Instruction: Write an article about: At UN, China calls for multipolarity, end to sanctions, ‘win-win cooperation’. 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, sanctions, UN, United Nations, Wang Yi, war

Output:
At the United Nations General Assembly, China called for a multipolar world based on “win-win cooperation, not a zero-sum game.” Condemning illegal sanctions and “colonization,” Foreign Minister Wang Yi pledged to fight poverty and war.

China used its platform at the United Nations General Assembly to call for a multipolar world based on peace and “win-win cooperation.”
Foreign Minister Wang Yi explained, “The path that China pursues is one of peace and development, not plunder and colonialization. It is a path of win-win cooperation, not a zero-sum game. And it is one of harmony between men and nature, not destructive exploitation of resources.”
Wang’s remarks at the General Assembly on September 24 were very measured and diplomatic. They could hardly have been any different from angry, aggressive, and accusatory speech given by US President Joe Biden.
Although he didn’t name the United States specifically, the Chinese foreign minister called for the end to its use of illegal sanctions.
“A few countries have arbitrarily imposed unilateral sanctions, cut off development aid, and frozen lawful assets of other countries. This is an unacceptable practice that must be corrected,” Wang said.
“China firmly supports the Cuban people in their just struggle to defend their sovereignty and oppose external interference and the blockade.”
Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the UN: "The path that China pursues is one of peace and development, not plunder and colonialization"
"It is a path of win-win cooperation, not zero-sum game. And it is one of harmony between men and nature, not destructive exploitation of resources" pic.twitter.com/tz3dbQ7Igt
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022

Beijing emphasized the importance of the fight against poverty.
China “accounts for over 70% of the gains in global poverty reduction,” Wang pointed out.
And while the planet is facing many challenges, from economic difficulties to climate change to the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chinese foreign minister argued “we are also at a time full of hope. The world continues to move toward multipolarity.”
Peace is the most important priority, Wang said. He urged a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, and in an acknowledgement of the role of the United States and NATO in fueling the crisis, Beijing warned, “He who instigates a proxy war can easily get himself burned.”
"China is the only country in the world that pledges to keep to a path of peaceful development in its constitution"
"It is the only one among the five nuclear weapons states [the permanent members of the UN Security Council] that is committed to no first use of nuclear weapons" pic.twitter.com/JImgLCPOie
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022

Underscoring its commitment to peace, the foreign minister noted, “China is the only country in the world that pledges to keep to a path of peaceful development in its constitution.”
“It is the only one among the five nuclear weapons states [the permanent members of the UN Security Council] that is committed to no first use of nuclear weapons,” he added.
Beijing stressed the importance of its relations with other formerly colonized nations in the Global South.
“As a member of the developing world, China will forever stand with other developing countries,” Wang said.
He added, “Our biggest strength will come from solidarity. Our best strategy is to stick together. And the only way forward is through win-win cooperation” and “South-South cooperation.”
Beijing also used its platform at the General Assembly to reject Washington’s attempt to replace international law with an ambiguous so-called “rules-based international order” – in which the US makes the rules and orders everyone around.
China instead emphasized the importance of “the UN-centered international system and the international order based on international law.”
China clearly rejected Washington’s attempt to replace international law with its “rules-based order” (in which the US makes the rules and orders everyone around).
China emphasized the importance of “the UN-centered international system and the order based on international law” pic.twitter.com/rUATb0GIVM
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022

Many countries used their remarks at the UN General Assembly to call for an end to the illegal US blockade of Cuba.
Vietnam joined China in doing the same.
Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh stated in his UN General Assembly speech, “We stand in firm solidarity with the people of Cuba, and call for the immediate lifting of the unilateral [US] embargo against Cuba, contrary to international law.”
Vietnam emphasized that the “confrontational and zero-sum game approach must be eliminated.”
Vietnam at the UN: "We stand in firm solidarity with the people of Cuba, and call for the immediate lifting of the unilateral [US] embargo against Cuba, contrary to international law"
Vietnam emphasized that the "confrontational and zero-sum game approach must be eliminated" pic.twitter.com/FZ7dOvuN0l
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022

The Lao People’s Democratic Republic likewise echoed these calls at the UN.
Deputy Prime Minister Saleumxay Kommasith stated, “My delegation once again joins the overwhelming global call for lifting the [US] economic embargo on Cuba, and putting an end to all unilateral coercive measures [sanctions], which have caused more negative impacts on innocent people.”
Lao People's Democratic Republic at the UN: "My delegation once again joins the overwhelming global call for lifting the [US] economic embargo on Cuba, and putting an end to all unilateral coercive measures [sanctions], which have caused more negative impacts on innocent people" pic.twitter.com/nmW01yMyXK
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: West fueling Ukraine crisis to justify ‘painful’ sanctions on Russia. 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: Annalena Baerbock, EU, European Union, Gazprom, Germany, Joe Biden, Munich Security Conference, Nancy Pelosi, Nord Stream 2, Russia, Ukraine, Ursula von der Leyen, Vladimir Putin

Output:
US and European leaders are preparing “painful” sanctions on Moscow, which could include sabotaging Germany’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline and hitting Russian gas giant Gazprom. Putin says the Ukraine crisis is being used as an excuse for the economic attack.

(Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.)
Top Western officials met at the Munich Security Conference on February 18 and jointly declared that they are preparing a series of “painful” sanctions against Russia.
Germany’s foreign minister confirmed that the economic coercive measures could force the closure of its Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia – an outcome the United States has repeatedly called for.
The chief of the European Union added that Russian energy giant Gazprom may be sanctioned as well.
There are even discussions of potential US sanctions to cut off Russian state-owned banks from using dollars, which Reuters noted would freeze “any dollar-denominated assets or liabilities held by the banks at home and abroad.”
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, has argued that Western governments are using the Ukraine crisis as an excuse to impose these sanctions on his country, and he condemned the economic attack as illegal.
In a press conference after meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on February 18, Putin said, “Sanctions will be imposed in any case. Whether they have a reason today, for example, in connection with the events in Ukraine, or there is no such reason – it will be found, because the goal is different, in this case the goal is to slow down the development of Russia and Belarus.”
“This is a gross violation of international law, but those who are now talking about [new sanctions], they care about [international law] only when it is advantageous to them,” the Russian leader added. “When it is not advantageous to them, they are happy to forget about all the norms of international public right.”
Putin’s argument has been clearly confirmed by comments made by top US and European leaders.
Washington’s goal in stoking the crisis in Ukraine and constantly giving false dates of an impending Russian invasion is to enforce NATO bloc discipline and prevent Europe from economically integrating with Russia – and by extension China.
The US government has made it clear that it seeks to sabotage the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would bring gas from Russia to Germany, and therefore deepen Russia’s ties to Western European economies.
The pipeline has already been built, but it is awaiting certification from German regulators.
President Joe Biden has repeatedly stressed that, if Russia militarily intervenes in Ukraine, Washington will force Germany to cancel Nord Stream 2.
For his part, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to say if the pipeline would be shut down if the violence escalates in Ukraine.
But Germany’s hawkish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock let the cat out of the bag in a speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 18.
Baerbock, of the US-backed, pro-war Green Party, declared that NATO member states are united in preparing “unprecedented sanctions” on Moscow.
“All options are on the table, including Nord Stream 2,” Baerbock said.
She added, “We, Germany, are prepared to pay a high economic price for this.”
German chancellor Scholz has been criticised for not stating clearly enough that #NordStream2 would be stopped if Russia goes a step too far.
His foreign minister, @ABaerbock, has been clear enough, here again in Munich.pic.twitter.com/9pNdm5ueEa
— Thomas Sparrow (@Thomas_Sparrow) February 18, 2022

The German foreign minister’s comments were echoed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Munich Security Conference.
“Everything is on the table,” von der Leyen said, when asked if the European Union was considering imposing sanctions on Russia’s state-owned energy firm Gazprom.
Gazprom is the heart of Russia’s economy, and the largest company in the country. Sanctions on the firm would be an unprecedented attack aimed at decoupling Western European economies from Russia.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told CNBC at #MSC2022 on Saturday that "everything is on the table" in terms of the possibility of energy sanctions on gas giant Gazprom if Russia invades Ukraine. #RussiaUkraineConflict https://t.co/d4IiWxRB4T
— Vicky McKeever (@VMcKeeverCNBC) February 19, 2022

Von der Leyen noted that Europe imports approximately 40% of its gas from Gazprom, criticizing it as a form of “dependency.”
Since the crisis in Ukraine erupted in late 2021 and early 2022, the United States has become the largest exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG) for the first time in history.
This is precisely because the US has substantially boosted its LNG exports to Europe, to make up for a decrease in imports from Russia.
"Sky-high European demand drove U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to a record in December"
About half of the record U.S. LNG volumes went to Europe, up from 37% earlier in 2021https://t.co/j18Mvniqgs
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 22, 2022

Senior State Department officials have in fact quietly held discussions with leaders of fossil fuel corporations to make plans for drastically increasing the gas supply to Europe if violence escalates in Ukraine.
It's not a coincidence that, as hawks in the US/EU/Ukraine have pushed for conflict with Russia over the past few months, Russian gas exports to Europe have dropped — and US gas exports to Europe have increased to a record high.
It's part of the strategyhttps://t.co/L8Wb0X1aan pic.twitter.com/5ob6db4RJW
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 22, 2022

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, also traveled to Munich for the conference.
Pelosi emphasized at the meeting that, if Russia militarily intervenes in Ukraine, NATO member states will impose sanctions that “are going to be fierce, and they are going to be painful.”
“There is a price to pay,” the Democratic Party leader declared. “It won’t be a long time for the Russian people, sadly, to feel the impact of the [sanctions].”
Democrats have long worked to strengthen the US alliance with NATO partners and allies. With Russia on the brink of attacking Ukraine, Putin needs to know we are united in solidarity against war and for targeted sanctions that will be painful for him. –NP https://t.co/w2svIhC8rQ
— Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) February 19, 2022

Some Western foreign policymakers have also used the crisis in Ukraine as an opportunity to call for imposing sanctions on China.
Recognizing that these Western sanctions are essentially inevitable, Russian President Putin called for strengthening “economic sovereignty.”
“There is only one way to overcome this state of affairs – to strengthen ourselves from within, and above all, of course, in the economy,” he said.


Instruction: Write an article about: British army chief tells troops prepare for World War III with Russia. 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, Patrick Sanders, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

Output:
UK Army chief Patrick Sanders told his troops to prepare for World War III with Russia. Benjamin Norton discusses how Western imperialists are threatening nuclear apocalypse to try to save their declining empires.

The chief of the United Kingdom’s army, Patrick Sanders, told his troops to prepare for World War III with Russia.
Mainstream British media outlet and radio station LBC published a report on June 19 titled “British soldiers must get ready to fight Russia in Third World War, army chief warns.”
General Sanders just took over as commander-in-chief, and he told his soldiers to prepare “to fight in Europe once again.”
According to LBC, the UK military chief said, “There is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle.”
The British media outlet added that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had just visited Ukraine and warned his country, “I am afraid that we need to steel ourselves for a long war.”
In this video, Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton discusses how Western imperialists are threatening nuclear apocalypse to try to save their declining empires.


Instruction: Write an article about: US corporations cash in on Ukraine’s oil and gas. 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: Chevron, ExxonMobil, Financial Times, gas, Halliburton, IMF, International Monetary Fund, oil, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky

Output:
As Ukraine sells off public assets in a privatization spree, US fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Halliburton are in talks to run its oil and gas industry, and the IMF is imposing the Washington Consensus.

(Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.)
As the war in Ukraine drags on, the government is selling off state assets in a big privatization spree.
US fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Halliburton are participating in discussions to take over the Eastern European nation’s oil and gas industry, as Kiev pushes to increase production to replace Russian energy exports.
This comes soon after Ukraine’s Western-backed leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, sent a friendly video message to a US corporate lobby group, thanking companies like BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Starlink, and promising “big business” for others.
In September, Zelensky also symbolically opened the New York Stock Exchange, announcing that his country is “open for business”, offering more than $400 billion in “public-private partnerships, privatization, and private ventures” for US companies.

The Ukrainian government has used the war as an excuse to ram through some of the most aggressive anti-worker laws on Earth.
The director of the Kiev-based workers’ rights NGO Labor Initiatives warned of a “full-scale attack on Ukraine’s labour rights”, writing in a German government-funded journal that the “war cannot be used to justify stripping workers of their rights”.
In an attempt to bring an end to this war, China has taken the lead in advocating peace talks. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva has backed Beijing’s efforts.
The West, on the other hand, has vociferously opposed all attempts at diplomatic negotiations and instead pushed to escalate the NATO proxy war on Russia, sending fighter jets and tanks to Kiev.
Ukrainian officials, meanwhile, are treating their country as a for-profit company, frequently travelling to the United States in search of lucrative business opportunities.

The CEO of Ukraine’s state-owned energy company Naftogaz, Oleksiy Chernyshov, flew to Washington, DC this April to meet with US political and corporate officials.
The Financial Times reported that Chernyshov sat down with representatives from ExxonMobil and Halliburton, following a similar meeting with Chevron in January.
“The negotiations with big US fossil fuel players are part of a strategic push to increase natural gas production that Ukrainian officials believe could help replace Russian supply to Europe in the years ahead”, the newspaper wrote.
As the war drags on, Ukraine is selling off state assets in a big privatization spree. US fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Halliburton are in discussions to run the country's energy industry.
Full video here: https://t.co/gxzQEZrNOL pic.twitter.com/Q39YCy1zdJ
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 27, 2023

Halliburton is notorious for its involvement in corruption schemes, involving fat government contracts. In 2017, it was fined $29.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with highly profitable oilfield services contracts in Angola.
Halliburton is also the world’s biggest provider of fracking services, or hydraulic fracturing, a controversial form of gas extraction that is so environmentally destructive it was banned in the United Kingdom.
Responding to the Financial Times report, economist Yanis Varoufakis, who previously served as Greece’s minister of finance, tweeted: “And there you have it. EXXON, HALLIBURTON & CHEVRON, after Iraq, are now taking over the Ukrainian oil and gas fields. Planning to introduce large scale fracking – a clear and present threat to poison U’s agriculture”.
And there you have it. EXXON, HALLIBURTON & CHEVRON, after Iraq, are now taking over the Ukrainian oil and gas fields. Planning to introduce large scale fracking – a clear and present threat to poison U's agriculture pic.twitter.com/LlC0nv39qk
— Yanis Varoufakis (@yanisvaroufakis) April 22, 2023

Chernyshov, the CEO of Ukraine’s state energy company Naftogaz, told the newspaper, “We want them [Halliburton] to expand [their presence] dramatically. We want them there seriously — boots on the ground”.
“We will welcome them”, he added. “We can do joint production on gas together, PSA agreement — production sharing agreement — they can have a licence and produce by themselves, we will welcome it”.
In November, the president of Halliburton in the eastern hemisphere, Joe Rainey, travelled to Ukraine to meet with Chernyshov.
Naftogaz published a press release on its website boasting that it “is strengthening its strategic cooperation with American’s Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oilfield services providers, to unlock the new potential of Ukraine’s fields”.
“Your support and visit to Kyiv is a powerful signal for the entire market and the world”, Chernyshov said. “I am grateful to the US government, the American people and you personally for your comprehensive support of Ukraine. We really appreciate it. Our cooperation is extremely important and we are doing our best to improve and expand it”.
Naftogaz and @Halliburton boost strategic cooperationhttps://t.co/RFLunXsK4x
— Naftogaz of Ukraine (@NaftogazUkraine) November 25, 2022

Halliburton was a household name in the United States in the 2000s, and was practically synonymous with corruption.
Vice President Dick Cheney, who served under former President George W. Bush, had worked for years as chairman and CEO of Halliburton.
Cheney, a hardline neoconservative, was a key architect of the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003. That same year, Halliburton was given what NPR described as a “‘sweetheart’ deal in Iraq”.
NPR wrote:
Oil services company Halliburton has come under intense scrutiny over its multi-billion-dollar contracts with the U.S. military in Iraq. Congressional critics want to know if the company is engaging in gold-plating contracts — inflating costs and pocketing the difference. Other critics charge that Halliburton has seemingly become another branch of the U.S. military, while the company’s former chief executive officer, Dick Cheney, is now the vice president.
In the first of a three-part series looking at the complex relationship between the defense contractor and the federal government, NPR’s John Burnett examines the scope of contracts in Iraq held by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, better known as KBR.
America’s war on terrorism has created a windfall for KBR. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the company has constructed base camps at more than 60 locations throughout the Middle East and South Asia. Under its deal with the Pentagon — known as a “Logcap” contract — KBR is the go-to company to provide troops in Iraq with everything from portable toilets to Internet cafes.
A decade later, the International Business Times reported that Halliburton subsidiary KBR had received more Iraq-related contracts than any other private firm in the 10 years of the war.
The media outlet reported:
The company [KBR] was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks.
The Financial Times reported that the Ukrainian government specifically hopes to drill for offshore natural gas in the Black Sea, off of Crimea. Kiev is unable to access that gas, however.
Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014, following a referendum with 83% turnout in which 97% of participants said they wanted to join the Russian Federation. Western governments cast doubt on the vote, but polling by mainstream US firm Pew Research found that 91% of Crimeans said the referendum was free and fair and 88% wanted Ukraine to recognize the results.
Despite Crimeans’ overwhelming support for integration with Russia, Ukraine and its NATO sponsors have insisted that they will retake the region – not only because of its valuable offshore gas reserves, but also due its deep geostrategic importance for Russia.
Russia only has one warm water naval base, the Sevastopol base in Crimea. This is the main base used by Russia’s Black Sea Fleet – and, without it, the sea would effectively become controlled by NATO.
For Moscow, this is genuinely a security concern, not one motivated by ulterior economic interests.
Even the US military-backed think tank the RAND Corporation conceded this, publishing a report in April 2022 titled “Russia Does Not Seem to Be After Ukraine’s Gas Reserves”.
RAND wrote:
Ukraine does indeed control Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas, almost 80 percent of which are located east of the Dnipro River. However, these reserves amount to less than 3 percent of Russia’s total natural gas reserves.
And though Ukraine theoretically might have considerable shale gas reserves, they remain largely unproven, and Russia currently has no experience or technology for shale gas production.
The geostrategic location of Russia’s only warm water naval base, in Sevastopol, Crimea
During his trip to Washington this April, Naftogaz CEO Chernyshov not only met with corporate executives; he also sat down with senior government officials, like former US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
Pyatt represented Washington in Kiev during a violent US-backed coup in 2014, which overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government and installed a pro-Western regime.
A notorious leaked phone call from top State Department official Victoria Nuland showed US officials deciding who would run the Ukrainian government after the coup. Joining Nuland on the call was none other than Pyatt.
Today, Pyatt serves as US assistant secretary of state for energy resources, and he also coordinates cooperation between the G7 and Ukraine.
In a press release on Chernyshov’s meeting with Pyatt, Naftogaz wrote with pride that it “is working to attract American companies – their technologies, expertise and investments – to increase production in Ukraine”.
“We discussed a number of issues. From Ukraine’s new role in Europe’s energy security system to the implementation of corporate governance reform”, Chernyshov said.

On his trip to Washington, Naftogaz CEO Chernyshov also met with representatives from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the US-dominated financial institution that is infamous for imposing neoliberal economic policies on indebted nations.
This March, the IMF made the unprecedented decision of approving a $15.6 billion loan for Ukraine.
The IMF had never before provided financing to a country that is at war. A reporter at US state media outlet NPR admitted that the IMF had to implement a “rule change”, which “was obviously, you know, politically motivated”.
Since it was created in 1944, the IMF refused to give loans to countries at war
But it is now giving $15.6 billion to Ukraine
US state media NPR admits the "rule change was obviously politically motivated"
This is the US "rules-based order": change the rules when it suits you pic.twitter.com/u0GKLMFsmB
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 1, 2023

Naftogaz declared in a press release that “successful and consistent cooperation with the IMF is crucial for Ukraine’s resilience during the war”.
Using racist rhetoric that implied that Russia is “uncivilized”, Chernyshov stated:
Cooperation with the IMF is crucial for the stability of our country in times of war. The fact that we have a program is a signal to the civilized world that the country is moving in the right direction. Ukraine has made its civilizational choice. Naftogaz has fulfilled its part of the conditions for our country to receive the IMF program. This demonstrates that we are a reliable partner. Naftogaz will not let the country down.

The Naftogaz statement did not clarify what these “conditions” were, but a February press release from the IMF made it clear that it includes neoliberal reforms.
The IMF reported that its discussions with Ukrainian authorities “covered the medium-term macroeconomic framework, fiscal policy, the financing mix, financial sector policies, and governance”.
The IMF’s conditions included, “In particular, reform initiatives to enhance productivity and competitiveness of the private sector need to be advanced to help lay the foundation for a robust post-war growth against a backdrop of progress toward EU accession”.
Reforms to “enhance productivity and competitiveness of the private sector” is a euphemistic way of saying that Ukraine must further privatize state-owned industries and sell off public assets.
In its statement, the IMF stressed, “The private sector is also expected to contribute to the reconstruction efforts”.
The Fund also wrote favorably of “draft tax laws aimed to increase revenues”, calling for “shoring up tax revenues” and “creating fiscal space for war-related repairs”.
“Efforts to expand issuance in the domestic bond market should continue to help ensure a stable financing mix and eliminate reliance on monetary financing”, it added.
In short, the IMF’s conditions for Ukraine are a typical reflection of the Washington Consensus: neoliberal austerity measures, which increase the burden on Ukrainian workers, whose living standards are declining and who have fewer and fewer rights, while US corporations are offered profitable opportunities to buy up public assets.


Instruction: Write an article about: NATO’s Atlantic Council promoted Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. 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: Atlantic Council, Azov Battalion, fascism, Nazis, Russia, Ukraine

Output:
NATO’s think tank the Atlantic Council, funded by the US and European governments, promoted Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in 2014, depicting its far-right extremist fighters as anti-Russia heroes while whitewashing their fascist ideology.

The NATO military alliance’s de facto think tank, the Atlantic Council, promoted a notorious neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine, the Azov Battalion, in a 2014 article that depicted the fascist extremists as anti-Russian heroes.
The Atlantic Council is one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington. With funding from the US State Department, numerous Western governments, NATO, and the weapons industry, it plays a key role in shaping US foreign policy, particularly toward Russia.
The Atlantic Council published a report in June 2014 titled “The Battle For Mariupol.” It was little more than a press release for Azov, written by a reporter who embedded inside the neo-Nazi militia.
The article was posted in the think tank’s “New Atlanticist” blog. It identified the author, Askold Krushelnycky, simply as a “British journalist embedded with the Azov Battalion.”
Azov preaches a white supremacist Nazi ideology that portrays Ukrainians as a pure white race fighting “Asiatic” Russians in a war to maintain racial purity. The battalion uses explicit Nazi symbols, including the German Wolfsangel and Black Sun.
The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion
The Atlantic Council article mentioned nothing at all about Azov’s fascist politics.
Reporting on a battle between Ukrainian Russian-speaking independence supporters and far-right Azov extremists over the southeastern city of Mariupol, the article called it “a good piece of news for Ukraine’s government” that the Nazi militias won in combat.
In order to defeat these Ukrainian Russian-speaking independence fighters, the Western-backed government in Kiev essentially relied on local fascist gangs hired by wealthy oligarchs.
The Atlantic Council euphemistically described these as “local or provincial-level Ukrainian battalions that have been raised, often by pro-Kyiv business magnates, to fill a gap created by the uneven performance of Ukraine’s national military.”
After a 2014 US-sponsored coup d’etat in Ukraine, in which far-right extremist groups played a leading role, Azov was officially incorporated into the country’s National Guard.
The author of the report, Krushelnycky, published a photo of a makeshift armored vehicle used by the Nazi militia, which he said “looked like one of the vehicles from the Mad Max films.”
The Atlantic Council shared this photo on its official Flickr account, with a Creative Commons license that allows for free republication.

On Flickr, the Atlantic Council created a special album specifically for the photos of the Ukrainian Nazis. (The album is archived here, and the specific photos are archived here, in case the think tank deletes them.) All of the photos were released under the Creative Commons license.

The Atlantic Council even published two photos (archived here) of prisoners taken by the Ukrainian Nazis, describing them as “captured separatist militants.”

The NATO think tank added that one of the Azov prisoners “wears an orange-and-black band on his left wrist, which identifies him as pro-Russian.”

Anti-Russia critics have often claimed that the accusation that Ukraine’s Western-backed government is infiltrated by neo-Nazis and far-right extremists is “Russian propaganda.”
Yet in 2018, the Atlantic Council itself admitted this undeniable fact, in an article titled “Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn’t Write This Headline).”
The post reported that Ukraine’s Ministry of Youth and Sports gave funding to the neo-Nazi group C14 to promote “national patriotic education projects.” C14 has launched brutal attacks on the Roma and LGBTQ communities.
It also cited mainstream human rights organization Amnesty International, which warned that “Ukraine is sinking into a chaos of uncontrolled violence posed by radical groups and their total impunity.”

When some US lawmakers launched a campaign to try to get Azov listed as a terrorist organization, due to its close links to violent white-supremacist fascist groups inside the United States, the Atlantic Council pushed back.
In 2020, the NATO think tank published an article titled “Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization,” written by anti-Russia researcher Anton Shekhovtsov.
The post admitted that it is “indisputable” that Azov’s ideology is rooted in Nazism, and the “leading core of” it “was formed by the far right.” But Shekhovtsov argued that Azov must not be designated a terrorist organization because it is a special operations detachment of the Ukrainian National Guard, and therefore “an integral part of official structures” of the state, following “orders given by the Interior Ministry.”
Labeling this Ukrainian government-sponsored Nazi group a terrorist organization would be a “gift to the Kremlin,” Shekhovtsov insisted.

Back in 2014, the Atlantic Council was heroizing these very same Nazis.
The author of the “The Battle For Mariupol” report, Askold Krushelnycky, acknowledged that the pro-Kiev/Western side consisted of roughly 400 fighters, half of whom were Azov Nazis, with the rest comprised of soldiers from Ukraine’s army, national guard, and volunteer units, led by a Ukrainian army general.
Krushelnycky noted that some of these Azov extremists had also fought alongside Georgians and Chechens in their previous wars against Russia.
The Atlantic Council article implicitly admitted that these Nazis played a key role as the muscle behind the violent US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014. Krushelnycky wrote:
Many of the [Azov] battalion’s members took part in the months of mass demonstrations against their former pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, after he reneged on his promise to bring his country closer to the European Union and instead sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Some of those now in the battalion were the persons who transformed the passionate protests into revolution and were in the forefront of street battles against Yanukovych’s brutal security forces.
The “Battle For Mariupol” report makes absolutely no mention of Azov’s fascist ideology.
The closest it comes to disclosing Azov’s extremist politics is one sentence: “The battalion has had political support from hardline Ukrainian nationalists such as Oleh Lyashko, a parliament member from the Radical Party who won 8 percent of votes in last month’s presidential election.”
Krushelnycky described Oleh Lyashko merely as a “nationalist politician.” In reality, he is a notorious right-wing extremist.
Even more deceptively, the Atlantic Council report mentioned the leader of Azov, Andriy Biletsky, but did not say anything about his fascist ideology.
Biletsky helped found two different neo-Nazi groups, the Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine, both of which use the German Wolfsangel symbol.
Just a few months after the Atlantic Council published this article whitewashing and praising a neo-Nazi militia, the NATO think tank held a special event with Ukraine’s Western-backed president, Petro Poroshenko.
#Ukraine's @poroshenko: "This is my country. This is my land. This is my soil – and soul." #ACUkraine pic.twitter.com/5zzq0HPhcf
— Atlantic Council (@AtlanticCouncil) September 18, 2014

Poroshenko, a billionaire oligarch known as the “chocolate king,” is infamous for his ties to far-right extremists as well. One of his advisors wrote a neo-Nazi symbol on Facebook that combines a white supremacist slogan with “Heil Hitler.”
Poroshenko also posed for a photo op with a soldier wearing a Nazi symbol, and even shared a historical photo of German Nazis marching Jews to a death camp and falsely blamed it on the Soviet Union.
In September 2014, Poroshenko was personally given an award by the Atlantic Council’s president and CEO, Fred Kempe; the NATO think tank’s chairman, Jon Huntsman; and the US chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez.
They were rewarding Poroshenko for his aggressive pro-Western and anti-Russian policies.


Instruction: Write an article about: ‘World War 3 has already started’ between US and Russia/China, argues French scholar. 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, Emmanuel Todd, Europe, France, Germany, Le Figaro, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

Output:
Prominent French intellectual Emmanuel Todd argues the Ukraine proxy war is the start of WWIII, and is “existential” for both Russia and the US “imperial system”, which has restricted the sovereignty of Europe, making Brussels into Washington’s “protectorate”.

(Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.)
A prominent French intellectual has written a book arguing that the United States is already waging World War Three against Russia and China.
He also warned that Europe has become a kind of imperial “protectorate”, which has little sovereignty and is essentially controlled by the US.

Emmanuel Todd is a widely respected anthropologist and historian in France.
In 2022, Todd published a book titled “The Third World War Has Started” (“La Troisième Guerre mondiale a commencé” in French). At the moment, it is only available in Japan.
But Todd outlined the main arguments he made in the book in a French-language interview with the major newspaper Le Figaro, conducted by the journalist Alexandre Devecchio.
According to Todd, the proxy war in Ukraine is “existential” not only for Russia, but also for the United States.
The US “imperial system” is weakening in much of the world, he observed, but this is leading Washington to “strengthen its hold on its initial protectorates”: Europe and Japan.
This means that “Germany and France had become minor partners in NATO”, Todd said, and NATO is really a “Washington-London-Warsaw-Kiev” bloc.
US and EU sanctions have failed to crush Russia, as Western capitals had hoped, he noted. This means that “the resistance of the Russian economy is pushing the American imperial system toward the precipice”, and “the American monetary and financial controls of the world would collapse”.
The French public intellectual pointed to UN votes concerning Russia, and cautioned that the West is out of touch with the rest of the world.
“Western newspapers are tragically funny. They don’t stop saying, ‘Russia is isolated, Russia is isolated’. But when we look at the votes of the United Nations, we see that 75% of the world does not follow the West, which then seems very small”, Todd observed.
He also criticized the GDP metrics used by Western neoclassical economists for downplaying the productive capacity of the Russian economy, while simultaneously exaggerating that of financialized neoliberal economies like in the United States.
Emmanuel Todd, one of the greatest French intellectuals today, claims that the "Third World War has started."
Small ? translating the most important points in this fascinating interview.https://t.co/eYdKoBJx7B
— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) January 13, 2023

In the Le Figaro interview, Todd argued (all emphasis added):
This is the reality, World War III has begun. It is true that it started ‘small’ and with two surprises. We went into this war with the idea that the Russian army was very powerful and that its economy was very weak.
It was thought that Ukraine was going to be crushed militarily and that Russia would be crushed economically by the West. But the reverse happened. Ukraine was not crushed militarily even if it lost 16% of its territory on that date; Russia was not crushed economically. As I speak to you, the ruble has gained 8% against the dollar and 18% against the euro since the day before the start of the war.
So there was a sort of misunderstanding. But it is obvious that the conflict, passing from a limited territorial war to a global economic confrontation, between the whole of the West on the one hand and Russia backed by China on the other hand, has become a war world. Even if military violence is low compared to that of previous world wars.
The newspaper asked Todd if he was exaggerating. He replied, “We still provide weapons. We kill Russians, even if we don’t expose ourselves. But it remains true that we Europeans are above all economically engaged. We also feel our true entry into war through the inflation and shortages”.
Todd understated his case. He didn’t mention the fact that, after the US sponsored the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014, setting off a civil war, the CIA and Pentagon immediately began training Ukrainian forces to fight Russia.
The New York Times has acknowledged that the CIA and special operations forces from numerous European countries are on the ground in Ukraine. And the CIA and a European NATO ally are even carrying out sabotage attacks inside Russian territory.
Nevertheless, in the interview, Todd continued:
Putin made a big mistake early on, which is of immense sociohistorical interest. Those who worked on Ukraine on the eve of the war considered the country not as a fledgling democracy, but as a society in decay and a ‘failed state’ in the making.
I think the Kremlin’s calculation was that this decaying society would crumble at the first shock, or even say ‘welcome Mom’ to holy Russia. But what we have discovered, on the contrary, is that a society in decomposition, if it is fed by external financial and military resources, can find in war a new type of balance, and even a horizon, a hope. The Russians could not have foreseen it. No one could.
Todd said he shares the view of Ukraine of US political scientist John Mearsheimer, a realist who has criticized Washington’s hawkish foreign policy.
Mearsheimer “told us that Ukraine, whose army had been taken over by NATO soldiers (American, British and Polish) since at least 2014, was therefore a de facto member of NATO, and that the Russians had announced that they would never tolerate a NATO member Ukraine,” Todd said.
For Russia, this is there a war that is “from their point of view defensive and preventative,” he conceded.
“Mearsheimer added that we would have no reason to rejoice in the eventual difficulties of the Russians because, since this is an existential question for them, the harder it was, the harder they would hit. The analysis seems to hold true.”
However, Todd argued that Mearsheimer “does not go far enough” in his analysis. The US political scientist has overlooked how Washington has restricted the sovereignty of Berlin and Paris, Todd said:
Germany and France had become minor partners in NATO and were not aware of what was going on in Ukraine on the military level. French and German naivety has been criticized because our governments did not believe in the possibility of a Russian invasion. True, but because they did not know that Americans, British and Poles could make Ukraine be able to wage a larger war. The fundamental axis of NATO now is Washington-London-Warsaw-Kiev.
Mearsheimer, like a good American, overestimates his country. He considers that, if for the Russians the war in Ukraine is existential, for the Americans it is nothing but a power “game” among others. After Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, one debacle more or less… What does it matter?
The basic axiom of American geopolitics is: ‘We can do whatever we want because we are sheltered, far away, between two oceans, nothing will ever happen to us’. Nothing would be existential for America. Insufficiency of analysis which today leads Biden to a series of reckless actions.
America is fragile. The resistance of the Russian economy is pushing the American imperial system toward the precipice. No one had expected that the Russian economy would hold up against the “economic power” of NATO. I believe that the Russians themselves did not anticipate it.
The French public intellectual went on in the interview to argue that, by resisting the full force of Western sanctions, Russia and China pose a threat to “the American monetary and financial controls of the world”.
This, in turn, challenges the US status as the issuer of the global reserve currency, which gives it the ability to maintain a “huge trade deficit”:
If the Russian economy resisted the sanctions indefinitely and managed to exhaust the European economy, while it itself remained backed by China, the American monetary and financial controls of the world would collapse, and with them the possibility for United States to fund its huge trade deficit for nothing.
This war has therefore become existential for the United States. No more than Russia, they cannot withdraw from the conflict, they cannot let go. This is why we are now in an endless war, in a confrontation whose outcome must be the collapse of one or the other.
Todd warned that, while the United States is weakening in much of the world, its “imperial system” is “strengthening its hold on its initial protectorates”: Europe and Japan.
He explained:
Everywhere we see the weakening of the United States, but not in Europe and Japan because one of the effects of the retraction of the imperial system is that the United States strengthens its hold on its initial protectorates.
If we read [Zbigniew] Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard), we see that the American empire was formed at the end of the Second World War by the conquest of Germany and Japan, which are still protectorates today. As the American system shrinks, it weighs more and more heavily on the local elites of the protectorates (and I include all of Europe here).
The first to lose all national autonomy will be (or already are) the English and the Australians. The Internet has produced human interaction with the United States in the Anglosphere of such intensity that its academic, media and artistic elites are, so to speak, annexed. On the European continent we are somewhat protected by our national languages, but the fall in our autonomy is considerable, and rapid.
As an example of a moment in recent history when Europe was more independent, Todd pointed out, “Let us remember the war in Iraq, when Chirac, Schröder and Putin held joint press conferences against the war” – referring to the former leaders of France (Jacques Chirac) and Germany (Gerhard Schröder).
The interviewer at Le Figaro newspaper, Alexandre Devecchio, countered Todd asking, “Many observers point out that Russia has the GDP of Spain. Aren’t you overestimating its economic power and resilience?”
Todd criticized the overreliance on GDP as a metric, calling it a “fictional measure of production” that obscures the real productive forces in an economy:
War becomes a test of political economy, it is the great revealer. The GDP of Russia and Belarus represents 3.3% of Western GDP (the US, Anglosphere, Europe, Japan, South Korea), practically nothing. One can ask oneself how this insignificant GDP can cope and continue to produce missiles.
The reason is that GDP is a fictional measure of production. If we take away from the American GDP half of its overbilled health spending, then the “wealth produced” by the activity of its lawyers, by the most filled prisons in the world, then by an entire economy of ill-defined services, including the “production” of its 15 to 20 thousand economists with an average salary of 120,000 dollars, we realize that an important part of this GDP is water vapor.
War brings us back to the real economy, it allows us to understand what the real wealth of nations is, the capacity for production, and therefore the capacity for war.
Todd noted that Russia has shown “a real capacity to adapt”. He attributed this to the “very large role for the state” in the Russian economy, in contrast to the US neoliberal economic model:
If we come back to material variables, we see the Russian economy. In 2014, we put in place the first important sanctions against Russia, but then it increased its wheat production, which went from 40 to 90 million tons in 2020. Meanwhile, thanks to neoliberalism, American wheat production, between 1980 and 2020, went from 80 to 40 million tons.
…
Russia has therefore a real capacity to adapt. When we want to make fun of centralized economies, we emphasize their rigidity, and when we glorify capitalism, we praise its flexibility.
…
The Russian economy, for its part, has accepted the rules of operation of the market (it is even an obsession of Putin to preserve them), but with a very large role for the state, but it also derives its flexibility from training engineers, who allow the industrial and military adaptations.
This point is similar to what economist Michael Hudson has argued – that although Moscow’s economy is no longer socialist, like that of the Soviet Union was, the Russian Federation’s state-led industrial capitalism clashes with the financialized model of neoliberal capitalism that the United States has tried to impose on the world.


Instruction: Write an article about: West must support Ukraine ‘no matter what my German voters think’, says FM Baerbock. 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: Annalena Baerbock, Czech Republic, Forum 2000, Germany, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

Output:
Germany’s hawkish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock insisted NATO must “stand with Ukraine as long as they need us”, pledging military support “no matter what my German voters think”.

Germany’s hawkish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock essentially argued that Western military support for Ukraine is more important than democracy.
Baerbock insisted that European governments must continue backing Ukraine in the NATO proxy war with Russia, “no matter what my German voters think”.
“We stand with Ukraine as long as they need us”, Baerbock emphasized, adding, “If I give the promise to people in Ukraine, ‘We stand with you as long as you need us’, then I want to deliver, no matter what my German voters think, but I want to deliver to the people of Ukraine”.
She made these comments at the conference of the Western government-sponsored Forum 2000, which was held in the Czech Republic.
Baerbock’s remarks can clearly be heard in an August 31 livestream of the meeting.
The Forum 2000 conference was funded primarily by the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a notorious CIA cutout, as well as the Czech government and the Visegrad Fund, a soft-power organization funded by the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland.

The conference was likewise bankrolled by the European Commission, US embassy in the Czech Republic, and Taiwan.
The Forum 2000 Foundation is supported by a Who’s Who of Western government-backed institutions.

Germany has seen skyrocketing energy prices, largely due to Western sanctions on Russia. These rising energy costs have been a major contributor to inflation.
Russia was the European Union’s biggest energy partner, and the biggest provider of both oil and gas to Germany.

Germany is the industrial heart of the EU, and its manufacturing sector needs massive supplies of cheap energy to remain competitive.
By cutting off its closest energy partner, Germany is fueling significant de-industrialization.


Instruction: Write an article about: CNN calls indigenous Palestinians ‘settlers’ while whitewashing Israeli settler-colonialism. 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: CNN, corporate media, Israel, media, Palestine, Trita Parsi

Output:
Top US media outlet CNN referred to indigenous Palestinians as “settlers,” in a report whitewashing Israeli settler-colonialism in Jerusalem.

Top US media outlet CNN referred to indigenous Palestinians as “settlers,” in a report whitewashing Israeli settler-colonialism.
The network turned reality on its head, portraying Palestinians defending their ancestral homes as aggressors, and Israeli colonialists illegally trying to take over Jerusalem as victims.
On February 15, CNN published a video report titled “Israeli nationalists clash with Palestinians over Jerusalem housing settlements.”
An archived version of the story shows that it had the following subtitle: “CNN’s Andrew Carey reports on the tensions, that sometimes turn violent, between Israeli nationalists and Palestinian settlers over housing in Jerusalem.”

In reality, the Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem are indigenous, and the Israeli “nationalists” described by CNN are far-right extremists who are trying to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, take over their houses, and colonize their communities, in flagrant violation of international law.
Analyst Trita Parsi drew attention to the scandalous report on Twitter.
“UNBELIEVABLE!,” Parsi wrote. “CNN now claims that Palestinians are SETTLERS, while Israelis are nationalists.”
“CNN not only doesn’t call illegal Israeli settlements ‘settlements’ (but neighborhoods), now they have even started claiming that it is the Palestinians who are the settlers,” he added.
UNBELIEVABLE!
CNN now claims that Palestinians are SETTLERS, while Israelis are nationalists.
CNN not only doesn't call illegal Israeli settlements "settlements" (but neighborhoods), now they have even started claiming that it is the Palestinians who are the settlers… pic.twitter.com/dJrKLjx6CR
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) February 15, 2022

In response to the backlash, CNN published a correction, writing in a new subtitle, “A previous version of this incorrectly referred to Palestinian homes in Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood as settlements and Palestinians as settlers.”

Even mainstream pro-Western lobby organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have acknowledged that Israel is an apartheid regime committing crimes against humanity against the indigenous Palestinian population.
"Palestinians, through their resistance, in all its forms, are forcing even these liberal human rights organizations to recognize the reality" of apartheid, @AliAbunimah explained in the interviewhttps://t.co/FzORmB3UX7
— Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 3, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: US wants to surround China with missiles – but can’t find Asian country to host them. 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: Australia, China, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand

Output:
The United States plans to spend billions of dollars to surround China with missiles. But a US military-sponsored study concluded its Pacific allies South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia are unlikely to host the offensive weapons.

The United States plans to spend tens of billions of dollars to surround China with missiles. But it’s having trouble finding an Asian country willing to host the offensive weapons.
The US military commissioned a study from the RAND Corporation, a Pentagon-backed research group, to assess the feasibility of deploying intermediate-range missiles to the Pacific.
The study closely analyzed the US government’s relations with its five treaty allies in the region: Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.
Citing “an inability to find a willing partner,” the RAND report concluded that the chance of these nations hosting US ground-based intermediate-range missiles “is very low as long as current domestic political conditions and regional security trends hold.”
The Donald Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019. This means Washington can now deploy ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, RAND noted.
The study refers to these weapons as ground-based intermediate-range missiles, using the acronym GBIRMs.
“Finding an ally willing to host GBIRMs is more challenging than finding allies willing to host other types of U.S. military forces, such as air bases,” RAND wrote.
RAND conceded that this opposition is logical: “There are several reasons why U.S. allies could deny access to and use of their territories, including fears that hosting such systems could intensify a regional arms race with China; the risk of the deployment being seen as provocative, sparking harsh reactions from Beijing; and fears of entrapment in a conflict between the United States and China that does not directly involve the ally.”
Given this reality, the RAND report suggested other possibilities for the US to militarily encircle and threaten China, including by deploying ground-based intermediate-range missiles instead to Guam, which is a US colony in the Pacific.
RAND concluded that the most realistic approach would be for Washington to strengthen Japan’s military to counter China.
The major Japanese media outlet Nikkei published an article on this RAND study. It noted, “In a six-year investment plan submitted to Congress in February last year, the U.S. military’s Indo-Pacific Command made it clear that ground-based weapons will be crucial in breaking through China’s defense systems.”
In 2021, Nikkei exclusively obtained a copy of the “Pacific Deterrence Initiative” that US Indo-Pacific Command submitted to Congress.
The strategy revealed that the US military plans on spending $27.4 billion over six years to install precision-strike missiles on the first island chain – the first chain of islands off of the coast of East Asia, which includes Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines.
The U.S. will establish a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain as part of $27.4 billion in spending to be considered for the Indo-Pacific theater over the next six years, Nikkei has learned.https://t.co/dPdbmnlpXg pic.twitter.com/RiyCpuYPrp
— Andy Sharp (@sharp_writing) March 5, 2021

The US military proposal lamented that Beijing is challenging Washington’s hegemony in the region, writing, “Without a valid and convincing conventional deterrent, China is emboldened to take action in the region and globally to supplant U.S. interests.”
Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a former vice president of and lobbyist for weapons corporation Raytheon, said in 2019 that the United States sought to deploy intermediate-range missiles to the Pacific region “sooner, rather than later.”
Acknowledging that the Joe Biden administration has continued Trump’s aggressive policies against China, the RAND report emphasized, “The strategic logic that underlies this thinking did not change with the transition of administrations in Washington.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a historic speech on May 26 making it clear that the US government is waging a policy of containment and siege against China, similar to the one that Washington pursued against the Soviet Union in the first cold war.
The RAND report, which is titled “Ground-Based Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Indo-Pacific Assessing the Positions of U.S. Allies,” was commissioned by the US military’s Pacific Air Forces, and was written by political scientist Jeffrey W. Hornung.
It analyzes Washington’s relations with its five treaty allies in the Pacific region, and explained why they are unlikely to host US ground-based intermediate-range missiles.
RAND wrote, “It is highly unlikely that Thailand, the Philippines, or the Republic of Korea (ROK) would agree to host U.S. GBIRMs, and there is a small likelihood that Australia or Japan would do so, although the possibility that an agreement might be struck with Tokyo is only slightly greater.”
Thailand
“Thailand would be highly unlikely to accept,” the RAND study conceded. It noted that the Thai “government shows a propensity to pursue closer ties with China.”
Philippines
“The Philippines is extremely unlikely to accept the deployment of U.S. GBIRMs,” RAND wrote, adding that the “U.S. alliance with the Philippines is in a state of flux, although it is improving.”
RAND continued: “While the Philippine public and elites generally support the United States and the alliance, President Rodrigo Duterte has pursued policies that negatively affect ties. Specifically, Duterte has advocated closer ties with Beijing while pursuing policies that weaken core pillars of the U.S.-Philippine alliance.”
South Korea
South Korea, officially known as the Republic of Korea (ROK), “retains a close relationship with China,” RAND cautioned.
The study concluded that “a general deterioration of U.S.-ROK relations suggest that it is highly unlikely that the ROK would consent to host U.S. GBIRMs.”
Australia
“The U.S. alliance with Australia is strong. Australia also remains economically close to China, but their bilateral ties have been fraying,” RAND wrote.
Yet “Australia’s historical reluctance to host permanent foreign bases, combined with the geographical distance of Australia from continental Asia, makes this possibility unlikely.”
Japan
The RAND report assessed that “Japan is the regional ally that appears most likely to host U.S. GBIRMs.”
It acknowledged, however, that this possibility “remains low, heavily caveated by the challenge of accepting any increase in U.S. presence and deploying weapons that are explicitly offensive in nature.”


Instruction: Write an article about: Russia strengthens ‘military-technical cooperation’ with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba amid US threats. 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: Cuba, Daniel Ortega, Miguel Díaz-Canel, Nicaragua, Nicolás Maduro, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Vladimir Putin

Output:
Russia said it is expanding “military-technical cooperation” with Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, after Putin had phone calls with the presidents of the three socialist governments, which have been targeted by illegal US sanctions and coup attempts.

Russia is strengthening its alliance with Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, as the United States accelerates its campaign to isolate all four countries.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told his country’s parliament, the Duma, that Moscow was expanding its cooperation with the three socialist Latin American governments in all areas, including “military-technical cooperation.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin had friendly phone calls with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel between January 18 and 24, reaffirming Moscow’s “unwavering support.”
The Donald Trump administration dubbed Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba the so-called “Troika of Tyranny,” in comments made by neoconservative former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
The United States has imposed unilateral economic sanctions, which are illegal under international law, on all three. Venezuela is suffering under an unlawful US embargo, and Cuba has been crushed by a US blockade for six decades – while more than 95% of the members of the United Nations General Assembly have voted to condemn this blockade annually for 29 years.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov explained that, in recent talks with the leaders of these three Latin American countries, “Ways to deepen our strategic association were looked at in all areas, without exception.”
“In terms of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, we have very close relations and strategic cooperation in all areas: in the economy, culture, education, and military-technical cooperation,” he said.
“Our partnership with Latin American countries is deepening,” Lavrov added, calling them “three friendly states close to us.”
While Russia strengthens its alliance with Latin American leftists, Joe Biden has resorted to neocolonial rhetoric. In a January 19 press conference, the US president referred to Latin America as Washington’s “front yard,” declaring, “Everything south of the Mexican border is America’s front yard.”
These diplomatic moves come at a point of historic high tensions between Washington and Moscow.
The United States and Britain have provoked a crisis in Russia’s neighbor Ukraine, sending weapons and encouraging a military buildup that could spill over into war.
This follows years of instability caused by a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014, which was sponsored by the US and the European Union in order to install a pro-Western and vehemently anti-Russian government in Kiev.
Washington and London have insisted, without presenting any evidence, that Russia will soon send troops to take over Ukraine – although top officials in Kiev have publicly denied that Russia plans to invade their country.
Russia has demanded that the United States pledge not to expand NATO further and not to deploy more weapons and soldiers to the nations on its borders.
Washington and Moscow held talks in Geneva, but they broke down on January 13, because the US refused to make any concessions.
Faced with the diplomatic dead-end, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told a Russian media outlet that Moscow could not rule out the possibility of sending a military deployment to Venezuela or Cuba.
Russia’s alliance with Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba was reaffirmed in recent conversations President Putin had with the leaders of the three socialist Latin American states.
Putin called Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega on January 18, congratulating him on his re-election and January 10 inauguration.
According to the readout from the Foreign Ministry, Putin “reaffirmed Russia’s unwavering support for the efforts of the Nicaraguan Government to ensure national sovereignty and its commitment to continue facilitating the republic’s socioeconomic development.” They also “reaffirmed the importance of continued close cooperation in the international arena in keeping with the strategic partnership between Russia and Nicaragua.”
On January 20, Putin called Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Foreign Ministry used very similar language to describe the call: the “leaders reaffirmed their commitment to close coordination in international affairs in keeping with the principles of strategic partnership that underlie bilateral relations,” and “Putin expressed his unwavering support for the Venezuelan authorities’ efforts to strengthen the sovereignty of the country and ensure its socioeconomic development.”
Then on January 24, Putin called Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, and Moscow said the “presidents discussed further coordination of Russia’s and Cuba’s actions in the international arena in line with the principles of strategic partnership and the traditions of friendship and mutual understanding.”


Instruction: Write an article about: ICJ’s Israel genocide decision: Historic victory for Palestinians and Global South. 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: Gaza, Hague, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Israel, Palestine

Output:
The historic decision by the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel may be violating the genocide convention is a victory for the Palestinian people, and Global South as a whole, after centuries of Western colonialism.

The International Court of Justice at the Hague made history on January 26 by stating that there is sufficient evidence to investigate allegations that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people.

In the words of the UN News agency, the ICJ “declared that Palestinians had a right to be protected from acts of genocide, calling on Israel to ‘take all measures within its power’ to prevent such actions and allow the entry of desperately needed humanitarian aid into the war-shattered enclave”.
The @CIJ_ICJ on Friday declared that Palestinians had a right to be protected from acts of genocide, calling on Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent such actions and allow the entry of desperately needed humanitarian aid into the war-shattered enclave pic.twitter.com/W0tsSPKjw9
— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) January 26, 2024

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the top legal authority of the United Nations. In December, South Africa introduced a case at the ICJ that accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian people as part of its brutal war on Gaza.
In its January 26 decision (PDF here), the ICJ stated that “Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of … (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
The Hague emphasized that “Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts”, and that “Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip”.
The ICJ likewise decided that “Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip”.
“Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of … the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip” the Hague added.
The ICJ ordered the Israeli government to submit a report in a month detailing how it is abiding by the court’s decision.

South Africa had initially requested that the ICJ order an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The Hague did not do so overtly. However, in effect, the court indirectly called for a ceasefire.
This is the interpretation of South Africa’s head of public diplomacy, Clayson Monyela, who wrote on Twitter, “To be clear… the ICJ has effectively ordered an immediate ceasefire and for Israel to halt military operations”.
To be clear…the #ICJ has effectively ordered an immediate ceasefire & for #Israel to halt military operations. The order: "The state of Israel shall ensure WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT that its MILITARY does NOT commit any acts described in point 1.  These are: a) Killing of members… pic.twitter.com/pAIVGtUiCp
— Clayson Monyela (@ClaysonMonyela) January 26, 2024

However, many Western media outlets distorted the ICJ decision.
The New York Times provided a case study of misleading coverage, with the headline “U.N. Court Declines to Demand Israel Stop Its Military Campaign”.

Similarly, The Wall Street Journal published the ridiculously skewed title “World Court Rejects Demand for Gaza Cease-Fire”.

Palestinian journalist Ali Abunimah pushed back against critics who argued that this decision was not a victory because it did not explicitly call for a ceasefire.
The Hague “gave Israel a month to report back but it must halt all killing and other genocidal acts forthwith. Please don’t award Israel a victory it did not win”, Abunimah wrote.
These are among the measures the ICJ ordered Israel to implement *immediately*. It gave Israel a month to report back but it must halt all killing and other genocidal acts forthwith. Please don’t award Israel a victory it did not win. https://t.co/hj9TuWElKn pic.twitter.com/Aep0wtRJhB
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) January 26, 2024

Legal expert Heidi Matthews described the ICJ decision as “a big win for Palestinian advocates“, arguing “the fact that the Court ordered the measures it did, including directing Israel not to commit or incite genocide, indicates it has concluded that it is (a) plausible for Palestinians in Gaza to claim protection from genocide, and (b) that the need for protection is urgent”.
Matthews explained on Twitter: “I think we can infer from this that at a minimum there is a serious risk that Israel will commit genocide. This is important because it puts all states on formal notice of the serious risk of genocide, which triggers states’ duty to take concrete steps to prevent genocide. Among other things, this means that in order for states to fulfill their international obligations under the Genocide Convention they must do something. For e.g., states exporting arms or military technology to Israel must stop”.
The US government has continued to send billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel throughout this war. This makes it clear that Washington is complicit in Tel Aviv’s crimes. And the Hague has implicitly stated that the US must stop arming Israel.
This ICJ decision was particularly important because it is exposing the hypocrisy of the Western governments that sponsor Israel and claim to support international law.
Israel’s far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proudly declared in a speech before the ICJ decision, “Nobody will stop us – not The Hague”.

Israel boasting that it is a rogue state that will ignore the International Court of Justice made it quite difficult for its sponsors in Washington to pretend to care about international law.
This double standard was made especially ironic when the Palestinian armed group Hamas stated clearly that it would abide by a ceasefire order made by the Hague.
A tale in 3 acts: pic.twitter.com/PEKG3uid8N
— Omar Baddar عمر بدّار (@OmarBaddar) January 26, 2024

In short, one side – the Palestinian people, and its supporters in South Africa and most of the Global South – truly supports international law, whereas the other side – the Israeli government, and its Western sponsors – blatantly disregard and violate international law, while pretending otherwise.
Responding to the decision, the US State Department blasted South Africa’s allegations of genocide against Israel as “unfounded”, despite the fact that the ICJ stated that there is sufficient evidence for them to be investigated. That means they are the opposite of unfounded.
The Canadian government did the same. Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly said that “Canada supports the ICJ’s critical role in the peaceful settlement of disputes and its work in upholding the international rules-based order”. But mere seconds later, she insisted, “Our support for the ICJ does not mean that we accept the premise of the case brought by South Africa”.
Joly then promptly asserted that “Canada will continue to support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself”.
So Ottawa claimed to support the ICJ while rejecting the ICJ’s decision and backing Israel’s brutal military assault on Gaza, which the ICJ effectively called for an end to.
Despite all of this chicanery by Western governments and the relentless pro-Israel propaganda in the corporate media, support for Tel Aviv is rapidly declining, around the world.

Slightly over one-third of people in the United States agree that Israel is committing genocide, according to a poll that was published before the historic ICJ ruling.
The Economist/YouGov survey found that 35% of North Americans believe that Israel is committing genocide, including 49% of people aged 18-29.
Even 49% of Democrats say that Israel is committing genocide, while Democratic President Joe Biden ignores his own base and steadfastly backs Israel’s assault.
Protesters have repeatedly disrupted Biden’s events, referring to him as “genocide Joe”.
This may at least partially explain why Biden’s approval rating fell to an abysmal 33% in January.
???? Pew Research: Biden Job Approval
Approve: 33%Disapprove: 65%—White: 30-68Black: 48-49Hispanic: 32-65Asian: 39-59Postgrad: 50-49College grad: 36-62No college: 27-71Ages 18-29: 27-71—N=5,140 | January 16-21 | MoE: ±1.7%https://t.co/n9H5XicREZ pic.twitter.com/YLA1KlGkfr
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) January 26, 2024


Instruction: Write an article about: The Arctic is the next frontier in the new cold 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: Arctic, China, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, NATO, Norway, Russia, Sweden

Output:
Geostrategically located, with profitable natural resources, the Arctic is rapidly becoming a militarized zone of power politics in the new cold war, contested by the US and Europe, Russia and China.

The Arctic had once been a largely peaceful zone, harboring cooperative international scientific research. But today, it is swiftly becoming one of militarized power politics.
Heavily armed nations surround the melting Arctic Ocean, with its unstable environment of eroding shorelines, accessible natural resources, and contested maritime passages.
This February, the U.S. launched little publicized, month-long military exercises in the Arctic, hosted by Finland and Norway.
The Pentagon’s European Command described the exercises – named Arctic Forge 23, Defense Exercise North, and Joint Viking – as a way “to demonstrate readiness by deploying a combat-credible force to enhance power in NATO’s northern flank”.
The exercises bring together more than 10,000 military personnel from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Norway.
Actual hostilities could have potentially broken out earlier in February, when the U.S. military shot down an unidentified object over Alaska, soon after a U.S. fighter jet brought down an alleged Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic.
The balloon over Alaska turned out to belong to a U.S. hobby club, but a sense of menace was maintained.
One way people become aware of impending conflicts is through the entertainment industry, which is important in the process of manufacturing consent.
Right now, a Danish series called “Borgen – Power & Glory” is doing just that, revealing the growing importance of the Arctic as a “geopolitical hotspot in world politics.”
Borgen addresses the topic of natural resources in the Arctic, which roils up contention between the United States, Russia and China.
The series centers on Greenland, a Danish possession with an independence movement that gains strength from the discovery of a vital resource. In the drama, that is oil. In reality, it is rare earth elements.
In the drama, this creates tension for the Danish government, caught up in a great power struggle between the U.S., China, and Russia. In reality, Greenland is only one part of a looming conflict in the Arctic, not only about resources, but also about passage through the ocean, which has become more navigable due to accelerated climate change.
The sinister presentation of China’s representative in Borgen creates the fear of China’s actual presence in the Arctic. It has a uranium and rare earths mining joint venture with Australia in southern Greenland, which allows two Chinese firms to lead in processing and marketing the materials. China is also exploring zinc, iron and oil deposits in Greenland.
Not only has this activity raised concerns about competitive access to rare earths, but, in the case of Greenland, it has raised security issues for Denmark, a member of NATO.
As a result, Denmark has revised its security policy, in what Foreign Policy magazine described as a new “geopolitical battlefield”.
Echoing U.S. security concerns, Denmark has increased its military budget with a so-called “Arctic capacity package” to enhance surveillance with drones, satellites, and radar.
Greenland is relatively autonomous from Denmark and shares a seat with the kingdom at the Arctic Council, but it does have an independence movement that could fulfill its goal with the wealth offered by the mines.
This would cost Denmark its seat in the Arctic Council, and, with it, the presence of another NATO member.
The Arctic Council, established in 1996, defines itself as “the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic Indigenous peoples and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues”.
Thus, a bid by China to build an airport in Greenland was prevented by the Danish government. This was despite the fact that Greenland’s fishing industry was open to the marketing opportunity it presented, and to the eventual promise of independence.
China, however, having its own concerns over foreign intervention in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan, is unwilling to interfere politically in Greenland.
Furthermore, intervention from the U.S. was likely – as dramatized in Borgen – given the U.S. air base at Thule, which is home to the U.S. Space Force and a global network of missile warning sensors.
A successful independence movement in Greenland would cause Denmark to lose its status as an Arctic State, as well as potentially threaten Washington’s continued use of the base.

Besides the question of Greenland, the navigability of the Arctic Ocean, due to its thawing, has created several geopolitical issues. It now greatly shortens China’s trade route with Europe and offers a backup to the Malacca Straits, which U.S. warships could blockade in case of a conflict.
Indeed, in 2012, a Chinese icebreaker made full transit through the Arctic to Iceland. And in 2023, China tested its third trip, proving its trading capability and enhancing scientific cooperation between the two countries.
While China is not itself an Arctic state, it has laid out its claims in international terms in its Arctic Policy of 2018: “The Arctic situation now goes beyond its original inter-Arctic States or regional nature, having a vital bearing on the interests of States outside the region… with global implications and international impacts.”
Beijing claims “rights in respect of scientific research, navigation, overflight, fishing, laying of submarine cables and pipelines in the high seas and other relevant sea areas in the Arctic Ocean, and rights to resource exploration and exploitation in the Area.”
It further claims that, geographically, China’s climate system and ecological environment are affected by Arctic events, and therefore deserves to be consulted in matters of security and global governance.
More assertively, China expects to play a major role in expanding the network of shipping routes in the Arctic in the form of a Polar Silk Road “to facilitate connectivity and sustainable economic and social development of the Arctic.”
These ambitions have alarmed Western countries, despite China’s disclaimers of intent: respect, cooperation, win-win result, and sustainability.
On the other hand, even some Western military observers validate China’s interest in and contribution to resource development and scientific cooperation in the Arctic. They assuage fears of China’s use of the right of passage through Arctic waters.
Furthermore, China has yet to invest in any Russian Arctic port, and no joint naval exercises have been held in Russian Arctic waters.
Finally, China’s position as an accredited observer to the Arctic Council constrains any political challenges it may mount. As a 2022 academic article published by the U.S. Air Force put it: “China Is Not a Peer Competitor in the Arctic.”
The growing closeness of China and Russia, nevertheless, raises new questions about a shifting balance of power in the region.
Russia’s northern border occupies over half the shoreline on the ocean, which gives it claims to offshore resources like oil. The North Sea Route, hugging the length of Russia’s northern border, offers a shipping lane for Chinese trade with Europe.
Historically, Russia has seen the route as within its sphere of influence and has not accepted China’s term of a Polar Silk Road.
The Ukraine war, however, has made Russia more dependent on China. Their partnership may change the balance of power in the region.
As of 2021, Russia chaired the Arctic Council for a two-year term stint. But the Arctic Chiefs of Defense meetings and the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable have excluded Russia since a democratic referendum with more than 90% approval led to the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Claiming to perceive a threat, NATO has revived an old Cold War expression, referring to the “northern flank” for this area, and exploring its potentially conflictual relationship with Russia in that context.
For Moscow, defense of its northern border is a prime security issue. But with the revival of Cold War tensions, the U.S. and NATO consider Russia’s militarization to be a threat, and they are remilitarizing as well.
As Vijay Prashad has shown, NATO’s so-called “Centre of Excellence – Cold Weather Operations“, based in Norway, brings Western allies together for biannual military exercises in the Arctic.
Should Finland and Sweden join NATO, Russia would be confronted with a phalanx of opponents on the Arctic Council and be encircled north and west by hostile forces.
Consequently, the stability of the Arctic region is now endangered.
In addition to its geostrategic location, the Arctic is crucial for its natural resources.
90 percent of Russia’s current gas production and 60 percent of its oil production take place in the Arctic. The region has a staggering 60 percent of Russia’s gas and oil reserves.
The Russian Arctic also has large deposits of coal, petroleum, and natural gas, as well as diamonds, gold, nickel, cobalt, copper, palladium, platinum, zinc, and rare earth metals.
In addition, Russia aspires to make the region more hospitable, even tourist friendly. It plans to build new cities, as well as harbors, airports, and IT equipment.
These plans include ways of preventing the negative impacts of this development on climate change, to which the Arctic is highly vulnerable.
Finally, the Northern Sea Route, made passable by the Russian fleet of 40 icebreakers, including four nuclear-powered ones and a new series planned, is a bone of contention in maritime law.
Russia considers this a national waterway. But if foreign ships are to pass through for trade, it would have to become an international route, possibly open to hostile warships as well.
The conflict in Eastern Europe, on Russia’s western border, has increased Moscow’s fear of encirclement, including in its north.
Denmark, with its autonomous region Greenland, as well as Norway jockey for position in the Arctic. As members of NATO, they have participated in maneuvers they consider a form of deterrence.
Should Finland and Sweden also join NATO, Russia’s northern border would face a militarized front including Canada, the United States, and Iceland.
A delicate balance to avoid war has so far been maintained within the Arctic Council. However, this equilibrium is increasingly being challenged by a heightened diplomatic and military presence of the U.S. in the Arctic, which has created the position of “Ambassador-At-Large for the Arctic Region,” and is developing Army Arctic Special Operations Forces.
A stated mission of these U.S. Special Forces is to leverage the specialized Arctic knowledge of Indigenous peoples for military purposes and to prevent their “vulnerability to other influences.”
Given the malign neglect suffered by Alaskan and Canadian Inuit people and by Sami people in the other Arctic nation-states, this is a real concern.
A 2021 U.S. Army document announced that Washington must “regain Arctic dominance” and “win” in the region.
The chief of staff paper anticipated northern routes from which troops could be deployed from Alaska to points around the globe. It also recognized the importance of Arctic resources, like rare minerals needed for components of aircraft engines and advanced weapons.
A new NATO Arctic Command expects to establish a formal Arctic Security Forum that includes the U.S.-led military alliance.
While civilian observers acknowledge Russia’s right to defend its northern border, and urge case-by-case management of disagreements to maintain stability, the U.S. military recommends serious strategizing in the Arctic Council with its NATO allies, which may soon include Sweden and Finland.
Not only is the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coast contested in maritime law but so too are the Northwest Passage in the western Arctic, adjoining Canada, Greenland, and Alaska.
In this case, Canada agrees with Russia that maintaining national control is a matter of sovereign right.
Other states with heavy commercial maritime traffic, however, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, claim international right of passage under the UN Convention on Law of the Sea.
China could also claim this right, regarding the Northern Sea Route, though it would conflict with Russian interests.
The heightened tension over the Northwest Passage has led the Canadian government to court its Inuit population, whose settlement area encompasses most of the Northwest Passage routes.
The land claims agreement of 1993, however, does not give the Indigenous people authority over marine areas, only consultation.
This agreement was successfully employed in the Inuit statement supporting Canada’s rebuttal to former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who bluntly denounced Ottawa’s claim over the Northwest Passage as “illegitimate.”
Environmental issues and the lives of Indigenous peoples gain attention in this political whirlpool, but mainly rhetorically.
The damage wrought by the fossil fuel industry and more recently by new technologies of “green” mining continue to push First Nations further off their lands, imperiling their natural foods.
But they are assuming a stronger political voice in the upcoming rivalries between their respective nation-states.
Both the Inuit peoples of the western Arctic and the Sami of the eastern Arctic have developed circumpolar organizations that participate in the governance of the Arctic.
The states that colonized them and in which they are now minorities are taking a greater interest in maintaining their loyalty and in acquiring their knowledge of Arctic conditions in case of conflicts.
The Inuit of the western region of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland total an estimated 180.000 population.
16,500 are in Alaska, organized into the Alaska Federation of Nations. The resolutions of its October 2022 annual meeting reflect resentment of many hardships: the decline in stock of fisheries threatening native food security; a drug epidemic of fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine; a high incidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, and missing and murdered people; waste and contaminants left by the military and other governmental agencies; ongoing seizure of native lands; and insufficient access to education and business.
Especially poignant is a resolution “imploring the state of Alaska to end its practice of requiring tribal waivers of sovereign immunity as a condition for receiving grant funds.”
The more than 70,000 Inuit in Canada are largely urbanized, due to a long history of forced assimilation. With high unemployment, low wages and substandard housing, they have significant food insecurity, a high rate of imprisonment, and youth suicide.
In the 1970s, an organization of Inuit was formed to protect their individual and cultural rights, as well as land claims. It is part of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, which connects with Inuit in Alaska and Greenland, and has connections with the United Nations.
The Sami are a historically nomadic herding people who once roamed freely and are now divided with approximately 20,000 in Sweden, 50,000 in Norway, 8,000 in Finland and 2,000 in Russia.
In all of these states, they suffer from ongoing land grabs, which interfere with reindeer grazing routes; discrimination; and violent racism. The deliberate killing of reindeer herds have plagued the Sami in Sweden, despite government attempts at reconciliation and some funding.
The Sami in Finland similarly suffer loss of land, inhibition of reindeer herding, and lack of power over access to resources on their remaining land. Finland now touts cultural tourism of the Sami.
The Sami in Norway have organized against infrastructure projects that threaten even more land loss, to little avail.
The Sami in Russia, the smallest group, reestablished contact with the others in 1991. Their urban conditions are not better than that of the Sami elsewhere, but their reindeer herding has a unique problem.
They had been organized into cooperatives which now have difficulty readjusting to new conditions of ongoing industrialization. As elsewhere, this development continues to usurp their pasture lands. In addition, tourist fishing has reduced their food supply.
Like the Inuit, the Sami have a circumpolar organization for common interests, a Sami Council consisting of three Parliaments representing the indigenous peoples of Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The Russian Sami are represented by NGOs.
The war in Ukraine has created a split among the Sami. In April 2022, the Council suspended formal relations with the Russian group, which supported the Russian Federation, portending the incursion of sub-Arctic politics into the polar region.
The relatively peaceful days of the Arctic are over. Its warming is turning up the geopolitical heat in the polar region, bringing to mind an old adage: “What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.”


Instruction: Write an article about: Ukraine conflict ‘caused by Europeans’ love of war, hegemony’, says Malaysia’s ex leader. 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, Europe, Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia, NATO, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine

Output:
Malaysia’s longest-serving Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said “the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of war, of hegemony, of dominance”. He warned it “can be interpreted as the start of the Third World War”.

The longest-serving prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, has stated that “the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of war, of hegemony, of dominance”.
Mahathir argued that the conflict “can be interpreted as the start of the Third World War”.
Moreover, Western sanctions against Russia have meant “the world has to endure shortages of supplies”, he said.

Mahathir added that the United States is responsible for irresponsible “provocation” in East Asia, by giving weapons to Taiwan and by sending top US official Nancy Pelosi to the island to support separatist forces.
Mahathir led Malaysia from 1981 to 2003 and then again from 2018 to 2020.
He made these comments in a Twitter thread on February 24.
WORLD WAR III
1. I hesitate to write this article. I may be accused of apologising for the Russians. I am not. I think the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of War, of hegemony, of dominance.
— Dr Mahathir Mohamad (@chedetofficial) February 24, 2023

Mahathir has been a longtime critic of Western neoliberal economics and the “Washington consensus”. He has emphasized that imperialism is rooted in capitalism.
The former Malaysian leader has also accused the United States of trying to provoke a war with China over Taiwan.
His full remarks from February 24 follow below:
I hesitate to write this article. I may be accused of apologising for the Russians. I am not. I think the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of War, of hegemony, of dominance.
Russia was the partner of the Western Europeans (including U.S. and Canada) in the war against Germany. The moment Germany was defeated, the west declared that Russia, their partner, was their new enemy.
So they must prepare for war against Russia. And NATO was set up to form a military alliance against Russia. Russia then set up the Warsaw Pact. And a Cold war ensued. And the world had to choose between the west and the east.
After the Russians disbanded the Warsaw Pact and allowed the countries of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to leave the bloc, NATO did not disband.
Instead the countries freed from Russian hegemony were urged to join NATO as enemies of Russia. The pressure against the weakened Russia was heightened.
As the former socialist republics join NATO and the threat against Russia heightened, Russia rebuilt its military capabilities and confronted the powerful western alliance. Tension increased as NATO forces carried out exercises close to Russia.
Provoked, Russia pre-empted with the invasion of Ukraine. That invasion can be interpreted as the start of the Third World War. There is talk of using nuclear weapons. Already the world has to endure shortages of supplies due to sanctions against Russia and Russian retaliation.
There is also provocation in the Far East. A visit by a high U.S. official to Taiwan caused an increase of tension between China and Taiwan. Both are arming and the U.S. has sold a lot of weapons to Taiwan, while China became more belligerent.
Even Malaysia is experiencing shortages and inflation. It is important that the country prepares contingency plans to deal with what may be the beginning of a Third World War.
US pushing war on China: Malaysia’s ex PM explains imperialism’s roots in capitalism