diplomatic skills was made painfully clear in a closed-door meeting she held with Foreign Minister Lavrov on February 10.
Lavrov said it was very strange that Moscow was being asked to withdraw Russian troops from Russia, adding that what his country does inside its own territory is “not her business.”
Lavrov asked Truss, according to a report in the newspaper Kommersant, if she recognized Russian sovereignty over the two southern regions of Voronezh and Rostov, where Moscow has troops.
The UK foreign secretary replied confidently, “We will never recognize Russian sovereignty over these regions.”
The British ambassador to Russia was then forced to correct Truss, pointing out that these regions are part of Russia, not Ukraine.
Lavrov, one of the world’s most experienced and respected diplomats, dismissed his British counterpart as a neophyte who was way out of her depth.
The Russian foreign minister said it was “like speaking to a deaf person who listens but does not hear,” and “facts bounce off.”
“They say Russia is waiting until the ground freezes like a stone so its tanks can easily cross into Ukrainian territory,” Lavrov quipped, in comments translated by Reuters. “I think the ground was like that today with our British colleagues, from which numerous facts that we produced bounced off.”
Lavrov added that UK-Russia relations “are probably at their lowest in many years now.”
The United States and Britain have pushed aggressively for conflict with Russia over Ukraine, insisting without presenting any evidence that Moscow plans to invade its neighbor.
The Ukrainian government, on the other hand, has repeatedly made it clear that it disagrees with Washington and London, maintaining that Russia does not have plans to invade.
The UK foreign secretary’s confusion of Russian and Ukrainian territory is by no means the only embarrassing blunder made at this moment of high tensions.
On February 4, the major US media outlet Bloomberg, owned and run by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, falsely reported that Russia invaded Ukraine, before quickly issuing a retraction.


Instruction: Write an article about: Ukraine crisis is part of new cold war on Russia (and China). Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: AUKUS, China, Europe, France, Germany, Japan, Quad, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

Output:
The US-manufactured crisis in Ukraine is part of the NATO drive to subordinate Europe, to prevent its tilt toward the China-Russia partnership and the Eurasian powers’ attempt to build a new multipolar world.

As Russia has maintained its stand against NATO expansion, the United States, it seems, is prepared to escalate the situation to the brink of war.
Why is Washington choosing to stoke a conflict with Russia, when it has declared China its greatest strategic rival?
To grasp the full significance of this moment of crisis over Ukraine, it has to be understood in the wider global context.
Speaking for the new cold warriors, British Conservative Member of Parliament Tobias Ellwood raised the warning flag:
Today, non-western civilisations such as Russia and China are starting to shake up the old world order. … We are standing at the precipice of a new era in global uncertainty. If we blink now, the events of 2022 will determine how the next decade plays out.
Russia must be opposed, we are told, not least because of its growing alliance with China.
This indeed is more than a crisis over the future of Europe: it is about the future of the world order – but not in terms of Ellwood’s great power rivalry, rather in the context of a relative decline of US unipolarity and the rise of a multipolar trend.
At this point in time the very legitimacy of US leadership as the world’s essential “deterrent” power against the world’s so-called “dictators” is on the line.
The debacle surrounding the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, compounded by the lack of consultation with European allies on the announcement of the AUKUS (Australia – United Kingdom – United States) alliance have raised serious doubts around the world about US reliability.
Faced with the Ukraine crisis, Washington now has to show that it is back. Should it fail or be seen to back down, this would reinforce the perception of US decline.
This matters not least in the Indo-Pacific. There the US has been expanding its military reach – from Obama’s “Asian pivot” to the ramping up of “freedom of navigation” exercises in the South China Sea.
Biden’s “new multilateralism” has seen the widening involvement of partners in its naval exercises around China’s coast and the strengthening of the Quad – a security alliance of the US, Australia, Japan and India.
This follows AUKUS, and a US-Japan, then an Australia-Japan agreement on military cooperation.
New defence deals between Japan and the UK and France may presage further NATO linkages into Asia region.
At the same time Biden has shifted US focus toward Taiwan.
Reneging on its promises to Russia not to expand NATO eastward, the Biden administration is now inching away from the “One China policy,” the very basis of US-China diplomatic relations.
What happens over Ukraine may well set precedents for these Indo-Pacific developments. If the US and NATO uphold Ukraine’s supposed right to choose its alliances, this may embolden demands for Taiwanese independence.
Conversely, a rollback in the supply of arms and military trainers to Ukraine from outside may work against the US moves to “partner” Taiwan through increased arms sales and US training of Taiwanese military.
Any scaling back of NATO’s military architecture might discourage support for AUKUS expansion. And it could lend weight to China’s requirement that, under a South China Sea Code Of Conduct with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), joint military exercises involving countries outside the region should have the prior consent of all parties to the agreement.
Underlying Biden’s new cold war, with China identified as the main challenger, is the realisation by strategists that the US cannot effectively contain the rising power on its own. Hence the effort to forge an “alliance of democracies to confront the world’s autocracies.”
While superficially multilateral in form, this remains a unipolar strategy in essence, aimed at maintaining US global primacy.
The new cold war narrative problematises Russia and China as aggressive and expansionist powers, to present US leadership as the solution to “defend democracy” in an uncertain world.
What Presidents Xi and Putin want, the argument goes, is to make the world safe for autocracy: theirs is a quest to divide the world order, carving out their own spheres of influence.
Both aspire, it is claimed, to restore the former glory of their empires, and in doing so, threaten democratic space within their respective regions and defy the “rules-based international order.”
By denying Ukraine’s supposed sovereign right to join the NATO military alliance, Russia seeks to limit NATO influence and hence the US role in Europe.
Similarly, by insisting on its claims in the South China Sea (in contravention a UNCLOS ruling about which not all legal experts have agreed) and warning Taiwan over its assertions to be a self-governing democratic island, China endeavours not only to push the US out of the Pacific but to displace it entirely as the unipolar global hegemon.
In this new cold war narrative, NATO and now AUKUS are “defensive” alliances, essential to “stabilising” Europe and the Indo-Pacific respectively.
What is more, the argument goes, given the brittle nature of their “autocracies,” Russia and China alike are supposedly channeling domestic anxieties into an aggressive nationalism. According to NATO’s logic, this makes them both extremely dangerous.
Stoking their new cold war drive further is the perception of US weakness. This demands not diplomacy, but a show of strength.
It is the logic of this NATO narrative, reinforced by the media and think tanks, that is raising the stakes in the Ukraine so high.
The US has to prove itself as a force capable of confronting the so-called “dictators” of the world, according to this new cold war argument. Giving ground to Russia would cripple US deterrence against Iran or North Korea and, worse, signal the green light to purported Chinese expansionism.
This relentless new cold war propaganda is in complete disregard the facts: Russia and China are both surrounded by US military bases and US missiles.
While US military spending is three to four times greater than China’s, it is 16 times that of Russia.
With the odds so stacked against them, neither country is likely to try to take on the US.
If the US is looking to its European allies to take on the greater burden of containing Russia, so as to leave it free to concentrate its forces on China, the aim is also to pile pressure on Europe to adopt the cold war “military first” agenda – even at the expense of their economic interests.
The point is that an alternative future is opening for the Europeans through the development of Eurasian integration.
The growing economic relationship between Russia and China – through trade, currency swap arrangements, and energy deals – is further driving the new cross-regional dynamic.
Both powers are reaching out to Europe: China through the Belt and Road Initiative and the EU-China Comprehensive Investment Agreement (now on hold), and Russia with its Eurasian Economic Union and Greater Eurasian Partnership.
Lest the Europeans look east to their future, the US must drive a cold war wedge between Europe and Russia, as well as between Europe and China.
US efforts to impose a ban on the Chinese tech giant Huawei were the tip of the iceberg. More is to come in terms of demands for greater trade and investment controls.
What Washington seeks is to restrict China’s growth, and at the same time reverse its own decline by blocking cooperation between China and Europe, thereby making European markets captive to US core technologies, as it races against China for control over the key technologies of the fourth industrial revolution, from AI to quantum computing.
The success of Biden’s new cold war “multilateralism” turns on the position of Europe.
So the Ukraine crisis is being used as a lever to bring about unity among Europeans in a way not seen before – in the coordination of Iran-stye sanctions and military integration. This makes it all the easier, then, to follow the US in decoupling from China.
The new US bid for global primacy is widely disrupting long-established patterns of regional ordering.
NATO expansion has jettisoned the common security of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, and now all pressure is on to enlist Germany in the new cold war, demolishing its historical reluctance to get involved in military ventures.
Likewise, the US strategy has brought Article 9 of Japan’s constitution, the “Peace Clause,” to breaking point, as this second major power in the East is urged to accept a more active military role.
Across Asia, the cornerstones of the post-colonial order, which have exercised a certain constraint on US dominance, are being eroded: the division between the Gulf States and Israel over Palestine in the Middle East, for example; or the principle of non-alignment long held by India; or Southeast Asia’s military independence.
A lengthy joint statement released by Russia and China this February, however, offers an outline for an alternative: a multipolar world.
This historic declaration marks for the first time China’s opposition to further enlargement of NATO. But there is a great deal more substance to the initiative.
Far from seeking their own exclusive spheres of influence, Russia and China set out a world order based on indivisible security, in which “no state can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other states.”
In their call for demilitarisation, common concern is expressed over US plans to develop global missile defence, while the demand for the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons deployed abroad is endorsed.
Support for the G20, BRICS, SCO, ASEAN, the East Asia Summit, and the Russia–India–China dialogue marks out the multipolar frame, one not of separation but greater interconnectedness between the Asia-Pacific and Eurasian regions.
Stability is seen to lie in prioritising sustainable development, achievable through multipolarisation, but “with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role.”
Equal access to the right to development together with the right to choice of development path and a more democratic international system of rule-making are essential in opposition to a one-size-fits-all development model.
What has brought the world to this historic turning point is not a revanchist nationalism in both Russia and China. Rather, global stability is put at risk by the relentless drive of the US expansionism, imposing ideological dividing lines to establish exclusive blocs and alliances.
In this trial of strength between a unipolar and a multipolar world, the US has not only to counter Russia’s and China’s demands for recognition as major powers, but also more widely to subordinate regional organisation in Europe and Asia to prevent their tilt toward the Russia-China initiative.
The Ukraine crisis is a crucial moment in forging a new cold war coalition, as a step further in building an anti-China consensus.
With US leadership credibility hanging in the balance, Biden’s international position is only as strong as its Atlantic alliance. A reluctant Europe may act as a brake on US ambitions.
Thus the Russian threat is being hugely over-inflated, to break what remains of the European will to resist militarisation.
The US ploy of provoking Russia into overplaying its hand has bet on Putin acting like a dictator according to whim. However the joint Putin-Xi statement has drawn attention to the wider context, forcing Western warmongers, as they threaten massive sanctions, to take stock of Russia’s options in its strengthening relations with China.
What is in contention are two conflicting world agendas: the US new cold war militarisation on one side against a multipolar order now driven by Russia and China together, framed by the UN with sustainable development at its heart.
For the Europeans, adopting the US agenda will mean commitment to perpetual military upgrading. But would they on the other hand rather see themselves better off with a peaceful and prosperous Russia, engaging in a Silk Road-type trade, reaching across to China and to East and Southeast Asia, working together in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)?
The outcome of the standoff over Ukraine is going to determine not just the balance of power in Europe but the shaping of the world order in years to come, as US allies, partners, and adversaries alike look to adjust their positions in accordance with the shifting powers of the hegemon.


Instruction: Write an article about: Latin American socialists unite with Iran-led Axis of Resistance against Western imperialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: ALBA, Bolivarian Alliance, Daniel Ortega, Denis Moncada, Ebrahim Raisi, Gaza, Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, Hugo Chávez, Iran, Libya, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Megasis, Nicaragua, Palestine, Sacha Llorenti, Syria, Venezuela

Output:
The leftist governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia have found a key strategic ally in Iran, the heart of the Axis of Resistance.

(This article was written for Al Mayadeen English.)
Revolutionary socialist movements in Latin America are developing closer relations with anti-imperialist resistance forces in West Asia, building a united front against Western aggression and exploitation.
This budding alliance is an extremely important development in the struggle against an authoritarian international political and economic system that is essentially a global dictatorship, ruled by the United States and its junior imperialist partners in the European Union, NATO, apartheid “Israel”, and the Gulf monarchies.
As this Washington-led, trans-Atlantic hegemonic order was constructed over the past century, through a long series of wars, military occupations, foreign interventions, coups, regime-change operations, assassinations, and grossly unequal trade arrangements, two regions of the world have been especially targeted: Latin America and the Middle East, or more accurately West Asia.
Both regions have plentiful natural resources and are very geostrategically located. Latin America has vast mineral reserves and agricultural products. West Asia has a plurality of the planet’s hydrocarbon reserves, and connects Europe to Asia, sitting right in the middle of what geopolitical analysts have long called the “World Island.”
Given their status as principal targets of Western imperialism, it only makes sense for resistance forces in these regions to unite. Attempts at forming such an alliance had been made in the past — revolutionary Palestinian militants trained in Cuba and with Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, for instance, and Muammar al-Qaddafi’s Libya supported leftist Latin American guerrillas — but this collaboration was historically limited in scope.
That is, until recently. As the United States accelerated its hybrid warfare to try to re-colonize Latin America and West Asia in the 2000s, indigenous anti-imperialist movements in both regions joined forces, forging not only close political ties, but economic relations as well.
The leftist governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia have found a key strategic ally in Iran, the heart of the Axis of Resistance.
The director of the main instrument of Latin American economic integration, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, known simply as the ALBA, took a historic trip to Tehran this August to meet with the new Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi.
“Iran and the ALBA have a lot in common, and both seek to defend the independence and sovereignty of nations and confront the outrageousness of the United States,” remarked the ALBA’s executive secretary, the Bolivian diplomat Sacha Llorenti.
Tuve el privilegio y el honor de sostener una reunión con S. E. Seyed Ebrahim Raisi, Presidente de la República Islámica de Irán. Extendimos las felicitaciones del  @ALBATCP por su posesión, conversamos sobre nuestras coincidencias y la agenda en común. pic.twitter.com/atFubJwErM
— Sacha Llorenti (@SachaLlorenti) August 4, 2021

For his part, Raisi kicked off his new administration calling for strengthening relations with Latin America, stressing that it is one of Tehran’s top foreign-policy priorities.
“Iran is determined to develop its political and economic relations with the member states of the ALBA-TCP,” Raisi said, highlighting “the shared values and positions of both parties.”
“There is no doubt that a greater development of the relations between Iran and Latin American countries can halt the North Americans and other arrogant countries,” Raisi added.
Joining Llorenti in Tehran were top officials from Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia — all member states of the ALBA.
In a meeting with Venezuela’s vice president of planning, Ricardo Menéndez, Raisi stated that “ Iran and Venezuela alike have common interests and enemies. We have always shown that with resistance and wisdom, we can thwart the plots of the United States and world imperialism.”
#MásTemprano || VP Planificación de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, @rmenendezp sostuvo un encuentro con el Pdte de la República Islámica de Irán, Ebrahim Raisi, en el Palacio Blanco, con la finalidad de estrechar las relaciones entre ambas naciones.#LaClaveEsVacunarse pic.twitter.com/dYbItJBGW6
— MinPlanificación (@MPPPlanifica) August 4, 2021

Nicaragua’s Foreign Minister Denis Moncada met with Raisi as well, and called for strengthening relations with Tehran. The Iranian president praised the Central American nation’s Sandinista government as a model of resistance against US aggression, and said, “The people of Iran have always wished for success and victory for the revolutionary nation of Nicaragua.”
Likewise, in his meeting with Raisi, Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta pledged to work more closely with Iran, stating, “Despite sabotage by the United States, we are determined to increase the level of relations with Tehran in all areas.”
Iran’s support for revolutionary governments in Latin America goes beyond mere words. While many liberal and center-left political forces in the region have opportunistically turned their back on Venezuela, betraying their neighbor on behalf of Washington, Tehran has shown real, tangible support for Caracas.
Both Venezuela and Iran are suffering from illegal US blockades, and these murderous sanctions have led to a shortage of food, medicine, and gasoline. (Venezuela has massive oil reserves, but it is some of the heaviest crude petrol on the planet, which cannot be used or exported without first being refined, so Caracas needs to import lighter crude or other materials that are blocked by Washington.)
To help meet the needs of the Venezuelan people, Iran has repeatedly defied the criminal US blockade and delivered supplies to Caracas, sending huge tankers full of food, medicine, and fuel.
In these altruistic acts, Tehran has valiantly risked US military aggression, putting its money where its mouth is to support the revolutionary government and people of Venezuela.
Iran has also opened a supermarket chain in Venezuela, called Megasis, to help support an ally that is heavily reliant on food imports. It is part of a larger strategy to boost bilateral trade and economic cooperation between both nations.
The brotherhood between Venezuela and Iran was most poignantly illustrated at the 2013 funeral of President Hugo Chávez, who initiated the Bolivarian Revolution. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was photographed hugging and consoling the Venezuelan Comandante’s crying mother.
In the last 400 years the world powers have either slandered or  assassinated  the character of the champions of freedom, and independence. Chavez is alive until freedom, justice, and humanity is alive. God bless Him. pic.twitter.com/x08q2HH58K
— Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (@Ahmadinejad1956) March 8, 2020

Revolutionary Latin American governments have also sought to collaborate more closely with other forces in the West Asian Axis of Resistance.
Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia vociferously opposed and condemned the US-led imperialist proxy wars against Libya and Syria, which expressly sought the collapse of the nations’ central governments, and succeeded in the former while failing in the latter.
Similarly, these ALBA member states have all shown unflinching solidarity with Palestine. In response to apartheid “Israel’s” 2008–2009 massacre in Gaza, Venezuelan President Chávez officially broke ties with the Zionist regime, denouncing it as a “genocidal state” and “the murderous arm of the US government.”
Then in 2010, in a daring challenge to Washington’s declaration that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea constituted a supposed “Axis of Evil,” Comandante Chávez announced an alliance with Syria, which he dubbed the “Axis of the Brave”.
The Axis of the Brave was a “strategic alliance” against US imperialism, Chávez explained. “A new world is being built,” and “we seek a strategic relationship with that continent,” the Venezuelan president said, referring to West Asia.
Less than a year after Chávez’s announcement, the United States and its proxies launched a devastating decade-long regime-change war on Syria — one that continues today, with more than one-third of Syria’s sovereign territory, seizing most of its oil and wheat reserves, illegally militarily occupied by the United States in the northeast and NATO member Turkey in the northwest.
Chávez’s defense of and alliance with Syria against Western aggression led to the inauguration this March of a monument at the University of Damascus.
#8M2021 #DiaInternacionalDeLaMujer Que mejor día que hoy para conmemorar, en la Universidad de Damasco #Siria, el 8vo aniversario de la siembra de ese gran feminista que fue nuestro Comandante Chávez. Siempre reivindicó el rol fundamental de la mujer en la sociedad. pic.twitter.com/slfIS2AyaY
— José Gregorio Biomorgi Muzattiz (@Jose_Biomorgi) March 8, 2021

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, the leader of the revolutionary Sandinista Liberation Front, has likewise steadfastly defended Syria and “ condemned all forms of aggression by foreign powers that attack the sovereignty and self-determination of the [Syrian] people, in clear and flagrant violation of international law.”
During the 2011 NATO regime-change war that intentionally collapsed the state of Libya and unleashed open-air slave markets, Nicaragua’s Sandinista government staunchly opposed Western imperial aggression.
As NATO bombed Libya, the US government refused to give a visa to the North African nation’s United Nations delegate. So in response, Nicaragua’s former foreign minister, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, announced he would represent Libya at the UN. (Washington then tried to block D’Escoto’s representation too.)
Axis of Resistance forces in Yemen has returned the solidarity. The de facto government in northern Yemen, ruled by the revolutionary Houthi movement, known officially as Ansarallah, has staunchly defended Venezuela against US aggression.
In a 2015 interview, a senior Ansarallah member declared, “We support Chávez in Venezuela.” When Washington initiated another coup attempt in Venezuela in February 2019, Ansarallah and leftist parties in Yemen held a protest condemning US interference.
The Houthi movement that governs northern Yemen, known officially as Ansar Allah, joined leftist parties in expressing solidarity with Venezuela against a US coup attempt.
Demonstrations like these dispel misleading corporate media narratives about Yemenhttps://t.co/0KGgM2ZHcX
— The Grayzone (@TheGrayzoneNews) September 13, 2020

Latin American socialist governments and the Axis of Resistance in West Asia are the vanguards in the struggle to build a new, truly multipolar world based on national sovereignty and self-determination.
Together, they are helping to construct a truly multilateral order that challenges the authoritarian, unilateral, and brutally violent system created and controlled by the United States and its junior partners in imperialism.
This was further illustrated in July, when these nations launched an anti-imperialist alliance inside the United Nations, called the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia were joined by Iran, Syria, and Palestine, as well as the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Algeria, the DPRK, Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Belarus, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The anti-imperialist Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter launched yesterday, featuring:AlgeriaAngolaBelarusBoliviaCambodiaChinaCubaDPRKEqui. GuineaEritreaIranLaosNicaraguaPalestineRussiaSaint Vincent and GrenadinesSyriaVenezuelahttps://t.co/4vc9sbpOlR pic.twitter.com/ErFDIed7cW
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 7, 2021

The economic partnership between member states of the Bolivarian Alliance and Iran likewise serves as a model for South-South integration that not only weakens Western imperial hegemony, but also helps to develop these countries in their mutual interests.
The ALBA was itself created to remove the middleman of the United States, so that Latin American nations could trade with each other and strengthen their own domestic economies, cutting out the North American corporations that want them to be dependent on imports.
The historic, 25-year, $400 billion agreement Iran signed with China this March was another crucially important step in building alternative economic structures to weaken Washington’s dominance.
Similarly, the announcement that Cuba and Iran will work together to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines exemplifies how this South-South partnership can help overcome the global pandemic.
If Latin America and West Asia can create a coherent formal alliance with China and Russia, it could pose a serious challenge to the imperialist US-EU-NATO axis.
As the United States accelerates its new cold war on China and Russia, such a coalition will only become more urgent.
Originally published at Al Mayadeen English on August 17, 2021


Instruction: Write an article about: US-backed Saudi bombing killing most Yemeni civilians in years, despite Biden’s false claim to end war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Ansarallah, Houthis, Joe Biden, Saudi Arabia, Yemen

Output:
President Biden claimed he would end the war on Yemen, but US-backed Saudi bombing has escalated. A Yemeni civilian is now killed or injured every hour on average, the highest casualty level since 2018.

(Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.)
US President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that he would end the war on Yemen, which has created the largest humanitarian crisis on Earth.
But in reality, US-backed Saudi bombing of the poorest country in West Asia has reached the highest level in years, under the watch of the Biden administration.
Yemeni civilians are paying the price, with one killed or wounded every hour, according to an analysis by Save the Children.
The humanitarian organization said January 2022 was the deadliest month in Yemen since 2018.
From January 6 to February 2, more than 200 adults and 15 children were killed in Yemen. Another 354 adults and 30 children were injured.
Save the Children acknowledged that this is a conservative estimate, and the actual casualty figure is likely higher.
Oxfam reported that at least 43 US-backed Saudi airstrikes hit civilian targets in Yemen in January 2022.
“Most of these were on houses and farms, destroying homes and businesses that will take many years to rebuild,” the aid group wrote.
PRESS RELEASE: Nearly one civilian was killed or injured every hour in #Yemen last month, making January the deadliest month since 2018, according to a new analysis by Save the Children. https://t.co/qRsoqEBCqo
— Save the Children Global Media (@Save_GlobalNews) February 11, 2022

March 2022 will mark the seventh anniversary of the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen.
During his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden promised he would end this conflict. Then in February 2021, the newly inaugurated president claimed he was terminating US support for Saudi “offensive” operations in Yemen.
Biden did not mention that the war is offensive by its very nature, given that Riyadh started it in March 2015 by launching a bombing campaign on its southern neighbor.
It is widely acknowledged that Saudi Arabia would not be able to wage this war on Yemen were it not for the military, political, and logistical support it receives from the United States and Britain, not to mention the many billions of dollars worth of planes, missiles, bombs, and other weapons these two countries have sold to the Gulf monarchy.
Even centrist Washington, DC-based think tanks that are closely linked to the US national security state, such as the Brookings Institution, have spoken openly of “Biden’s broken promise on Yemen.”
The Biden administration has continued selling military technology to Saudi Arabia as it kills Yemeni civilians.
This January, Saudi Arabia attacked a detention center in Yemen with a Raytheon laser-guided bomb, killing at least 91 people and wounding 236 more.
Saudi Arabia attacked a detention center in Yemen with a US-made laser-guided bomb from Raytheon, killing 91 people and injuring 236.
President Joe Biden claimed he'd end US support for Saudi bombing of Yemen, but has not. Instead he sold it more weaponshttps://t.co/vMZyz5Ahsv
— Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) January 30, 2022

Meanwhile, international institutions are doing little to nothing to try to stop the bloodshed in Yemen.
The Norwegian Refugee Council warned that the number of civilians killed or injured in Yemen has nearly doubled since the UN Human Rights Council voted to end its monitoring of the conflict in October 2021.
“In the four months before the end of the human rights monitoring, 823 civilians were injured or killed in the war. In the four months that followed, it was 1,535 civilians,” the refugee council reported, citing data from the Civilian Impact Monitoring Project.
In this period, the number of civilian casualties caused by US-backed Saudi airstrikes increased by 39 times.
Instead of pressuring its ally Saudi Arabia to end the war, the Biden administration is considering reverting to the policies of Donald Trump, by hitting the Yemeni indigenous resistance group Ansarallah, known popularly as the Houthis, with a so-called “terrorist” designation.


Instruction: Write an article about: Brazil’s ex-president Dilma Rousseff: US-China conflict is neoliberalism vs socialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Brazil, BRICS, China, Dilma Rousseff, economics, neoliberalism, Russia, Ukraine

Output:
Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff analyzes the US-China conflict as “a rivalry of two systems,” a struggle between neoliberalism and socialism. Condemning US sanctions and “dollar hegemony,” she called for Latin America “to break with the Monroe Doctrine.”

Brazil’s former president Dilma Rousseff has condemned US meddling and “hybrid war” in Latin America, while simultaneously praising China for creating a new model of economic development that challenges US-led neoliberal capitalism and the “Washington Consensus” imposed on the world.
“We want, basically, to be able to break with the Monroe Doctrine,” Rousseff said, referring to the nearly 200-year-old colonial doctrine in which the US government claims Latin America as its geopolitical “backyard.”
“We want Latin America to be for the Latin Americans, and not as the US wants it, in the Monroe Doctrine, which means Latin America for the North Americans, precisely the opposite,” the former Brazilian head of state added.
“The so-called hybrid war unleashed by the US through second-generation coups, lawfare processes, and sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela led to a great setback, returning to the continent the inequality, misery, and hunger that had been overcome, or that it was about to get over,” she lamented.
A leader of the left-wing Workers’ Party, Rousseff served as president of Brazil from 2011 until August 2016, when she was overthrown in a soft coup backed by the US government and her country’s powerful right-wing corporate oligarchy.
Rousseff spoke about the increasing conflict between the United States and China not as a mere interstate dispute, but rather the result of “a rivalry of two systems”: US-led neoliberal capitalism versus socialism with Chinese characteristics.
“The so-called Washington Consensus, a concept adopted by conservative Latin American governments, imposed the deregulation of the economy, the drastic reduction of the role of the state, and the abandonment of social and development policies,” she said.
These neoliberal capitalists “condemned Latin America to be the most unequal continent in the world, with reduced economic growth, concentration of wealth and income, and specialization in the production of raw materials,” Rousseff commented.
The former Brazilian president praised China for creating a “new development paradigm” based on “shared development” and “common prosperity.”
China and Russia are also leading the development of a “new geopolitical pole,” she said, and this offers opportunities for Latin America to be more independent.
Rousseff made these comments in a panel event on March 19, a virtual conference titled “21st Century Socialism: China and Latin America on the Frontline,” organized by the group Friends of Socialist China.
Geopolitical Economy Report obtained a copy of Rousseff’s Portuguese-language prepared speech, and has translated some of her key points into English below.

“Brazil always had a position of absolute independence with regard to international relations, with all countries in the world,” Dilma Rousseff emphasized at the beginning of her talk.
“Latin America wants to have an autonomous and independent position,” she said. “It is not possible to continue reproducing the inferiority complex of the conservative elites and oligarchies that have done nothing but submit to the United States in a shameful way.”
Rousseff argued that China has played an important role in balancing Latin America’s political and economic relationships, so the region is not so dominated by Washington. In this sense, Beijing has helped the region maintain independence and strategic autonomy.
China is Brazil’s largest trade partner, and the largest trade partner for many other countries in the region, she noted.
“Latin America’s position is not with the United States,” she stressed. “Latin America’s position affirms sovereignty, our position is independence, at the side of China. And this independence is not just for individual countries; it’s for the region.”
Rousseff emphasized the importance of institutions like the BRICS, the framework integrating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
The BRICS “sought to reduce this unfair asymmetry” represented by institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which are dominated by the United States and Global North countries, she noted.
“Compared to the US, China has more respect for the role played by international organizations,” Rousseff added. Beijing defends multilateralism while Washington has attacked the United Nations and withdrew unilaterally from the Paris Agreement, she recalled.
Unlike the United States, Rousseff argued, China has been a more equitable partner. And leaders in the Global South are increasingly looking to Beijing for lessons on how to develop their own countries.
Dilma Rousseff applauded China for its “extraordinary development,” and for lifting more than 800 million people out of absolute poverty.
She noted how China was an exemplary model for managing the Covid-19 pandemic, juxtaposing it against the public health disaster in the United States, where nearly 1 million people have died.
China’s success in the pandemic, and its leading role in sending vaccines and protective equipment around the world, reflects its relative rise, whereas Washington’s failure shows its comparative decline, Rousseff argued.
The former Brazilian president traced the beginning of Washington’s new cold war on Beijing back to the 2008 financial crisis. While the West was suffering, the crash did not significantly affect China, Rousseff noted. This led US elites to decide that China had to be contained; its economy had to stop growing so rapidly.
The Barack Obama administration’s attempt to create a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was aimed at economically isolating China, she stated.
Rousseff called this part of a larger US “containment policy,” and argued it is “extremely flawed and harmful to everyone.”
US policy toward China subsequently “became very aggressive” under Donald Trump, and while the Joe Biden administration has tried to portray itself as more “diplomatic,” she noted, Washington has still pushed a needlessly hard line against China.
Speaking of the US “prejudice” toward China, Dilma Rousseff noted that Western politicians have espoused chauvinistic views that China, or any other nation, could not develop without adopting their own model based on the free market and liberal democracy.
Although she refrained from referring to the conflict as a new cold war, the former Brazilian leader stipulated that the crisis in US-China relations is a result of their two contrasting economic systems.
“China has become a kind of factory for the world, while the US has de-industrialized, losing economic muscle and transforming itself into a kingdom of finance, with a fantastic concentration of income and wealth.”
Neoliberalism is specifically what “laid the foundations for the decline of the US,” Rousseff said.
There are three serious problems caused by neoliberalism, she argued: “the financialization of the economy, the increase in income and wealth inequality, and the erosion of democracy.” And these ills “are prevalent in all capitalist countries.”
“The biggest problem with this system is the widening gap between rich and poor,” Rousseff cautioned. She cited Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who “admitted that 40 years of neoliberal practices have severely weakened the role of the state and public health policies, rendering the West helpless in the face of the pandemic.”
“China is accelerating its policy toward a society where equity prevails,” she said, “while in capitalist countries, including the US, per capita income has concentrated and jobs have stagnated or shrunk. Social wealth is rapidly concentrated and the richest 1% is getting even richer.”
“The financialization of the economy as a result of neoliberalism is the culprit that kills the dynamism of the capitalist system itself. Credit and finance gradually become obstacles rather than driving forces of production.”
“The pursuit of limited government, uncontrolled labor market liberalization and the pursuit of profits lead to a rapid accumulation of financial wealth for those at the top of the social pyramid and de-industrializes the economy.”
Rousseff contrasted these systemic problems of neoliberal capitalism with the alternative proposed by Beijing.
“China’s strength lies in its pursuit of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics,” she argued. “This path follows the law of the market, but attaches strategic importance to the role of the state.”
“The market mechanism and macro-regulation complement each other in China. Open to domestic and foreign private investment, it has increasingly controlled the distortions of oligopoly and speculation.”
Chinese “regulation of economic activity acts to preserve competition and avoid financial bubbles and market distortions,” while the state ensures stability with “tighter control over real estate and tutorial services.”
Rousseff praised China for creating a “new development paradigm” based on “shared development,” and commended Beijing for its idea of common prosperity.
The United States has historically had excellent systems of education, science, and technological development, but this intellectual infrastructure has been in decline since the emergence of neoliberalism in the 1980s, and is at threat because the ultra-capitalist model has led to a massive disinvestment, Dilma Rousseff argued.
On the other hand, China has become the world’s new leader in science and technology, thanks to its heavy public investment and state leadership, she said.
China’s progress led Washington to launch a “technological lockdown” on Beijing, she noted, pointing to the ongoing “chip war” over control of semiconductors.
The world knows that the Chinese company Huawei has the best 5G technology, and it is also cheaper than its US competitors, Rousseff stated. But “the US tries to prevent other countries from using Chinese 5G technology, even if they don’t have alternatives of their own to offer.”
Meanwhile, neoliberalism has led to technological stagnation, the former Brazilian leader stated, because “companies only want and can only make money quickly, bringing limits to R&D activities.”
China’s historic development, economic growth, and scientific and technological advancement have created opportunities to challenge “US dollar hegemony,” Dilma Rousseff argued.
“In the financial sector, US dollar hegemony faces new challenges. As a global currency, the US dollar holds an irreplaceable position in international trade and payments. This has made the dollar a weapon of retaliation and a tool of extortion against other countries.”
“Here in Latin America, we have two terrible examples: 60 years of blockade against Cuba, and now more recently the blockade on Venezuela, at a time of pandemic.”
“The US government has been imposing far-reaching sanctions on foreign banks and companies that do business against the US’s wishes with countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and now Russia. They use their national jurisdiction as an international weapon. Given this, it is unlikely that the dollar will remain irreplaceable forever.”
Dollar hegemony is also based on the SWIFT inter-bank messaging system, Rousseff said, which Washington has turned into a financial weapon.
China began testing its own alternative to SWIFT as far back as 2015, she noted, and it is still being developed, but this process has been accelerated by the war in Ukraine.
The People’s Bank of China has been testing digital currencies, including its own sovereign digital renminbi, Rousseff added.
She criticized the US strategy of “decoupling” from China, calling it “absurd,” because Beijing is thoroughly integrated into the world economy, in complex webs that involve many nations.
“In 2019, around 100 countries around the world traded and invested more with China than the US, and that number is still growing,” Rousseff said.
China signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in 2020, she noted. This free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region involves nearly one-third of the global population and 30% of the global economy, making it larger than the European Union.
The global political and economic system is in a process of fundamental change, Dilma Rousseff said. And “there is no more significant geopolitical consequence today than the growing strategic partnership between China and Russia.”
“Ironically, it is precisely the maximum US pressure on Russia and the containment of China that played a key role in bringing the two countries closer together,” she added.
“The economic sanctions stemming from Russia’s annexation of Crimea and now the war in Ukraine are strengthening a new geopolitical pole, and accelerating changes that would only come slowly.”
In regard to the war in Ukraine, Rousseff complimented China for maintaining a neutral policy. The former Brazilian president called for peace while emphasizing how NATO helped to create the conflict in the first place.
She emphasized that Latin America must unite and maintain an independent foreign policy, while seeking opportunities with this new geopolitical pole.
Latin America needs to adapt to the changing economic order, she argued, to reduce its dependency on export of commodities, and “seek re-industrialization with new characteristics,” to partake in the new “technological revolution.”
“Whoever remains as a mere importer of this technology,” she said, “will remain on the periphery, submitted and subordinated to foreign interests and policies.”
“The transformation of the productive model is the main challenge for Latin Americans, to recover a path that allows them to achieve considerable economic growth with social justice.”
“Producing and exporting mineral or agricultural commodities alone does not support equitable growth. Another model is needed for our region to reach high levels of industrialization and have a great capacity to add value to production based on the quality of education and work and scientific-technological innovation with the generation of better jobs.”
Regional integration is a key part of this process, Rousseff stressed.
“A true integration of Latin America is essential,” she said, noting the region has nearly 1 billion people, with “fantastic natural resources,” including oil, minerals, agricultural products, and water reserves.
“The creation of UNASUR and CELAC was the political-institutional framework needed to ensure our autonomy and independence and enable an integration that would not only be commercial, but also productive, industrial, and educational, in order to reduce asymmetries and inequalities between countries and regions.”
Progressive governments in Latin America need to increase the “presence of the state in the economy, the defense of the sovereignty of nations and democracy, and an open geopolitical relationship,” she added.
China’s economic partnership and its Belt and Road Initiative offer many possibilities for the region, presenting an opportunity to be more independent, Rousseff argued.
What “is wanted is Latin America for Latin Americans,” she said, “to be able to break with the Monroe Doctrine.”


Instruction: Write an article about: China y Rusia declaran una ‘nueva era’ de multipolaridad, desafiando el intervencionismo de EEUU. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: China, multipolaridad, Rusia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

Output:
Tras reunirse en Beijing, Xi Jinping de China y Vladimir Putin de Rusia publicaron una declaración conjunta que aclara las divisiones ideológicas de la nueva guerra fría: Eurasia llama a la multipolaridad, la cooperación, la soberanía y la “redistribución del poder en el mundo” contra la hegemonía unipolar y el intervencionismo de EEUU.

(You can read this article in English here.)
El 4 de febrero de 2022 puede ser recordado en los libros de historia como una fecha importante en el cambio de la política global.
Ese día no sólo fue la inauguración de los XXIV Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno en Beijing; también hubo una reunión histórica entre los presidentes de China y Rusia.
Xi Jinping y Vladimir Putin firmaron una serie de importantes acuerdos económicos y políticos, profundizando la integración de las dos superpotencias euroasiáticas.
Entre ellos es un acuerdo de 30 años en el que Rusia suministrará gas a China a través de un nuevo gasoducto, con ambas partes de las transferencias de energía manejadas por empresas estatales. Y como muestra de sus esfuerzos mutuos por desafiar el dominio del dólar estadounidense, decidieron hacer los pagos en euros.
Tras la reunión Xi-Putin, los gobiernos chino y ruso emitieron una extensa declaración conjunta en la que declaran una “nueva era” de multipolaridad, proponiendo un nuevo modelo político internacional que dejará atrás el orden hegemónico unipolar dominado por Washington.
Con más de 5.000 palabras, la declaración conjunta fue en cierto modo una especie de manifiesto. Obviamente, fue cuidadosamente redactado antes de la reunión, y definía claramente las líneas ideológicas contrastantes de la nueva guerra fría: por un lado están Estados Unidos y sus aliados de la OTAN, que defienden un statu quo basado en el unilateralismo y el intervencionismo (es decir, el imperialismo); del otro lado están China, Rusia y sus aliados, que están construyendo un nuevo sistema arraigado en el multilateralismo y la soberanía.
“El mundo está pasando por cambios trascendentales y la humanidad está entrando en una nueva era de rápido desarrollo y profunda transformación”, dijo la declaración conjunta.
En esta “nueva era”, ha surgido una “tendencia hacia la redistribución del poder en el mundo”, escribieron las potencias euroasiáticas. Ese centro de poder ya no se concentra en las capitales de las potencias colonialistas occidentales transatlánticas; el Este y el Sur se han levantado.
Pekín y Moscú difícilmente podrían haber sido más directos en lo que proponían como alternativa: “condenaron la práctica de injerencia en los asuntos internos de otros estados con fines geopolíticos”, y en su lugar llamaron a “establecer un sistema multipolar justo de relaciones internacionales”, usando la palabra “multipolar” cuatro veces, y “multilateral” 11 veces más.
La histórica declaración chino-rusa fue marcada por su llamado a la distensión y su insistencia en que la OTAN debe dejar de expandirse y “abandonar sus enfoques ideologizados de guerra fría, para respetar la soberanía, la seguridad y los intereses de otros países”.
El hecho de que la declaración conjunta empleara ese lenguaje (advirtió tres veces sobre la mentalidad de “guerra fría” del bloque liderado por Estados Unidos) es un reconocimiento obvio por parte de las potencias euroasiáticas de que Washington está librando una segunda guerra fría, y que busca nada menos que el derrocamiento de los gobiernos en Pekín y Moscú.
El ex secretario de estado de EEUU, Mike Pompeo, dejó este objetivo claro en un belicoso discurso en 2020 en la biblioteca Richard Nixon, en el que declaró, “Nosotros, las naciones del mundo que aman la libertad, debemos inducir a China a cambiar”. Pompeo, el ex director de la CIA, insistió, “Asegurar nuestras libertades del Partido Comunista de China es la misión de nuestro tiempo”.
Luego, en 2021, el principal think tank (centro de investigación) de la OTAN, el Atlantic Council, publicó un documento titulado “the Longer Telegram” (el “telegrama más largo”), inspirado en “the Long Telegram” (el “telegrama largo”) de George Kennan, un diplomático de EEUU y arquitecto de la primera guerra fría, quien elaboró la política de “contención” hacia la Unión Soviética.
“The Longer Telegram” declaró que el presidente chino, Xi, debe ser reemplazado, y que Beijing debe verse obligada a “concluir que lo mejor para China es continuar operando dentro del orden internacional liberal liderado por Estados Unidos en lugar de construir un orden rival”.
Los gobiernos de Beijing y Moscú están monitoreando estos acontecimientos, y pueden ver hacia dónde se dirigen. La declaración que emitieron el 4 de febrero fue su respuesta conjunta, pidiendo “el establecimiento de un nuevo tipo de relaciones entre las potencias mundiales basado en el respeto mutuo, la coexistencia pacífica y la cooperación de beneficio mutuo”, en lugar del conflicto.
No es coincidencia que esta reunión entre Xi y Putin en Beijing, su primer encuentro cara a cara desde el comienzo de la pandemia de Covid-19, y la declaración conjunta que la acompaña también se produjeron en un momento de mayor tensión entre la OTAN y Rusia.
La crisis fabricada en Ucrania a fines de 2021 y principios de 2022, junto con el rechazo flagrante del bloque occidental a reconocer cualquiera de las preocupaciones de seguridad de Moscú, mostró que la OTAN cree que tiene derecho a expandirse permanentemente y rodear militarmente a Rusia.
Entonces, si bien la declaración conjunta solicitó una reducción de tensiones, “reiterando la necesidad de consolidación, no de división de la comunidad internacional, la necesidad de cooperación, no de confrontación”, también enfatizó que Beijing y Moscú están preparados para defenderse.
Las potencias euroasiáticas escribieron “que las nuevas relaciones interestatales entre Rusia y China son superiores a las alianzas políticas y militares de la [primera] era de la Guerra Fría”.
En una referencia inequívoca a la política exterior de Estados Unidos, la declaración conjunta chino-rusa dijo que las políticas de unilateralismo e injerencia de Washington solo representan una “minoría” y deben terminar:
Algunos actores que representan una minoría a escala internacional continúan defendiendo enfoques unilaterales para abordar problemas internacionales y recurren a la fuerza; interfieren en los asuntos internos de otros estados, vulnerando sus legítimos derechos e intereses, e incitan a las contradicciones, diferencias y confrontaciones, obstaculizando así el desarrollo y progreso de la humanidad, en contra de la oposición de la comunidad internacional.
Beijing y Moscú yuxtapusieron estas prácticas intervencionistas del imperialismo estadounidense con una propuesta de multipolaridad y “bienestar para todos”:
[China y Rusia] piden a todos los estados que busquen el bienestar para todos y, con estos fines, para construir el diálogo y la confianza mutua, que fortalezcan el entendimiento mutuo, que defiendan valores humanos universales como la paz, el desarrollo, la igualdad, la justicia, la democracia y la libertad, que respeten los derechos de los pueblos a determinar de forma independiente las vías de desarrollo de sus países y la soberanía y los intereses de seguridad y desarrollo de los estados, para proteger la arquitectura internacional impulsada por las Naciones Unidas y el orden mundial basado en el derecho internacional, que busquen una genuina multipolaridad con la Las Naciones Unidas y su Consejo de Seguridad desempeñando un papel central y coordinada, que promuevan relaciones internacionales más democráticas y garanticen la paz, la estabilidad y el desarrollo sostenible en todo el mundo.
El uso de la frase “orden mundial basado en el derecho internacional” fue importante, porque fue un rechazo del vago concepto del llamado “orden internacional basado en reglas” que el gobierno de EEUU ha tratado de imponer en el mundo.
Los embajadores de China y Rusia en Estados Unidos publicaron un artículo conjunto en noviembre de 2021 que enfatizaba un punto similar, escribiendo:
Sólo hay un sistema internacional en el mundo, es decir, el sistema internacional con las Naciones Unidas en su núcleo. Sólo existe un orden internacional, es decir, el que se sustenta en el derecho internacional. Y sólo hay un conjunto de reglas, es decir, las normas básicas que rigen las relaciones internacionales basadas en los propósitos y principios de la Carta de la ONU. Alardear del “orden internacional basado en reglas” sin hacer referencia a la ONU y al derecho internacional e intentar reemplazar las reglas internacionales con los dictados de ciertos bloques cae en la categoría de revisionismo y es obviamente antidemocrático.
La declaración chino-rusa de febrero se hizo eco de gran parte de lo que los embajadores escribieron en noviembre, al tiempo que desarrollaba aún más la perspectiva euroasiática.
Ambas declaraciones defendieron enérgicamente la democracia, pero con una definición ampliada y más amplia del término que refleja la auténtica democracia de los pueblos, no sólo un sistema superficial en el que “las personas sólo se despiertan cuando emiten sus votos y se envían de vuelta a la hibernación cuando termina la votación”.
En un estridente rechazo a la ideología del “intervencionismo liberal” del gobierno estadounidense, las declaraciones chino-rusas condenaron el cínico “abuso de los valores democráticos y la injerencia en los asuntos internos de los estados soberanos con el pretexto de proteger la democracia y los derechos humanos”.
Beijing y Moscú esperan defender los conceptos como el multilateralismo, la no injerencia y el respeto a la soberanía nacional mediante la democratización y el fortalecimiento de instituciones internacionales como la ONU, los BRICS, la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái y la Unión Económica Euroasiática.
Mientras que pidió “proteger la arquitectura internacional impulsada por las Naciones Unidas y el orden mundial basado en el derecho internacional”, la declaración chino-rusa de febrero instó a la democratización del organismo, para “buscar una multipolaridad genuina con las Naciones Unidas y su Consejo de Seguridad”.
Beijing y Moscú también escribieron que “apuntan a fortalecer integralmente la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái (OCS) y mejorar aún más su papel en la configuración de un orden mundial policéntrico basado en los principios universalmente reconocidos del derecho internacional, el multilateralismo y la seguridad igual, conjunta, indivisible, integral y sostenible”.
Además las potencias euroasiáticas dijeron que “apoyan la asociación estratégica más profunda dentro de los BRICS”, el marco que reúne a Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica, para “promover la cooperación ampliada en tres áreas principales: la política y seguridad, la economía y finanzas e los intercambios humanitarios”.
Parte de este realineamiento global también implica fusionar el enorme proyecto de infraestructura global de China, la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta, con la Unión Económica Euroasiática, el bloque económico liderado por Rusia.
Beijing y Moscú escribieron:
Los [países] buscan avanzar en su trabajo para vincular los planes de desarrollo de la Unión Económica Euroasiática [UEEA] y la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta con miras a intensificar la cooperación práctica entre la UEEA y China en diversas áreas y promover una mayor interconexión entre las regiones de Asia Pacífico y Eurasia.
Los [países] reafirman su enfoque en la construcción de la Gran Asociación Euroasiática en paralelo y en coordinación con la construcción de la Franja y la Ruta para fomentar el desarrollo de asociaciones regionales, así como procesos de integración bilateral y multilateral en beneficio de los pueblos del continente euroasiático.
Tras la reunión entre los presidentes Xi y Putin el 4 de febrero, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de China publicó una declaración que resume los puntos principales de sus discusiones.
Criticando implícitamente las afirmaciones superficiales del gobierno de EEUU de apoyar el multilateralismo y la democracia, Beijing escribió, “Amb[os países] han participado activamente en la reforma y la construcción del sistema de gobernanza global, han practicado conjuntamente el verdadero multilateralismo, han defendido el verdadero espíritu democrático y han desempeñado un papel transcendental tanto en la solidaridad de la comunidad internacional para superar en común las dificultades coyunturales como en el mantenimiento la equidad y la justicia internacional”.
La declaración china enfatizó este llamado a la “equidad y justicia internacional”, repitiendo la frase tres veces.
Al enfatizar la importancia de “defender la soberanía”, Beijing agregó que las potencias euroasiáticas deben “hacer frente eficazmente a la injerencia externa”, una referencia obvia al intervencionismo de Estados Unidos y sus operaciones de “cambio de régimen”.
El mensaje de las declaraciones publicadas por Beijing y Moscú no podría haber sido más claro: la época de la hegemonía unipolar de EEUU ha muerto, y el mundo se encuentra ahora en una “nueva era” con un orden internacional basado en la multipolaridad y los principios de no injerencia.
Al hacer estas declaraciones, las potencias euroasiáticas estaban trazando una línea ideológica en la arena. El mundo ya sabía qué modelo político y económico ofrecen Washington, Bruselas y la OTAN, pero ahora puede ver claramente qué plantean China y Rusia como alternativa.