Instruction: Write an article about: West vs the rest: World opposes sanctions, only US & Europe support 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: Human Rights Council, sanctions, UN, United Nations

Output:
The UN Human Rights Council voted overwhelmingly to condemn sanctions. The only countries that expressed support for unilateral coercive measures were the US, UK, EU member states, Georgia, and Ukraine.

The United Nations Human Rights Council voted overwhelmingly to condemn sanctions. The only countries that expressed support for the tool of economic warfare were the United States, Britain, European Union member states, Georgia, and Ukraine.
Sanctions are formally known as unilateral coercive measures, and they violate international law.

On 3 April, the UN Human Rights Council voted with 33 members in support of and 13 against a resolution that “urges all States to stop adopting, maintaining, implementing or complying with unilateral coercive measures”.
The document, A/HRC/52/L.18, “urges the removal of such measures, as they are contrary to the [UN] Charter and norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States”.
The resolution was submitted by Azerbaijan on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
It illustrated how UN votes are often the West versus the rest of the world:
#HRC52 | Draft resolution A/HRC/52/L.18 on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights was ADOPTED. pic.twitter.com/qTuCWFbwG6
— UN Human Rights Council ?#HRC52 (@UN_HRC) April 3, 2023

The resolution stated that it “strongly condemns the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of pressure, including political and economic pressure, against any country, particularly against least developed and developing countries, with a view to preventing these countries from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems”.
This is a clear reference to Washington’s blockades of Cuba and Venezuela, which aim to overthrow the country’s socialist governments, and which clearly violate international law.
The resolution added that sanctions cause “serious violations of human rights of targeted populations”, with “particular consequences for women, children, including adolescents, the elderly and persons with disabilities”.
The document cited many past UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions and reports by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that also condemned unilateral sanctions.
The West’s imposition of unilateral sanctions has skyrocketed in recent decades.
According to a 2021 Treasury review, 9,421 parties were sanctioned by the US government at the end of that year, a staggering 933% increase since 2000.
More than one-third of the global population lives in countries that are suffering under sanctions.
A map of countries sanctioned by the United States


Instruction: Write an article about: Who sabotaged Nord Stream pipelines? US boasts ‘tremendous opportunity’ to weaken Russia. CIA knew. 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: EIA, EU, Europe, European Union, gas, Germany, LNG, Nord Stream, Nord Stream 2, oil, pipelines, Russia

Output:
Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines with Germany were sabotaged mere hours before the EU opened its own Baltic Sea pipeline from Norway to Poland. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gloated that the attacks were a “tremendous opportunity” to weaken Moscow.

A pair of natural gas pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which were built to transport natural gas underwater through the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, were sabotaged in a series of explosions on September 26.
These suspicious attacks came mere hours before NATO members Norway, Denmark, and Poland officially opened their own natural gas pipeline, called the Baltic Pipe, which was built with European Union funding in order to compete with Nord Stream.

The Nord Stream pipelines are operated by company that is majority owned by Russia’s state gas giant Gazprom. Authorities in Norway and Denmark have blocked that company from inspecting the damage done to its own pipelines. That is to say, NATO member states have prevented the Switzerland-based company Nord Stream AG from conducting an investigation into the attacks on its property.
Meanwhile, top officials in Washington have been positively giddy. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken enthusiastically called the attacks on Nord Stream a “tremendous opportunity” to weaken Moscow.

The US fossil fuel industry has made a killing off of the proxy war in Ukraine. Western sanctions on Russia in response to its February 24, 2022 invasion of its neighbor have propelled the United States into becoming the world’s largest exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG). Much of that LNG has gone to Europe to make up for the drastic decline in Russian exports.
NATO member Norway has also greatly benefited. It was already the largest oil and gas producer in Europe, even before inaugurating the Baltic Pipe, just one day after Nord Stream was sabotaged.
The fact that an attack on Nord Stream was being planned was known in advance. By whom? None other than the CIA. The notorious US spy agency warned Germany weeks before the explosions.

An expert in information warfare, former CIA Director John Brennan crafted an elaborate conspiracy to explain the sabotage of Nord Stream. He was joined by the ex chief of Germany’s spy agency the BND in accusing Russia of intentionally damaging its own pipelines.
Although there is not a scintilla of evidence for this CIA-concocted conspiracy, it was enthusiastically repeated by Western governments and corporate media outlets.
Moscow, for its part, said the US and its Western allies were responsible for the sabotage, which Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned as a grave act of “international terrorism.”
The head of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, pointed out that the CIA has a documented history of carrying out attacks like these. He recalled that the spy agency bombed pipelines in Nicaragua in 1983, as part of the US terrorist war on the Central American nation’s revolutionary Sandinista government.

Months before the attacks on Nord Stream, top officials in Washington made foreboding comments threatening the pipelines.
In February, President Joe Biden pledged that, if Russia invaded Ukraine, “We will bring an end to [Nord Stream].”
US State Department spokesperson Ned Price and the third in command of the department, Victoria Nuland, likewise promised in January 2022 that “Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”
In 2020, the Donald Trump’s administration secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, declared that the United States would “do everything we can” to stop Nord Stream.
Washington has officially denied responsibility for the sabotage, instead pointing the finger Moscow. But these deeply provocative remarks by senior US officials have raised eyebrows around the world.
A map of gas pipelines from Russia to Europe
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gloated that the attacks on Nord Stream offered a “tremendous opportunity” to weaken Russia.
“Ultimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy,” Blinken said. “That’s very significant, and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come.”
US fossil fuel corporations in particular are reaping the rewards of this “tremendous opportunity.”
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines:
“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy”
“We’ve significantly increased our [gas] production… We’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe” pic.twitter.com/vS9SgDUd2i
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022

The top US diplomat noted that “we’ve significantly increased our production as well as making available to Europe liquefied natural gas. And we’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe to help compensate for any gas or oil that it’s losing.”
Blinken made these comments in a September 30 press conference with Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly. She echoed, “we have increased our production, and, therefore, by increasing our production, we have exported to the U.S. for it to be eventually sent to Europe.”
The top Canadian diplomat advertised a new liquified natural gas facility, Kitimat, that Ottawa plans to use to increase supply of LNG to Europe.
After US Secretary of State Blinken called the attacks on Nord Stream a “tremendous opportunity” (3 times), Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly echoed:
“We have increased our production” and “exported to the US for it to be sent to Europe”
She advertised a new LNG facility pic.twitter.com/Mi5lcbppid
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022

It is not just the North American energy industry that stands to heavily profit from the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. Ukraine benefits as well.
By using Nord Stream to send Germany natural gas through the Baltic Sea, Russia could cut out the intermediary of Ukraine, which was making billions of dollars in transit fees.
While Western governments have pinned the blame on Russia, without a shred of proof, it makes no strategic sense that Moscow would sabotage its own pipelines, after investing billions of dollars in the project.
Russia has even floated the possibility of investing more money to repair the pipelines. This would be a very strange move after bombing your own energy infrastructure.
Yet the German government publicly rejected Russia’s offer to repair the pipelines. A spokesperson said Berlin would not accept Russian gas via Nord Stream 2, even if it is fixed.
One day after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, a prominent right-wing politician from Poland, who previously served as foreign minister and defense minister of the NATO and EU member, Radek Sikorski, all but openly stated that the United States was responsible.
“Thank you, USA,” Sikorski tweeted, alongside a photo of the underwater gas leak in the Baltic Sea.
Sikorski is an infamous anti-Russia hawk, and the husband of influential US neoconservative Anne Applebaum. Today he sits as an influential member of the European Parliament, and chairs its delegation for relations with the United States.
Sikorski later deleted the tweet, but not before it was archived.

Among pro-US politicians in Europe, Nord Stream had long been unpopular, and the pipelines had faced many threats before.
Independent researchers pointed out on social media that, back in 2015, Swedish authorities discovered a drone rigged with explosives near Nord Stream 1.
The country of origin of the drone was never disclosed.
Every year, NATO organizes military exercises in the Baltic Sea, in which the US-led military alliance uses drones to clear sea mines. The 2022 exercises were held in June.
Back in June of this year, NATO conducted its annual BALTOPS military exercise in the Baltic Sea. This year’s exercises had significant focus on using US Navy unmanned underwater vehicles to clear sea mines. pic.twitter.com/n8T4CfzP23
— professional hog groomer (@bidetmarxman) September 27, 2022

As intrepid investigators showed on Twitter, the US Navy conducted military exercises near the Danish island of Bornholm – precisely where Nord Stream was attacked on September 26.
The US and British armed forces have also been training Ukraine’s military to hunt for mines with underwater drones, and held exercises as recently as August 26.
Since these exercises in June, the British Royal Navy along with the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet has been training the Ukrainian military to use these same drones. pic.twitter.com/sZ6nlvuA21
— professional hog groomer (@bidetmarxman) September 27, 2022

The September 26 attacks on Nord Stream took place right at the moment when Russia was overseeing referenda to incorporate the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson into the Russian Federation.
Russia had invaded Ukraine on February 24. But in the months leading up to what Moscow called its special military operation, senior US government officials publicly threatened Nord Stream.
“If Russia invades,” Joe Biden said on February 7, “then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
The US president made this pledge in a press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
When a journalist asked Biden, “How will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control?”, the US leader responded cryptically, “I promise you, we will be able to do it.”
US President Joe Biden threatened weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine:
“If Russia invades… there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it”
A journalist asked how, because it’s Russia/Germany’s pipeline. Biden said “I promise you, we will be able to do it” pic.twitter.com/twgKEaSP0B
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022

The former CIA director and secretary of state in the Donald Trump administration, Mike Pompeo, made similar remarks in 2020. In a July 30 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he condemned Nord Stream 2, which was still under construction at the time, as “dangerous” and a “threat.”
“We will do everything we can to make sure that that pipeline doesn’t threaten Europe,” Pompeo reassured lawmakers.
He threatened to impose more sanctions on parties involved in Nord Stream 2, and said proudly of the Trump administration, “We’re the toughest administration ever on Russia.”
In 2020, ex CIA Director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged the US would “do everything we can” to stop Nord Stream 2
He threatened sanctions, called the “dangerous” pipeline a “threat”
“We’re the toughest administration ever on Russia,” he boasted of the Trump admin pic.twitter.com/GJoI2mFMRq
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022

Nord Stream was also targeted by the third in command of the US State Department, Victoria Nuland, a bellicose neoconservative and hard-line anti-Russia hawk who oversaw the 2014 coup in Ukraine, in which the country’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral President Viktor Yanukovich was violently overthrown and replaced with a compliant pro-Western, vehemently anti-Russian regime.
In a press conference on January 27, Nuland pledged, “With regard to Nord Stream 2, we continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies, and I want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”
A month before Russia invaded, the neoconservative 3rd in command of the State Dep’t, Victoria Nuland (main architect of the 2014 coup in Ukraine), threatened:
“I want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward” pic.twitter.com/nuX1ChSC51
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022

These exact comments had been echoed the day before by US State Department spokesperson Ned Price, a former CIA analyst.
Price told NPR, “I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”
“I’m not going to get into the specifics,” Price added. “We will work with Germany to ensure it does not move forward.”
Nord Stream 1 was officially opened in 2011. The pipeline provided Germany with natural gas for years, until it was temporarily shut down in 2022 due to the proxy war in Ukraine.
At the time of the September 26, 2022 attacks, Nord Stream 1 was not in use. In response to strict Western sanctions on Russia, Moscow shut off gas deliveries.
After years of construction, Nord Stream 2 was completed in September 2021. But the pipeline never became operational, as German authorities repeatedly delayed certification of it.
Top German officials made it clear that Berlin’s unwillingness to give a green light to the completed pipeline was politically motivated.
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, of Germany’s avowedly pro-NATO and anti-Russia Green Party, was deeply opposed to Nord Stream. And in a speech at the NATO-backed Munich Security Conference on February 18, a week before Russia invaded Ukraine, she threatened to stop the pipeline.
Baerbock warned that, if “Russia takes action against Ukraine,” the “sanctions would be without precedent and would be coordinated and prepared with all partners.”
“For me, for us, all options are on the table, including Nord Stream 2,” Baerbock said.
She added, “We, as Germany, are prepared to pay a high economic price for this ourselves.”
Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock pledged at the NATO-backed Munich Security Conference a week before Russia invaded Ukraine:
“All options are on the table, including Nord Stream 2”
“We, as Germany, are prepared to pay a high economic price for this ourselves” pic.twitter.com/3nD71p08QJ
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022

This context is what led even some prominent figures like Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs to suspect that the United States is responsible.
Sachs is a mainstream US economist who helped Washington design the program of neoliberal capitalist shock therapy that it imposed on the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. He has since become a critic of the US government’s extremely belligerent foreign policy.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Sachs argued “the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline” was likely “a US action, perhaps US and Poland.”
Columbia Uni. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a mainstream economist (who ironically oversaw the neoliberal capitalist shock therapy imposed on Russia that led to millions of deaths), argued:
“The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline” was likely “a US action, perhaps US and Poland” pic.twitter.com/Tk84gfdV5G
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022

Another country that stands to gain a lot from the sabotage of Nord Stream is NATO member Norway.
The day after the suspicious explosions damaged Nord Stream, European authorities celebrated the opening of the Baltic Pipe, which will deliver gas from the North Sea off the Norwegian coast to Denmark and then to Poland.
Since the NATO proxy war in Ukraine escalated in February 2022, following the Russian invasion, Norway became the largest oil and gas producer in Europe.
This pipeline was partially funded by the European Union and developed by Danish state-owned company Energinet and Polish state-owned company Gaz-System.
The Baltic Pipe was envisioned as a direct competitor with Nord Stream. Germany’s state media outlet DW trumpeted, “Baltic Pipe speeds up exit from Russian gas.”

Norway’s Energy Minister, Terje Aasland, hailed the Baltic Pipe as “an important step on the important road to Europe’s independence from Russian energy.”
Norway’s gas production is now at its highest ever level, and Aasland told Reuters that the country expects to “maintain the high gas volumes going forward” until at least 2030, benefiting from the decrease in Russian exports to Europe.
Meanwhile, Norway and Denmark, which have a vested financial interest in seeing Nord Stream go permanently offline, have denied access to Nord Stream AG, the majority Russian state-owned company that manages the pipelines.
Nord Stream AG complained that it “is unable to inspect the damaged sections of the gas pipeline due to the lack of earlier requested necessary permits” from Norwegian and Danish authorities.
At the opening ceremony of the Baltic Pipe on September 27, numerous Polish government officials emphasized how important the EU-backed pipeline would be to weaken Moscow. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki gloated, “The era of Russian domination in the field of gas is coming to an end.”
“For the past years, we have been preparing to gain independence from an unreliable partner – the Russian Federation,” echoed Poland’s minister of climate and environment, Anna Moskwa. “In these uncertain times, our situation is stable.”
The Polish government’s top diplomat for strategic energy infrastructure, Mateusz Berger, added at the ceremony, “The opening of Baltic Pipe, a new corridor for natural gas supply from the Norwegian Shelf to Poland, will go down in history as a symbol of breaking away from our country’s long-standing energy dependence on Russia.”
Along with Norway, the US fossil fuel industry has substantially benefited from the proxy war in Ukraine.
In 2020, Russia was the largest supplier of oil and gas to Europe. Official EU data show that Russia provided 43% of its natural gas imports (followed by 21% from Norway), 29% of its crude oil (followed by 9% from the United States and 8% from Norway), and a staggering 54% of its coal (followed by 16% from the United States).
Some individual EU member states relied even more on cheap Russian energy. Germany imported as much as 66% of its gas from Russia in 2020 (followed by 21% from Norway).
But as Europe vows to boycott Russian energy, the United States has sought to take its place.
Washington’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has spent months boasting in its regular press releases of the rapid growth of US exports.
In September the EIA trumpeted, “The United States exported record amounts of petroleum products in the first half of 2022.”
In the six months from January to June 2022, US exports of petroleum products hit their highest ever recorded level, at almost 6 million barrels per day, the EIA reported.
US exports of petroleum products increased in the first half of 2022 by 11% compared with the same period in 2021.

The EIA noted that EU sanctions that were adopted in June to ban imports of Russian energy do not take effect until December 2022 for crude oil and February 2023 for petroleum products. Washington expects to see a further increase in US energy exports to Europe after then.
Although the blanket prohibition on Russia’s energy has not yet been implemented, the EIA gloated in August, “Russia’s natural gas pipeline exports to Europe decline to almost 40-year lows.”
The US government agency noted that Russian natural gas exports by pipeline to the European Union and Britain decreased by nearly 40% in the first seven months of 2022 compared with the same period in 2021, and by nearly 50% compared with the five-year average from 2017 to 2021.

Russia’s energy exports to Europe initially decreased in 2020 due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. But they continued to drop throughout 2021, as political tensions between NATO and Moscow grew.
Nord Stream 1 had been the largest source of Russian pipeline gas exports to Europe. The sabotage of the project will cut it off completely.
While Russia’s energy exports to Europe have plummeted, the EIA boasted in July, “The United States became the world’s largest LNG exporter in the first half of 2022.”

US liquified natural gas exports increased by 12% in the first half of 2022, compared with the second half of 2021.
The EIA explained that this was partially because of “increased global demand, particularly in Europe.”
US LNG exports are significantly more expensive than the cheap pipeline gas Europe was buying from Russia. But while European economies suffer through a crisis caused by skyrocketing energy prices, US gas producers are profiting from European citizens’ misery.
In the first four months of 2022, the US exported 74% of its LNG to Europe, compared to an average of just 34% in 2021.

Asia had been the top customer for US LNG in 2020 and 2021, but now Europe has become the main destination, as Russian exports have dwindled.
“Europe imported record amounts of liquefied natural gas in 2022,” the EIA reported.
It noted that LNG imports to the EU and UK “set an all-time historical record high in April 2022.”

While Europe is importing more and more US LNG, natural gas production inside the United States is steadily increasing.
The EIA reported in September that “U.S. natural gas producers are operating more drilling rigs now than at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020.”

The EIA boasted that same month, “As of July 2022, the United States has more LNG export capacity than any other country and has exported more LNG than any other country.”
And the US is further expanding its LNG production by developing three new export projects.

During his presidential campaign, Joe Biden correctly observed that “climate change poses an existential threat – not just to our environment, but to our health, our communities, our national security, and our economic well-being.”
The Biden campaign vowed to pursue “a Clean Energy Revolution,” and pledged to cut back on drilling and implement environmental protections.
But since entering office, Biden has been even more conciliatory to the fossil fuel industry than his Republican predecessor Donald Trump.
The Washington Post reported in December that the “Biden administration has approved more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands per month than the Trump administration did during the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency.”
The Center for Biological Diversity reported in January, before the drastic escalation in the NATO proxy war on Russia, that the Biden administration had “approved 3,557 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first year, far outpacing the Trump administration’s first-year total of 2,658.”
US fossil fuel extraction has only increased further since then, as Washington takes advantage of the sanctions on Russia and turns Europe into a captive market for its gas.
The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines thus helps the United States and Norway replace Russia as the top energy suppliers to Europe.


Instruction: Write an article about: Canciller británica exige que Rusia ‘retire’ sus tropas de Rusia, la confunde con Ucrania. 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: Liz Truss, Reino Unido, Rusia, Sergey Lavrov, Ucrania

Output:
La secretaria de relaciones exteriores de Reino Unido, Liz Truss, exigió que Rusia “retirara” las tropas de su propio territorio soberano, confundiéndolo con Ucrania. El Canciller Sergey Lavrov dijo que era “como hablar con una persona sorda”, y “los hechos rebotan”.

(You can read this article in English here.)
El gobierno británico se ha convertido en el hazmerreír internacional después de que su secretaria de relaciones exteriores exigiera que Rusia “retirara” las tropas de su propio territorio.
La principal diplomática de Reino Unido luego confundió el territorio ruso con Ucrania, e insistió en que Moscú no tenía soberanía sobre sus regiones del sur.
El 9 de febrero, la canciller británica Liz Truss llegó a la capital rusa para reunirse con su homólogo ruso, Sergey Lavrov.
En un tuit, Truss exigió que “Rusia debe retirar inmediatamente sus fuerzas y respetar la soberanía de Ucrania o enfrentar graves consecuencias”.
Truss parecía estar confundido, porque Moscú no tiene tropas en territorio ucraniano. Se han desplegado tropas rusas cerca de la frontera con Ucrania, pero están firmemente en territorio soberano ruso, por lo que no estaba claro cómo Moscú podría “retirarlas” de su propio país.
In Moscow to meet Foreign Minister Lavrov and make clear that Russia must immediately withdraw its forces and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face severe consequences.
Any incursion would be a huge mistake. Diplomacy is the only way forward and Russia must pursue that path. pic.twitter.com/weIAnr60Nh
— Liz Truss (@trussliz) February 9, 2022

Truss es una política declaradamente derechista del Partido Conservador. Ha servido en varios ministerios en Reino Unido, pero tiene poca experiencia en la política exterior.
Su falta de habilidades diplomáticas quedó dolorosamente clara en una reunión a puerta cerrada que sostuvo con el ministro de relaciones exteriores ruso, Lavrov, el 10 de febrero.
Lavrov dijo que era muy extraño que se le pidiera a Moscú que retirara las tropas rusas de Rusia, y agregó que lo que hace su país dentro de su propio territorio “no es asunto suyo”.
Lavrov le preguntó a Truss, según un informe del diario Kommersant, si reconocía la soberanía rusa sobre las dos regiones del sur de Voronezh y Rostov, donde Moscú tiene tropas.
La canciller de Reino Unido respondió con confianza: “Nunca reconoceremos la soberanía rusa sobre estas regiones”.
Luego, el embajador británico en Rusia se vio obligado a corregir a Truss, señalando que estas regiones son parte de Rusia, no de Ucrania.
Lavrov, uno de los diplomáticos más experimentados y respetados del mundo, descartó a su homóloga británica como un neófita que estaba fuera de su alcance.
El ministro de relaciones exteriores de Rusia dijo que era “como hablar con una persona sorda que escucha pero no oye”, y “los hechos rebotan”.
“Dicen que Rusia está esperando hasta que el suelo se congele como una piedra para que sus tanques puedan cruzar fácilmente al territorio ucraniano”, bromeó Lavrov. “Creo que el terreno era así hoy con nuestros colegas británicos, del cual rebotaron numerosos hechos que producimos”.
Lavrov agregó que las relaciones entre Reino Unido y Rusia “probablemente estén en su nivel más bajo en muchos años”.
Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña han presionado agresivamente por un conflicto con Rusia por Ucrania, insistiendo sin presentar ninguna evidencia de que Moscú planea invadir a su vecino.
El gobierno ucraniano, por su parte, ha dejado claro en repetidas ocasiones que no está de acuerdo con Washington y Londres, al sostener que Rusia no tiene planes de invadir.
La confusión de la canciller británica sobre el territorio ruso y ucraniano no es el único error vergonzoso cometido en este momento de alta tensión.
El 4 de febrero, el medio de comunicación estadounidense Bloomberg, que pertenece a y es dirigido por el milmillonario Michael Bloomberg, informó falsamente que Rusia invadió Ucrania, antes de emitir rápidamente una retractación.


Instruction: Write an article about: West votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions. 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: democracy, General Assembly, human rights, mercenaries, sanctions, unilateral coercive measures, United Nations

Output:
The West voted against the rest of the world on United Nations General Assembly resolutions, opposing democracy, human rights, and cultural diversity, while supporting mercenaries and unilateral coercive measures (sanctions).

Western governments frequently claim that their foreign and domestic policies are motivated by “human rights” and “democracy”. They often even lecture their adversaries for purportedly failing to respect these concerns.
But on the international stage, Western capitals have shown their commitments to be merely rhetorical, as they have consistently voted against these noble causes and refused to support measures that would tangibly protect them, in flagrant violation of the will of the vast majority of the international community.
These stark double standards were on display on November 7 in the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly’s Third Committee, which is devoted to social, humanitarian, and cultural issues.

In this three-hour session, the West opposed draft resolutions that called for promoting democracy, human rights, and cultural diversity, while  simultaneously supporting the use of mercenaries and the application of unilateral coercive measures, commonly known as sanctions.
The extended West voted against the rest of the world on these issues. Its positions were virtually uniform as a bloc, led by the United States, including Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan.
In fact, the chair of the General Assembly’s Third Committee is Austria’s representative to the United Nations, Alexander Marschik, and even he could not help but laugh in the session at the constant protestations of the US representative, who dominated the debate, speaking out against nearly every resolution to explain why the world should join with Washington in voting against it. (Marschik could not contain his laughter despite the fact that his own country, Austria, voted along with the US on each resolution.)
Geopolitical Economy Report has created maps that illustrate the clear political divide between the West and the rest.
In the November 7 session, nations debated a draft that condemned unilateral coercive measures, or sanctions, for violating the human rights of civilians in targeted countries.
The resolution passed with 128 votes in favor and 54 against, and no abstentions.

The General Assembly’s Third Committee likewise considered a measure that called for the “promotion of a democratic and equitable international order”.
The resolution passed with 123 votes in favor and 54 against, plus 7 abstentions (from Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Liberia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay).

Another resolution sought to promote “human rights and cultural diversity”.
The measure passed with 130 votes in favor and 54 against, and no abstentions.

The Third Committee deliberated a draft that called for the “promotion of equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies”.
The resolution passed with 128 votes in favor and 52 against, and no abstentions.

Another measure condemned the “use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”.
The resolution passed with 126 votes in favor and 52 against, plus 6 abstentions (from Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Mexico, Tonga and Switzerland).

The United Nations published a full video of the Third Committee’s session on November 7, in the 48th plenary meeting of the General Assembly’s 78th session.


Instruction: Write an article about: Chinese balloon was not spying, US gov’t admits months after manufactured crisis. 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: balloons, China, Jens Stoltenberg, Mike Gallagher, NATO, Pentagon

Output:
The Pentagon admitted that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind. But Washington and the media milked this manufactured scandal for new cold war propaganda.

The US government has admitted that severe accusations it made against China were just a lot of hot air.
The highest-ranking official in the US military has clarified that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February 2023 was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind.
CBS News published an interview this September with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, who stated, “The intelligence community, their assessment – and it’s a high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon”.
Milley conceded that the large rubber object was probably pushed off track by powerful wind.

This report, released seven months after the incident, has confirmed exactly what the Chinese government stated at the time: its balloon was not spying on the United States, and only accidentally entered its airspace.
The US government has still insisted that the Chinese balloon had technology that could have potentially been used to gather information – although it has not clarified if that technology was focused specifically on collecting data on weather patterns, which is what Beijing said it was doing.
Regardless, in another massive blow to Washington’s narrative, CBS News acknowledged in its report that, “After the Navy raised the wreckage from the bottom of the Atlantic, technical experts discovered the balloon’s sensors had never been activated while over the Continental United States“.
So even if the Chinese balloon had the technological capacity to spy on the United States, as Washington claims, the sensor was never turned on.

This is not the first time a senior US official has admitted that the Chinese balloon was not spying.
In June, Pentagon press secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder made very similar comments.
“We’re aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities, but it was our — and it has been our — assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States”, the Defense Department spokesman said, in remarks quoted by ABC News.
These statements confirm that Geopolitical Economy Report was accurate in its analysis in February, which synthesized existing evidence at the time and concluded that the Chinese balloon had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather.
US admits weather pushed Chinese balloon off course, US shot down hobbyists’ $12 balloon in $2M missile attack

Despite these bombshells proving the entire scandal to be manufactured, Washington and the US media turned this weather accident into a diplomatic crisis, milking the incident to demonize China and depict it as a grave “threat”.
The nationwide freakout was reminiscent of crude propaganda from the first cold war, when the US government produced “Duck and Cover” films instructing students to hide under their desks in the case of a sudden Soviet nuclear strike, or when Hollywood churned out blockbuster movies imploring North Americans to suspect their neighbors of being dastardly Russian communist spies.
Today, the United States is waging a new, second cold war. Moscow is still a target, but this time Washington’s main adversary is Beijing.
As CNN put it bluntly in February, “the Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War”.
During the manufactured scandal, the US State Department claimed the “high altitude balloon’s equipment was clearly for intelligence surveillance”, and was “capable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations”.
The Pentagon referred to the rubber object as a “maneuverable Chinese surveillance balloon” that “violated U.S. airspace and international law, which is unacceptable”.
The White House accused Beijing of operating a “global” espionage program, stating, “We know that these [Chinese] surveillance balloons have crossed over dozens of countries on multiple continents around the world, including some of our closest allies and partners”.
Hawkish US politicians, like Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher, the chair of the House of Representatives’ Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, declared that the large rubber object “is a threat right here at home. It is a threat to American sovereignty, and it is a threat to the Midwest”.
Fox News brought on air neoconservative activists from think tanks funded by the weapons industry, who argued that Beijing was using the balloon to spy on the US to “prepare the battlefield” for war.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg even claimed the rubber object was a threat to other Western governments.
While standing next to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Stoltenberg insisted, “The balloon over the United States confirms a pattern of Chinese behavior where we see that China has invested heavily in new capabilities, including different types of surveillance and intelligence platforms… We need to be aware of the constant risk of Chinese intelligence and step up what we do to protect ourselves and react in a prudent and responsible way”.


Instruction: Write an article about: China & Russia pledge ‘changes not seen in 100 years’: Xi & Putin take aim at US dollar hegemony. 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, energy, gas, Mongolia, Power of Siberia, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

Output:
China’s President Xi Jinping traveled to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin, pledging “changes the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years”, agreeing to deepen economic integration and challenge the hegemony of the US dollar using yuan and other currencies in international trade.

China’s President Xi Jinping traveled to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin on March 20.
While in Moscow, Xi said, “Right now there are changes the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years, and we are the ones driving these changes together”. Putin replied, “I agree”.

The two leaders discussed plans to deepen economic integration.
Both took aim at the hegemony of the US dollar, in particular.
“It is important that our national currencies are increasingly used in bilateral trade”, Putin said on March 21. “We should continue promoting settlements in national currencies, and expand the reciprocal presence of financial and banking structures in our countries’ markets”.
Two-thirds of trade between China and Russia is already conducted in rubles and yuan, he revealed.
Putin called for the Chinese currency to be used globally.
“We support using Chinese yuan in transactions between the Russian Federation and its partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America”, he stated.

Bilateral trade between China and Russia hit a record high of $190.27 billion in 2022, according to Beijing’s Global Times newspaper.
Trade between the two countries has grown by 116% since 2012.
“In 2019, China and Russia jointly set the goal of their bilateral trade reaching $200 billion by 2024. The bilateral trade is expected to exceed $200 billion this year [2023]”, Global Times reported.
Their bilateral trade increased by more than 30% in 2022 alone.
“Trade in agricultural produce is growing even faster – by 41.4 percent in 2022”, Putin said, stressing the importance of “food security”.
The Russian president noted the two countries have “80 important and promising bilateral projects in various fields worth around $165 billion”.
Both leaders emphasized the role that the BRICS system and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) play in deepening their integration.
“We will strengthen our cooperation within multilateral structures, including the SCO, BRICS, and the Group of Twenty [G20], and will promote genuine multipolarity in a bid to facilitate post-pandemic global economic recovery, all while stepping up our constructive efforts to shape a multipolar world“, Xi said.
He invited Putin to visit China for the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. The Russian president attended the previous two conferences.
China and Russia are “working together in civil aircraft construction, shipbuilding, and auto manufacturing”, Putin stated. He added, “We stand ready to support Chinese businesses in replacing the Western enterprises that left Russia”.
Addressing the importance of “technological sovereignty”, Putin explained, “By combining our wealth of research capacity and industrial capabilities, Russia and China can become world leaders in information technology, cyber security, and artificial intelligence”.
Xi emphasized that China seeks to “prioritise high-quality development”, based on the goals established in the 20th national congress of the Communist Party of China in 2022.
“Energy cooperation is expanding. Russia is a strategic supplier of oil, natural gas, including LNG, coal, and electricity to China. The construction of nuclear power facilities continues”, Putin explained.
As an example of growing energy cooperation, Putin mentioned the Power of Siberia natural gas pipeline, which is overseen by state-owned companies: the China National Petroleum Corporation and Russia’s Gazprom.
“In 2022, Russia increased gas supplies to China via the Power of Siberia main pipeline by 50 percent”, Putin revealed.
Power of Siberia reflects Russia’s transition away from the West and toward economic integration with Asia.
In the March 21 talks, Putin revealed, “We have just discussed a good project, the new Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline across Mongolia. We have reached agreement on most of the deal’s parameters”.
Construction of Power of Siberia 2 will allegedly start in 2024, according to Mongolia’s Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene.

The Chinese leader illustrated how important Beijing considers its partnership with Moscow to be by pointing out that the meeting came “shortly after my most recent re-election as President of the PRC, and I chose Russia for my first foreign visit”.
Xi added “that exactly 10 years ago, when I first became President of the People’s Republic of China, I also chose Russia for my first foreign visit“.
Putin reflected, “It is symbolic that exactly ten years ago, we also met here, and it was your first visit to Russia as the President of the People’s Republic of China. Since then, we have made great strides in developing our relations. Our trade has more than doubled, from just over $87 billion, I believe, to almost $200, $185 billion to be exact”.
Putin commented, “The President of China and I remain in touch at all times. Apart from bilateral summits, we meet on the sidelines of international events, and regularly talk to each other on the phone and by videoconference to discuss matters of mutual interest”.
In a clear rejection of the West’s sanctions and new cold war on Moscow, Xi asserted, “No matter how the international landscape may change, China will stay committed to advancing the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era”.
A joint statement published by the Chinese Foreign Ministry disclosed that Xi and Putin discussed Beijing’s proposal for peace talks to end the proxy war in Ukraine.
“The Russian side reaffirms its commitment to the resumption of peace talks as soon as possible“, the statement said.
“The Russian side welcomes China’s willingness to play a positive role for the political and diplomatic settlement of the Ukraine crisis and welcomes the constructive proposals set forth in China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis”, it added.
“The two sides point out that to settle the Ukraine crisis, the legitimate security concerns of all countries must be respected, bloc confrontation should be prevented and fanning the flames avoided”, the statement emphasized.
The US government staunchly opposes China’s attempt at brokering peace in Ukraine.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the “U.S. is trying to head off a potential proposal from Beijing for a cease-fire in Ukraine”.
In their joint statement, China and Russia also underscored that the “two sides oppose any unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council”. This was a clear indication that Beijing rejects the Western sanctions imposed on Moscow.
The United States, Britain, and European Union have repeatedly sabotaged peace talks aimed at ending the proxy war in Ukraine, which were previously sponsored by officials from Türkiye and Israel.
Putin also stated that “Russia congratulates China on helping to successfully bring about historic outcomes from the talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Beijing”.
A few days before Xi visited Moscow, China, Russia, and Iran held joint military exercises.
Beijing’s Foreign Ministry commented, “This exercise will help deepen practical cooperation between the participating countries’ navies … and inject positive energy into regional peace and stability”.
This is exactly the scenario that former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned about in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard”.
He wrote that “the most dangerous scenario” that could prevent US control over Eurasia “would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition”.
In his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard,” US imperial strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned “the most dangerous scenario [for the US empire] would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition”
That now exists today:https://t.co/MzXopEfBpW pic.twitter.com/TcEXKuYqEi
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 23, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: Ukraine’s Zelensky sends love letter to US corporations, promising ‘big business’ for Wall Street. 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: BlackRock, Chamber of Commerce, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Mykhailo Fedorov, National Association of State Chambers, neoliberalism, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Wall Street

Output:
In a video address to a US corporate lobby group, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky thanked companies like BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Starlink, insisting “everyone can become a big business by” investing in Ukraine, where “we are defending freedom and property”.

Ukraine’s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky sent a love letter to US companies, thanking “such giants of the international financial and investment world as BlackRock, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs” for buying up his country’s assets.
“Everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine”, he enticed, claiming that the reconstruction of his nation “will be the largest economic project of our time in Europe”.

Zelensky likewise praised the Starlink company of billionaire Elon Musk for its technological support, and he called for more Western weapons shipments, including Patriot missiles and Abram tanks.
The Ukrainian leader delivered these remarks in a January 23 video address to US corporate lobby group the National Association of State Chambers.
“We are defending freedom and property”, Zelensky declared, portraying the proxy war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine as a battle for the soul of the Western-led capitalist order.
In a speech to a US corporate lobby group, Ukraine's Zelensky thanked Black Rock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Elon Musk's Starlink, promising:
“Everyone can become a big business by” buying up Ukrainian assets
“We are defending freedom and property”
More: https://t.co/fNZplLUr2n pic.twitter.com/XGZTBab9q9
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 25, 2023

Zelensky’s government has imposed some of the world’s most aggressive anti-worker policies, passing legislation that “deprives around 73% of workers of their right to union protection and collective bargaining”, which even the US government-funded Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO labor federation condemned as a “significant assault on worker rights in Ukraine“.
Zelensky’s staunchly anti-worker, anti-union, and pro-corporate ideology came through clear in the neoliberal rhetoric of the speech he gave to the US chamber of commerce organization.
He compared governing Ukraine to running a business, and thanked the corporate executives at the conference “for this opportunity to address those who create the globally important economic strength of America”.
The Ukrainian president’s office published on its official website a transcript of the speech, titled “After the end of the war, American business can become a locomotive of global economic growth”.
“Thanks to the leadership of the United States of America, which has consolidated the world in defense of freedom, we see how to win this battle”, Zelensky effused.
The speech sounded less like the words of a stateman and more like an advertisement by a used car salesman – except he is not selling cars; he is selling his country to foreign mega-corporations.
Zelensky boasted (emphasis added):
We have already managed to attract attention and have cooperation with such giants of the international financial and investment world as Black Rock, J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
Such American brands as Starlink or Westinghouse have already become part of our, Ukrainian, way.
Your brilliant defense systems – such as HIMARS or Bradleys – are already uniting our history of freedom with your enterprises. We are waiting for Patriots. We are looking closely at Abrams.
Thousands of such examples are possible!
And everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine. In all sectors – from weapons and defense to construction, from communications to agriculture, from transport to IT, from banks to medicine.
I believe that freedom must always win. And, I invite you to work with us right now.
In comments clearly seeking to appeal to US conservatives, Zelensky also used the speech to repeatedly condemn “the Iranian regime”, which he demonized as Russia’s “terrorist ally”.
Zelensky was addressing the 2023 winter meeting of the National Association of State Chambers in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Indiana Chamber of Commerce tweeted proudly, “Our President Kevin Brinegar is among state chamber leaders at the National Assocation of State Chambers winter meeting in Florida hearing from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He thanked U.S. business leaders for support and for promoting free enterprise”.
Our President Kevin Brinegar is among state chamber leaders at the National Assocation of State Chambers winter meeting in Florida hearing from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He thanked U.S. business leaders for support and for promoting free enterprise. #ukraine https://t.co/8Ijea6H6mP
— Indiana Chamber (@IndianaChamber) January 23, 2023

In September 2022, Zelensky symbolically rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange via video stream.
The Ukrainian leader declared that his country was “open for business”, with more than $400 billion in “investment options”.
At the same time, Zelensky published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal calling on Western corporations to “Invest in the Future of Ukraine”.
Kiev’s economic ministry launched a program called Advantage Ukraine, which it boasted offers profitable “public private partnerships, privatization and private ventures”, with the help of a “USAID-supported project team of investment bankers and researchers”.
The Ukrainian government cited corporate executives at Google, Alphabet, and Microsoft, who urged more Western companies to buy up the country’s assets.
Ukraine’s Zelensky told Wall Street his country is "open" for corporations to exploit it with $400 billion in state selloffs
Economist Michael Hudson says Ukraine's vicious anti-labor policies are reminiscent of Chile's fascist Pinochet regimehttps://t.co/QconroKORI
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 9, 2022

Geopolitical Economy Report has also reported on the Ukraine Reform Conference and Ukraine Recovery Conference, meetings in which Western governments and corporations have met with top Ukrainian officials to plan aggressive neoliberal shock therapy – like the kind that was imposed on the Russian Federation in the early 1990s, which led to 3.2 million excess deaths, according to UNICEF.
In a meeting in Switzerland in July 2022, Western and Ukrainian government representatives published economic blueprints that called for Kiev to cut labor laws, “open markets”, drop tariffs, deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors”.
Zelensky has used the emergency of the war to ram through harsh anti-labor legislation, suspending collective bargaining rights and essentially making it illegal for most workers to form a union.
Economist Michael Hudson compared Zelensky’s extreme neoliberal policies to those of Chile’s far-right US-backed former dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Western governments and corporations met in Switzerland to plan harsh neoliberal economic policies to impose on post-war Ukraine, calling to cut labor laws, “open markets,” deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors.”https://t.co/J0n8db8ZLr
— Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) July 29, 2022

In December 2022, Zelensky held a video conference with billionaire Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager.
In a press release, the Ukrainian government made it clear that BlackRock is overseeing its reconstruction process.
Zelensky’s office said BlackRock will “advise the Ukrainian government on how to structure the country’s reconstruction funds”, and is “coordinating the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country, channelling investment into the most relevant and impactful sectors of the Ukrainian economy”.
This means that, under Western tutelage, Ukraine has essentially privatized and outsourced its economic policy to BlackRock, one of the world’s most powerful corporations.
BlackRock, which manages more than $8 trillion in assets, is a robber baron’s oligopolistic dream. The “big three” US asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are the largest shareholders in nearly 90% of S&P 500 companies.

Ukraine’s vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, published a video in July 2022 that clearly illustrated Kiev’s neoliberal vision for the future.
The Ukrainian government’s economic plan looked like a scene out of a libertarian science-fiction film, where everything is privatized and corporations are free to exploit anyone without any regulation.
Ukraine 2030 — the freest and most digital country in the world. Without bureaucracy, but with strong tech industry. Cashless & paperless. This is the future we are building. pic.twitter.com/XWs4E1pPGJ
— Mykhailo Fedorov (@FedorovMykhailo) July 14, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: China pledges wealth redistribution, full employment, anti-corruption fight in 20th CPC national congress. 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, Communist Party of China, CPC, socialism, Xi Jinping

Output:
In its 20th national congress, the Communist Party of China (CPC) pledged to redistribute wealth to reduce inequality, pursue full employment, promote gender equality, expand social security and health care, protect the environment, and fight the “cancer” of corruption.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) opened its 20th national congress on October 16. This meeting in Beijing brought together 2296 delegates from every province in the country in order to plan the next five years of policies.
The CPC said its goal is to “write an even more magnificent chapter for socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era.”
Multipolarista editor Ben Norton discussed the importance of the party congress in a discussion below with Danny Haiphong of The Left Lens and Carlos Martinez of Friends of Socialist China.

In the 20th national congress, the CPC highlighted its commitments to Marxism, reducing inequality, peaceful reunification with Taiwan, its zero-covid policy, and especially the fight against the “cancer” of corruption.
On October 16, President Xi Jinping delivered a lengthy report on behalf of 19th CPC Central Committee, which had been established in the 19th party congress in 2017. His speech reflected on the accomplishments of the previous five years, and outlined Beijing’s goals from 2023 to 2027.
Xi said, “from this day forward, the central task of the CPC will be to lead the Chinese people of all ethnic groups in a concerted effort to realize the second centenary goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization.”

A key part of the report presented by Xi called for “Improving the People’s Wellbeing and Raising Quality of Life.”
The CPC said its goals include redistributing wealth to reduce inequality, combatting unemployment, strengthening the health-care system, and improving social security, with an emphasis on gender equality and support for people with disabilities.
Pledging “to promote high-quality and full employment,” the report stressed the need to prioritize less developed rural areas in addition to developed urban ones.
“We will remain committed to the fundamental national policy of gender equality and protect the lawful rights and interests of women and children,” Xi said.
“For people with disabilities, we will improve the social security and service systems and promote all-around development of related programs,” the CPC report added.
Xi stated:
We will promote equality of opportunity, increase the incomes of low-income earners, and expand the size of the middle-income group.
We will improve the policy system for distribution based on factors of production, explore multiple avenues to enable the low- and middle-income groups to earn more from production factors, and increase the property income of urban and rural residents through more channels.
We will enhance the roles of taxation, social security, and transfer payments in regulating income distribution. We will improve the personal income tax system and keep income distribution and the means of accumulating wealth well-regulated. We will protect lawful income, adjust excessive income, and prohibit illicit income.
To fight climate change, the CPC also dedicated a section of its report to the importance of “pursuing green development and promoting harmony between humanity and nature.”
“We will carry out coordinated industrial restructuring, pollution control, ecological conservation, and climate response, and we will promote concerted efforts to cut carbon emissions, reduce pollution, expand green development, and pursue economic growth,” Xi said.
“We will prioritize ecological protection, conserve resources and use them efficiently, and pursue green and low-carbon development,” the Chinese president added.
The following graphic from Dongsheng News shows the structure of the Communist Party of China:
The structure of the Communist Party of China (CPC) (Credit: Dongsheng News)
Back in 2017, in its 19th national congress, the CPC declared that “socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era.”
The party changed its analysis of the central contradiction in Chinese society, which had previously emphasized the need to develop the productive forces and grow its economy, to now address “unbalanced development” and prioritize “equitable income distribution.”
The CPC wrote in its 19th national congress:
Through several decades of development, China has already maintained for a number of years the world’s second largest economy, the world’s largest manufacturer, the largest trading power, and the country with the biggest foreign exchange reserve. China ranks among the top of the world in economic, science and technology, military, and overall national strength.
Accordingly, the principal contradiction of the Chinese society has evolved.
In the past, the contradiction was between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of social production.
Now, the principal contradiction is between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life.
The needs to be met for the people to live a better life are increasingly broad. The Chinese people not only seek for their material and cultural needs, but also concern about their increasing demands for fairness and justice, rule of law, security, eco-environment, balanced urban and rural development, and equitable income distribution.
These changes in the principal contradiction means higher requirements for China’s domestic and foreign policies. It also means new historical mission for the CPC.
The Communist Party of China's 19th congress in 2017 was very important
It made it clear the Chinese government changed its top mission from developing the productive forces and growing its economy to rectifying "unbalanced development," stressing "equitable income distribution" pic.twitter.com/jlgE3KvApf
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 7, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: China is ‘world’s sole manufacturing superpower’, with 35% of global output. 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: CEPR, China, de-industrialization, industrialization, manufacturing, Richard Baldwin

Output:
China’s state-led economic development model and robust industrial policy has transformed it into what an influential European think tank calls “the world’s sole manufacturing superpower”, making up 35% of global gross production – more than the 9 next largest manufacturers combined.

China has overseen world-historic economic growth through a government-led development model, in which state-owned enterprises control the natural monopolies and “commanding heights” of the economy, state-owned banks give favorable loans to strategic industries, and the state’s robust industrial policy helps the country move up the value chain toward higher value-added forms of production.

This model, which Beijing officially refers to as a socialist market economy, has been so successful that a prominent European think tank has acknowledged that “China is now the world’s sole manufacturing superpower”.
In 2020, China made up a staggering 35% of global gross manufacturing production. That is more than the combined output of the United States (12%), Japan (6%), Germany (4%), India (3%), South Korea (3%), Italy (2%), France (2%), and the United Kingdom.

This is according to the research of Richard Baldwin, a professor of international economics at the IMD Business School in Lausanne, Switzerland, and the editor-in-chief of VoxEU, a publication hosted by the Europe-based Centre for Economic Policy Research, or CEPR (not to be confused with the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, which uses the same acronym).
CEPR is very influential in European policy-making circles, and receives funding from France’s central bank and Finance Ministry, as well as the European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund, and numerous private banks in Europe.
The think tank represents the political mainstream in the EU, and is by no means a “pro-Chinese” institution.
In a January VoxEU research paper titled “China is the world’s sole manufacturing superpower“, Baldwin wrote (emphasis added):
The US is the world’s sole military superpower. It spends more on its military than the ten next highest spending countries combined. China is now the world’s sole manufacturing superpower. Its production exceeds that of the nine next largest manufacturers combined.
Baldwin explained that, even when output is measured at value added (that is, gross production minus the cost of intermediate goods bought to produce those manufactures), China makes up 29% of global manufacturing, compared to just 16% for the United States, 7% for Japan, 5% for Germany, 3% for South Korea, 3% for India, 2% for Italy, 2% for France, and 2% for Great Britain.

Baldwin wrote (emphasis added):
China’s industrialisation is unprecedented. The last time the ‘king of the manufacturing hill’ got knocked off the throne was when the US surpassed the UK just before WW1. It took the US the better part of a century to rise to the top; the China-US switch took about 15 or 20 years. China’s industrialisation, in short, defies comparison.
He added that this “remarkable fact helps us to understand current US-China trade tensions”.
China’s rapid industrialization through a state-led development model has coincided with the United States’ relative de-industrialization through a neoliberal economic model based on privatization, liberalization, deregulation, financialization, and unproductive speculation.

Seeking to halt China’s rise, the US government has levied many rounds of unilateral sanctions and waged what Washington insiders have referred to as a “technology war” against China, imposing export restrictions in cutting-edge sectors like 5G, semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence.
Western governments have pledged to “decouple” from the Chinese economy and “derisk” strategically important industries.
However, in his CEPR research paper, Baldwin emphasized that the US is much more dependent on buying Chinese manufactured goods than China is dependent on the US market to sell its exports.

“In 2020, the US was about three times more exposed to Chinese manufacturing production than vice versa”, Baldwin wrote. He added that “the numbers are astounding”.
Baldwin cautioned, “Politicians may wish to decouple their economies from China. These data suggest that decoupling would be difficult, slow, expensive, and disruptive – especially to G7 manufacturers”.


Instruction: Write an article about: UN votes 152 to 5 telling Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. 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: IAEA, Israel, NPT, nuclear weapons, Palestine, UN, United Nations

Output:
The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly, 152 to 5, to tell the Israeli apartheid regime to get rid of its nuclear weapons, which are illegal under international law.

(Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.)
The vast majority of countries on Earth voted in the United Nations General Assembly to condemn the Israeli apartheid regime for having nuclear weapons, in flagrant violation of international law.
Israel is the only country in West Asia that has nukes. Tel Aviv has not officially acknowledged its possession of the planet-destroying weapons, but experts estimate it has at least 90 nuclear warheads, and perhaps hundreds.

On October 28, a staggering 152 countries (79% of all UN member states) adopted a resolution that called on Israel to give up its atomic bombs, join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to supervise its nuclear facilities.
Just five countries voted against the measure: the United States and Canada, the small island nations of Palau and Micronesia, and apartheid Israel itself.
Another 24 countries abstained, mostly members of the European Union, NATO allies, and India.
The October 28, 2022 UN General Assembly vote telling Israel to get rid of its illegal nuclear weapons
The resolution, document A/C.1/77/L.2, was titled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.”
It demands that Israel abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and put “all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.”
The document likewise says Israel must commit “not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under fullscope Agency safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.”
The resolution had been introduced by Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt (on behalf of the Arab League), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the UN-recognized state of Palestine.
It was adopted in the 25th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which is focused on disarmament and international security.
The October 28, 2022 UN General Assembly vote telling Israel to get rid of its illegal nuclear weapons
Back in 2019, the United States and apartheid Israel were the only countries on Earth that voted against UN General Assembly draft resolutions calling for establishing a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, preventing an arms race in outer space, and ending Washington’s illegal six-decade blockade of Cuba.
Important breakthroughs have arrived at the UN seeking to prevent an arms race in outer space and create a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. There are just two main obstacles: the US and #Israel.@WomenMarch4Paz @Blacks4Peacehttps://t.co/BZbNaauNPn
— Popular Resistance (@PopResistance) November 13, 2019


Instruction: Write an article about: Following failed kidnapping of Imran Khan, Pakistan’s regime desperately cracks down on dissent. 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: Imran Khan, Pakistan, PTI

Output:
Pakistan’s toppled Prime Minister Imran Khan tried to defend himself against bogus corruption charges, but the military kidnapped him. The Supreme Court ruled it was an unlawful arrest and he was freed. So now the unelected regime is cracking down hard, threatening to prosecute protesters in army courts.

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan pledged to build a “Naya Pakistan” – a New Pakistan. He hoped to break with decades of internal misrule and gross corruption and offer a hopeful future for the world’s fifth-most populous country, of nearly 248 million people.
Khan’s vision also meant a New Pakistan that ended its external dependencies and subordinate relationship with Washington, which could only be described as neo-colonial.
Khan’s period in power came at a bad time, especially because of the Covid-19 crisis, and his own rule did at times reflect a lack of political acumen and an inability to implement all of the social welfare policies to which he was genuinely dedicated.
But Khan’s term in power was cut short by a regime change-operation, which entailed the collusion of a 12-party coalition, including the two dominant political family dynasties of the Sharifs (of the party PML-N) and the Bhuttos (of the party PPP), who had played musical chairs in running the country as their personal fiefdoms for more than three decades.
Also involved in the regime-change operation was the Chief of Army Staff (always the most powerful individual in the country), and a few of his followers in the military-intelligence apparatus; along with, of course, the United States, which has despised Khan’s independent thinking on foreign policy since 2001, when he established himself as a harsh critic of Washington’s so-called “War on Terror”.
All of these power centers, especially the US embassy in Islamabad, cajoled members of Khan’s own party into abandoning him, with promises of political power (and personal riches).
The idea was that the job was done, and that Khan and his political party, the PTI – the Movement for Justice – would gradually be eliminated as serious contenders from political life.
But the exact opposite occurred. The color revolution instigated by Washington and these other forces backfired terribly.
Despite the horrible state of the economy and the suffering of the social majorities, even during Khan’s rule, things changed following his ouster in April 2022, and tens of millions of Pakistanis have poured onto the streets.
In these massive, ongoing protests, the Pakistani people have condemned the mafias and crooks (the term often used to describe Pakistan’s civilian politicians), as well as the brutal national-security state that has dragged the country back to the status quo ante of repression, corruption, and massive inequality and impoverishment.
For a whole year now, enormous numbers of Pakistanis have been protesting peacefully and attending rallies held by Imran Khan, whose popularity has continued to soar.
Khan is by far the most popular politician in Pakistan, with at least 61% support – in what was probably a conservative estimate in a survey this March by leading pollster Gallup. (The unelected prime minister who replaced Khan, Shehbaz Sharif, had 65% disapproval.)
The Pakistani government and sections of the top brass of the military did not know what to make of this. Their complete attention for the past year has been dedicated to somehow eliminating Khan.
Ludicrous charges of treason or corruption have constantly been leveled against him.
Most gruesomely, there was an assassination attempt against Khan in November, which almost succeeded.
Military commanders knew that Khan not only had the support of the people, but also of the majority of the military itself, especially among the soldiers, as well as many junior- and mid-rank officers.
These were the same military forces that Khan repeatedly said had sacrificed their lives at the behest of Washington’s so-called “War on Terror.” More than 80,000 Pakistani lives were lost in this war, thousands of whom were military soldiers and officers, who had sometimes been ordered to kill innocent people who had nothing to do with terrorism.
This explained the initial reluctance on the part of the generals to assault Khan and his supporters. But things soon changed.
The current, unelected regime cooked up corruption charges against Imran Khan. The former prime minister said he was more than willing to go to court to debunk the accusations and expose the sham. This May, he traveled from Lahore to the Islamabad High Court for the case.
As Khan entered the judicial compound, he was manhandled and abducted by military rangers, who were doing the job jointly at the behest of the intelligence services and Interior Ministry.
Khan was kidnapped, with his whereabouts unknown for three days.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asserted that this was not a lawful arrest but rather an illegal kidnapping, and that Khan should be set free on bail.
The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court hence also became a target for those who have been trying to eliminate Khan by all means. For them, there is no rule of law; they believe their word is law.
When Khan was abducted and detained, huge numbers of demonstrators spent two full days flooding the major and minor cities and towns of the country in protest.
The Pakistani national-security state primarily relied on the most gruesome and thuggish forces in its intelligence agencies to crack down on these protesters.
In these constant demonstrations, thousands of PTI workers have been jailed, tortured, and imprisoned. Some have even been dragged out of their houses, and their family members have been harassed and detained.
For a year, the protests were peaceful. But this May, there was looting, fires, and some violence. There is video footage demonstrating that hundreds of men in civilian clothing were jumping out of army vehicles, posing as protesters, engaging in this violent behavior.
There is evidence suggesting that agents provocateurs at the service of the state were seeking to discredit Khan, depicting him and his followers as supporters of terrorism, demonizing the PTI as a supposed “terrorist” political party.
The military top brass and the ruthlessly corrupt clowns running the government are so desperate they are now equating Khan’s political party with the TTP, the Pakistani Taliban.
Their objective is obvious: to permanently disqualify the country’s most popular party from participating in elections and the political system itself.
In the brutal crackdown this may, the regime has gone one step forward. The military establishment has said that all protesters involved in violence – basically anyone they want to accuse without any evidence – will not be tried in civil courts, but rather in army courts, where traditional due process rules will not be adhered to.
They are using a law known as the Army Act.
Mainstream Western organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have harshly condemned these Pakistani trials in army courts.
The former wrote:
Amnesty International has documented a catalogue of human right violations stemming from trying civilians in military courts in Pakistan, including flagrant disregard for due process, lack of transparency, coerced confessions, and executions after grossly unfair trials. Therefore, any indication that the trial of civilians could be held in military courts is incompatible with Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law.
This is purely an intimidation tactic, designed to crack down on dissent by exercising fear of an institution that has never been held to account for its overreach. There are several provisions under ordinary criminal laws that can be used to prosecute vandalism and destruction of public property. The right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Pakistan’s constitution, is severely undermined by this move and cannot be justified. It must be struck down immediately.
Though late in their response, some on Pakistan’s professional left – despite their contempt and envy of Khan and his popularity – have also criticized the Army Act.
The top brass of the military high command and the most venal elements of their intelligence services, along with their partners-in-crime in the current regime, believe this will finally solve the problem of Imran Khan’s threat to the status quo.
But it is important to note that a major chunk of military officers and even corps commanders were not on board with this draconian move.
The extremist elements implementing this “final solution” to the Khan problem feel that Washington and London’s support is sufficient for them to get away with whatever brutality they wish to inflict on his movement and the PTI at this point.
When the military briefly kidnapped Khan in May, the US government refused to comment on the act, which amounted to a de facto endorsement.
Since then, the State Department has only issued vague declarations on the need to respect the “rule of law” and “democratic principles” (despite the fact that the regime it is currently backing was not elected).
However, there may be some divisions emerging in the Washington establishment over this whole gruesome affair in Pakistan.
Even notorious neoconservative US diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad, who helped oversee the war on Afghanistan, has conceded that Pakistan is now a “military dictatorship”.
Pakistan’s Army Chief continues to trample over democratic red lines. Now he has decided to try civilians in a military court that he will constitute. The name for this is military dictatorship, and it’s brazenly unconstitutional.#Pakistan [Thread]
— Zalmay Khalilzad (@realZalmayMK) May 22, 2023

The US desperately wants a stable Pakistan, from which it could project its power, in a region where Washington has largely been forced to retreat, especially after its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan.
The rapprochement arranged by China between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the normalization of ties between Syria and Saudi Arabia, were another major blow to US hegemony.
Washington’s quislings in Pakistan’s military high command and the political class were principally tasked with providing the US with a blank check: air space for any operation to be conducted in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the restoration of a military base closed by the Pakistanis in 2011, and general obedience to US strategy to undermine and subvert any and all things related to Chinese and Russian prosperity, even if they also mean prosperity for Pakistan.
This US strategy included sabotaging the Chinese-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of Beijing’s larger Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Washington apparently now believes that Islamabad could be coerced into becoming a sort of “major non-Quad ally,” causing the historic Sino-Pakistan relationship to crumble.
However, the political consciousness of Pakistanis has been completely transformed over the past year, and Washington is starting to have doubts whether its planned agenda can be implemented by a government and national-security state so despised by so many Pakistanis.
Despite having lost nearly all of its prestige and moral authority in the region, the US government could have the chance to earn the goodwill the Pakistani people, if it actually supported democracy and the rule of law in the country.
US Congresswoman Maxine Water reportedly spoke with Imran Khan about the current regime’s human rights violations, and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria interviewed Khan, providing the people of the US a rare opportunity to know the facts, to separate the truth from the propaganda, and to urge their Congressional leaders to persuade the government to align itself with actual justice and the actual rule of law.
They should feel the pulse of the masses of Pakistan and not opt for the short-lived gain from propping up dictators who will pliantly obey the US, against the interests of the common people. Such unwise foreign policy actions always result in blowback, and would only hurt US interests in the long run.
The entire world knows which political party and political leader stands for democracy and fair elections in Pakistan. The world also knows which group does not want elections.
The coalition that ironically calls itself the “Pakistan Democratic Movement” is in reality aimed at preventing democracy from emerging by refusing to hold elections.
They are obsessed with banning, imprisoning, or even assassinating Imran Khan, the most popular and most honest political leader in Pakistan’s history.
Why do they want to remove him? Because they know that Khan and his party will sweep the elections.
This ramshackle group should more accurately be called the Pakistan Anti-Democratic Movement.
Because of the horrendous levels of state repression taking place against his party members and leadership, Imran Khan asked supporters to stand strong during this dark period in Pakistan’s history.
For the moment, he has cautioned the people to avoid confronting a ruthless state that is prepared to try thousands in military courts, while still holding thousands under arrest, subjecting many to the worst forms of torture.
With a population eager for a revolution that would topple all the crooks and mafias in government – and in the Washington-backed military-intelligence senior personnel – it is difficult to see how such festering rage can be permanently subdued.
The regime believes it has succeeded in being restored. But tens of millions of Pakistanis and intelligent observers can see that this is delusional thinking.
The regime has crossed the Rubicon, a  “red line” that protesters had drawn to warn the criminals against this ongoing savage assault on Imran Khan and his peaceful supporters.
It is hard to imagine that there will not be a cost to pay for that in a country of 248 million, where the bulk of the population is restive and impatient with what they have witnessed happening both to themselves and to the most popular leader in the nation’s history.
Even more crucially, millions of Pakistanis are now empowered in a way they haven’t been for decades. They know change is possible – and it’s in sight. It’s only a matter of time.


Instruction: Write an article about: Who is Pakistan’s Imran Khan? From athlete to protester of US wars to overthrown prime minister. 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: Imran Khan, Pakistan, podcast

Output:
Benjamin Norton speaks with Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad about Prime Minister Imran Khan, his history, and how he challenged Pakistan’s two-party system until he was overthrown in a US-backed soft coup.

In this episode of the Multipolarista podcast, Benjamin Norton is joined by Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad to discuss how Pakistan’s elected Prime Minister Imran Khan was overthrown in a US-backed coup aimed at reversing his independent foreign policy – like his close alliance with China, improved relations with Russia and Iran, and staunch support for Palestine.
Part 2 of 2

This video is also available at Rumble and Rokfin.

You can also download the podcast at Substack.
You can watch or listen to part 1 here:
US-backed coup in Pakistan overthrows PM Imran Khan over his independent foreign policy

Read Junaid’s article “Pakistan warns of foreign-backed regime-change attempt, to disrupt China/Russia alliance”
Pakistan’s opposition is trying to overthrow Prime Minister Imran Khan with a no-confidence motion.
Khan says he has proof of foreign funding for a regime-change op to reverse his independent foreign policy – especially his alliance with China and Russiahttps://t.co/wdIqWDlqss
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 1, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: Veterano de la CIA pide guerra contra China y Rusia, amenazando con ataques nucleares. 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: armas nucleares, China, CIA, nueva guerra fría, Rusia, segunda guerra fría

Output:
Un veterano de la CIA y el Pentágono, Matthew Kroenig, publicó un artículo en una revista elitista en el que pide una guerra de Estados Unidos contra China y Rusia, incluyendo la “amenaza de ataques nucleares no estratégicos”.

(You can read this article in English here.)
Un veterano de la CIA y el Pentágono que ahora ayuda a dirigir una de las organizaciones más poderosas de Washington, Matthew Kroenig, ha publicado un artículo en la influyente revista Foreign Policy en el que pide a Estados Unidos que se prepare para librar la guerra contra China y Rusia.
Kroenig desempeñó importantes funciones estatales de seguridad nacional en las administraciones de los presidentes George W. Bush, Barack Obama y Donald Trump, y tiene una influencia significativa en los círculos de la política exterior de Washington.
Kroenig insistió en que el ejército estadounidense debería “amenazar con ataques nucleares no estratégicos” contra China sobre Taiwán y contra Rusia sobre Europa.
Refiriéndose al conflicto de Washington con Beijing y Moscú como una “nueva guerra fría”, también pidió aumentar aún más el presupuesto militar anual de EEUU, que ya es de $768 mil millones. Sostuvo que “Estados Unidos puede permitirse gastar más que Rusia y China al mismo tiempo”.
El veterano de la CIA y el Pentágono enfatizó que Washington debe enfrentarse a ambas superpotencias euroasiáticas, simultáneamente, para mantener la hegemonía unipolar estadounidense, que reconoció está en declive.
Kroenig hizo estos argumentos en un artículo de amplia circulación, publicado el 18 de febrero en la revista de élite Foreign Policy, bajo el título “Washington debe prepararse para la guerra con Rusia y China”.

Matthew Kroenig actualmente se desempeña como subdirector del Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security (Centro Scowcroft para Estrategia y Seguridad) en el Atlantic Council (Consejo Atlántico), un instituto de investigación de la alianza militar de la OTAN, liderada por Estados Unidos.
El Atlantic Council, que está financiado por el gobierno de EEUU, otros gobiernos occidentales, la OTAN y la industria armamentística, tiene una enorme influencia en Washington y ayuda a crear la política exterior de cada administración.
Además de su trabajo para la CIA y el Departamento de Defensa en las administraciones de Bush, Obama y Trump, Kroenig fue asesor de seguridad nacional para las campañas presidenciales de los republicanos Mitt Romney, en 2012, y Marco Rubio, en 2016.
También es miembro del elite Council on Foreign Relations (Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores), y profesor de gobierno y servicio exterior en la prestigiosa Universidad de Georgetown en Washington.
En resumen, Kroenig es una figura muy influyente en los círculos de la política exterior de EEUU, con credenciales impecables, y sus puntos de vista extremadamente agresivos que piden una guerra simultánea contra China y Rusia reflejan las opiniones de muchos de sus colegas en Washington.
Matthew Kroenig resumió la opinión de muchas élites de la política exterior de Washington de que Estados Unidos debe hacer la guerra para mantener su control hegemónico indiscutible sobre el planeta, escribiendo:
Estados Unidos sigue siendo la principal potencia mundial con intereses globales, y no puede darse el lujo de elegir entre Europa y el Indo-Pacífico. En cambio, Washington y sus aliados deberían desarrollar una estrategia de defensa capaz de disuadir y, si es necesario, derrotar a Rusia y China al mismo tiempo.
Una de las tácticas que Estados Unidos podría usar para mantener su hegemonía unipolar, argumentó Kroenig, es la amenaza de una guerra nuclear:
Finalmente, si es necesario, Washington siempre podría tomar una página de su libro de jugadas de la Guerra Fría y confiar más en las armas nucleares para compensar las ventajas locales y convencionales de sus rivales. La presencia de armas nucleares tácticas estadounidenses en Europa ayudó a disuadir al enorme Ejército Rojo soviético durante décadas. De manera similar, Estados Unidos podría confiar en amenazar con ataques nucleares no estratégicos para disuadir y, como último recurso, frustrar una invasión anfibia china de Taiwán o una incursión de tanques rusos en Europa.
Sin duda, existen riesgos asociados con la disuasión nuclear, pero las armas nucleares han desempeñado un papel fundamental en la estrategia de defensa de EEUU durante tres cuartos de siglo, y es probable que continúen haciéndolo en las próximas décadas.
Advirtiendo que “Moscú y Beijing están forjando una asociación estratégica más estrecha, incluso en asuntos militares”, Kroenig insistió en que Estados Unidos debe aumentar drásticamente el gasto militar, para “superar a Rusia y China al mismo tiempo”:
Primero, Washington debería aumentar el gasto en defensa. Al contrario de quienes afirman que los recursos limitados obligarán a tomar decisiones difíciles, Estados Unidos puede permitirse gastar más que Rusia y China al mismo tiempo. Estados Unidos posee el 24 por ciento del PIB mundial en comparación con un 19 por ciento combinado en China y Rusia. Este año, Estados Unidos gastará $778 mil millones en defensa en comparación con solo $310 mil millones en Rusia y China.
Además, Estados Unidos podría llegar a duplicar el gasto en defensa (actualmente el 2,8 por ciento del PIB) y seguir estando por debajo del promedio de la Guerra Fría (cerca del 7 por ciento del PIB). De hecho, dado que esta nueva Guerra Fría es tan peligrosa como la anterior, es necesario un aumento significativo en el gasto de defensa, centrado en las tecnologías de defensa emergentes del siglo XXI.
…
En resumen, incluso si esta nueva competencia estratégica se convierte en una carrera armamentista de dos contra uno, es probable que Washington prevalezca.
Hizo un llamado a los aliados de EEUU para que también aumenten significativamente su gasto militar y escribió: “Los aliados europeos deberían invertir en armaduras y artillería, mientras que los aliados asiáticos compran minas navales, misiles arpón y submarinos”.
Kroenig señaló que se espera que la administración de Joe Biden publique pronto una nueva Estrategia de Defensa Nacional de EEUU, que esencialmente pedirá a Washington que se centre exclusivamente en contener a China, no a Rusia. Pero esta estrategia supuestamente se retrasó debido a la crisis en Ucrania.
Algunos legisladores estadounidenses han pedido que se reduzcan las tensiones con Moscú y que se intente formar una alianza con Rusia contra China, pero Kroenig argumentó que esto “no es realista”.
Esta no es la primera vez que Matthew Kroenig aboga por una guerra estadounidense.
En 2012, publicó un artículo en Foreign Affairs, el diario oficial del poderoso Council on Foreign Relations, en el que pedía al ejército estadounidense que lanzara ataques contra Irán.

En 2021, Kroenig habló en una conferencia contra Irán organizada por una secta infame que se llama el Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK). Muchos derechistas belicosos en Washington han apoyado este grupo extremista para tratar de lograr un cambio de gobierno en Teherán.
Elogió al Consejo Nacional de Resistencia de Irán (NCRI), una fachada del MEK, por la pretendida inteligencia que ha publicado sobre el supuesto programa nuclear de Teherán.

Ciertamente, Matthew Kroenig no es el único funcionario de la inteligencia estadounidense que pide la guerra contra China.
En noviembre de 2021, otro veterano de la CIA, David Sauer, publicó un artículo de opinión en The Hill titulado “Estados Unidos debe prepararse para la guerra con China por Taiwán”.
“Para disuadir a China, Estados Unidos debe aumentar rápidamente sus fuerzas en el Pacífico, continuar fortaleciendo las alianzas militares en la región para garantizar el acceso a las bases en tiempos de conflicto y acelerar las entregas de equipos militares comprados a Taiwán”, escribió Sauer.