Datasets:

Vctr-dev

/

geopol_news_combined_cat

like 0

Write an article about: Multipolarity: China, Russia, Israel, India, and the difficult birth of a new world. 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.

Benjamin Netanyahu, BJP, China, Gaza, Geopolitical Economy Hour, India, Israel, Joe Biden, Likud, Michael Hudson, Narendra Modi, Palestine, Pepe Escobar, Radhika Desai, Russia, Valdai, Vladimir Putin

Radhika Desai, Michael Hudson, and Pepe Escobar discuss the Belt and Road Forum in China, the Valdai conference in Russia, Israel’s war on Gaza, and India’s alignment with the US. Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are joined by geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar to discuss the rapidly changing global order, from the Belt and Road Forum in China to the Valdai Club conference in Russia, from Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza to India’s alignment with the US. You can find more episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour here. This discussion was held on October 16. RADHIKA DESAI: Hello and welcome to the 17th Geopolitical Economy Hour, the show that examines the fast-changing political and geopolitical economy of our time. I’m Radhika Desai. MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson. RADHIKA DESAI: And today, once again, we are joined by the roving reporter extraordinaire, Pepe Escobar. Welcome again, Pepe. PEPE ESCOBAR: Thank you. Enormous pleasure. RADHIKA DESAI: Great. Now, this show has been a little bit delayed because I, particularly, I have been traveling. Of course, Pepe travels all the time. He’s always joining us from all sorts of extraordinary locations. Today, he’s in Bangkok. But I have particularly been traveling to conferences in China. And then I went to the Valdai Conference in Sochi, where Pepe was also there. And of course, I have returned, as some of you may know, to a huge storm of controversy stirred up by the mainstream media around some questions that I asked President Putin about the fact that the Canadian parliament, while we were traveling, had indulged in its enormous ignorance by applauding a Nazi when President Volodymyr Zelensky was visiting and rightly became the object of ridicule and censure all around the world. But of course, what we are going to talk about today goes far beyond my personal story. It’s really nothing more or less than the story of the birthing of a new order that we have, in any case, been talking about and to which President Putin, in his traditional speech to Valdai at the Valdai Club, alluded and which, by the way, the Valdai Club Annual Report also detailed, I thought, very ably. It’s really, the report is worth a read. So please take a look at both documents. But really, as I say, we are talking about the birthing of a new order, the topic of, and this is the topic of discussion not only at Valdai, not only in Sochi, but in China as well, and really practically all over the world. And of course, there’s an enormous amount of hope invested in this. And this is true, that is to say, it’s the topic of discussion and it’s invested with a lot of hope practically everywhere but in the West. And thereby hang many tales. The topic of the Valdai Club conference, it was fair multipolarity. And in his speech and also in some of the sessions that took place at the conference, it was a four-day conference where, by the way, participants were kept busy from nine o’clock in the morning till nine in the evening. There was also considerable discussion of the concept of civilization states. And really, it was also another major topic of discussion was, of course, development and modernization. And in China, we attended an extremely fascinating conference on modernization. And again, between Valdai and China, what was the common theme? That development, modernization had to take place according to the choices made by the people of every country. It could not take place on the basis of the one-size-fits-all neoliberal recipe doled out by the West, which is, of course, has historically been a recipe for subordination. Everyone was instead talking about a new, fairer, democratic world order, which would reflect the interests of all the people of the world, of all of humanity, including what is increasingly being alluded to as the world majority, that is to say the ex-Western world. And this is precisely the new world order that the West is trying to prevent. It’s trying to prevent the emergence of it with its wars, its sanctions, its diplomacy, precisely the measures, the wars, the sanctions, and the diplomacy, which over the past years have today culminated not only in the conflict over Ukraine, but as we have seen over the past week and more, almost 10 days into the genocide in Gaza that is ongoing. So all of these are the direct results of what the West is doing. And of course, in all of this, the mainstream media that has been demonizing all these developments is totally party to the sorry arm pass in which the world finds itself. So the interesting and important point here is that the West is huffing and puffing. It’s going to try as hard as it can in preventing the emergence of this new order, but I do not believe on the basis of everything I know that it can possibly succeed. It can huff and it can puff, but it cannot blow down the structures that the global majority is building. Indeed, it’s going to find that its own structures, the so-called rules-based international order are actually built out of straw or at best wood while the global majority is building its house step-by-step, albeit slowly, but it is building it, pardon the pun, but with bricks. So I think, Pepe and Michael, we are ready to start our discussion. And so I thought we would start off with impressions of Valdai, but I know Pepe that you in particular are eager also to talk about an event, not in the past, but an event that is about to take place, the Belt and Road Summit, which is going to take place in China, which you are following closely. So talk about that and also connect it with Valdai if you could, please. PEPE ESCOBAR: Oh my God, how many hours do I have? 10? RADHIKA DESAI: Only point 10. PEPE ESCOBAR: Well, Radhika and I were at Valdai. Radhika was one of the guests and I was part of the Lumpen Proletariat because I went there as a journalist. And obviously we are treated as Lumpen Proletariat because many of the sessions at Valdai are closed. So we don’t have access. So obviously I used maybe my footballing tactics and I dribble around it. And I had fabulous conversations on the sidelines of these sessions, for instance, with a wonderful Pakistani specialist on nuclear weapons, on Mr. Sergei Karaganov, which I have not seen for a few years and it was great to meet him. And basically our discussion was a sort of preamble to the question that Mr. Karaganov placed to Vladimir Putin on the plenary session, Radhika was there, which was, should we lower the nuclear threshold? And Putin’s response was an absolute masterpiece because obviously Putin reads everything that Karaganov publishes. One of the conceptualizers of the official Kremlin doctrine of Eurasia integration called Greater Eurasia Partnership. The main writer of this document was Karaganov himself. And it was very, very interesting because when that landed on Putin’s desk, this was late 2018. And then I visited Karaganov at his office at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. And he was beaming because basically the first thing that he said was, yes, our idea was approved by the president. So, you know, that tells you everything on who Karaganov is. But Putin responding about the nuclear, which was a key question because this was the subject of an article that Karaganov had written, you know, the rippling of waves all over Russia, all over the post-Soviet space and everybody who read it in the West. Putin said, look, there are only two instances where Russia would use nuclear weapons according to our doctrine. Number one, we suffer a nuclear attack and then our response will be immediate and it’s gonna be nuclear hypersonic. He didn’t say in these words, but basically this is what he meant. And the second possibility is that the existence and the survivability of the Russian state is in peril because of an attack, which could even be by ordinary weapons, conventional weapons. And in this case, our response will also be exactly the same thing. They won’t even know what hit them. It will be too late. So the clincher a la Putin was, no one in his right mind would ever think about using nuclear weapons or attacking the Russian Federation. So that was his response. Obviously, Karaganov was a much more apocalyptic in the way he basically said, look, our red lines are being trespassed on a weekly basis, at least. Shouldn’t we start to, you know, tell them, look, you have to understand the rules of the game and we already been explaining them to you since late, just before the start of the SMO, the Special Military Operation, and the indivisibility of security, the letters that they sent to the Pentagon and NATO, et cetera, at the end of 2021. And Putin’s response as usual, very, very measured. So, okay, this was just to give you an idea to all of you, how the level of discussion, extremely serious, but also like Radhika mentioned in the introduction, there was, for instance, a fabulous round table on the concept of civilization, where everybody discussed the notion of civilization state, including, for instance, Pierre de Gaulle, the grandson of the iconic general, which for the first time that I recall in English, he made a presentation in English, talking about the French concept of civilization. That was immensely interesting. And later, Pierre de Gaulle met with President Putin. And obviously Putin, in terms of General de Gaulle, of course, one of his idols, of course. And there was another extremely interesting panel on BRICS. And the star of this panel was my friend, Paulo Nogueira Batista, economist, who was in the past for two years, Vice President of the BRICS Bank in Shanghai, the New Development Bank. And before he worked at the IMF. And after Valdai, Paulo went to the IMF meeting in Morocco. So I still haven’t talked to him about what really happened in Morocco. But Michael wrote an absolutely outstanding article about it. And Michael can tell us soon. So to finish this little introduction on Valdai, it was absolutely essential in terms of all the major panels, about all the major issues in terms of Eurasia, Afro-Eurasia, and Global South, Global Majority Integration, were discussed in depth with some of the best minds all across the spectrum. Not many Westerners, by the way. This is very, very important. Radhika was probably one of the few coming from Canada. RADHIKA DESAI: I was perhaps, but there were people. There were people from France. PEPE ESCOBAR: There were, but not many, Radhika. Glenn Diesen, for instance, from Norway, but very, very few. And from the West, nobody, as far as I can recall. RADHIKA DESAI: But it’s important to remember that there were those few. This is the key thing. PEPE ESCOBAR: Yes, I agree with you. Professor Richard Sakwa, for example, who is one of the best known- I met later at the airport. We had a wonderful conversation at the airport later. Tina Jennings, Tina Jennings, she’s Canadian and lived in Russia for a long time. Wrote a fabulous book about the early Putin years. But compared to previous Valdai meetings, of course, and just like even more than in Vladivostok, where there was virtually nobody from the West apart from Karin Kneissl, the former Austrian foreign minister, you can see the cleavage in front of you. And as far as I can, from my experience as a roving eye, literally, the Russians don’t care because the level of discussion, and Radhika, I’m sure, would agree with me, the level of discussion was up there with the Chinese, with Pakistanis, Iranians as well. Aragshi, you know, one of the top Iranian strategists, in fact, who actually suggests policy directly to Ayatollah Khamenei was there. Now, you remember this panel, right, Radhika? So this means that these discussions at their highest level, you don’t even need the Westerners. Because first of all, because they already know what they’re gonna say, especially if they are of the Atlantic Council mold, right? Second, they won’t contribute to the real debate, which, as Radhika put it in the introduction, closer and closer integration of all these multilateral organizations. So the great takeaway from Valdai is that some of the best minds of the emerging global majority, global South, were there and discussing at the highest level. MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, I think it’s not simply that Westerners weren’t there, but the Western press really has sort of blacked this out. And I understand that while Radhika was there, the Canadian government sanctioned Valdai and said no reporters or others should go to the meeting. Well, Radhika’s in a position not only of being a professor, but I think because of the show we have here, she could be considered a journalist. And so they were trying to prevent, not only did they try to prevent her going, and I understand, she has some interesting stories about what happened on her way back, but the press here had a complete blackout. And I had to go to either Johnson’s Russia List and then to the websites to get what actually was said at the conference in Valdai. And you’re right, it was very interesting to read, but you could only get it online. You were not going to be reading it in the Western press where there was just a travesty of what actually happened there. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, I mean, there’s so much to respond to here. So let me just try a couple of things, focus on a couple of points. First of all, I think it’s very important to remember that there are academics as well as journalists in Western countries who really care about their countries not acting as essentially spoilers in the emergence of a fairer, just new world order that want their countries to contribute to that rather than being obstacles to that. And those were the sorts of people from Western countries who were there. That’s why I mentioned professors like Richard Sakwa. I think he is a leading, even more than me. I mean, my own scholarship on Russia related matters is about a decade or a little over a decade old. In his case, he spent a whole lifetime studying Russia and he was very happy to be there. He intervened, he has been a regular member. I’ve met him there before. So I think it’s important to stress that because I think otherwise it’s important not to tar everyone in the West with the same brush. Yes, our leaders seem to have lost their minds. And of course, it’s precisely this collective madness of our political class that was revealed in Canada when just a little before the Valdai Club conference on September the 22nd, the whole of parliament stood up and applauded a Nazi calling him a hero for having fought the Russians. And this country completely forgot the fact that during the second world war, it was an ally of Russia, that no one or that anyone who was fighting the Russians was highly likely to have been fighting for Hitler, which indeed in this case, this man turned out to be. And this of course relates back to the whole history that Canada has of encouraging the immigration of Nazis in Canada, which has happened in a whole number of quite different instances. And indeed, some of us are even talking about a holding a people’s inquiry into how Canada got here. So that’s one thing I wanted to say. The second thing I just wanted to say is that, one of the other topics that fair multi-polarity and you pointed to particularly the discussion by Mr. Batista, who was there from Brazil. He was really very good. He has been working with the IMF and they of course, emphasize some of the difficulties of the emergence of the multi-polar order. And there is no doubt that the birthing of a new order is never going to be easy. No birth is easy as I’m sure any woman will tell you. So the fact of the matter is that there are going to be all sorts of birth banks. And one of the more interesting birth banks that we are witnessing is the tendency, particularly of India to side more, to sort of the tendency particularly of Prime Minister Modi to come out unequivocally on the side of the US. But what’s really interesting is that the tide of history is pushing the world in a very different direction. And this is marked by the fact that even in this case, when for example, Prime Minister Modi came out in favor of Israel completely unequivocally without clarification, he came out in favor of Israel in the recent war. Within a couple of days, he had to backtrack and make some kind of balanced assessment because the fact of the matter is that world opinion is no longer willing to accept the idea that Israel can do whatever it likes. It can conduct genocide in Gaza. It can keep pounding Palestinians with bombs, with white phosphorus and what have you as it likes. This is not the defense of Israel. And some sort of negotiated solution is way past overdue. So even in this case, so I think that there will always be leaders. There was Bolsonaro in Brazil. There will always be leaders who in third world countries themselves, in the BRICS, in the global majority themselves, who will try to pull in the other direction. But quite frankly, there is so little to gain from the West. And this also, by the way, came out in Putin’s speech. And I also want to come back, Pepe, to the point you made about civilization state. I really wonder. So no, two points actually. First, before I come to civilization state, I want to say one other thing. I read Karaganov’s article about lowering the nuclear threshold when it came out. And I have to say, I was quite alarmed. Like, what is this guy talking about? But now I think it seems to me after thinking about it, after talking to people at Valdai, and also particularly after listening to Vladimir Putin’s response to him, I would say that probably the function of this article, or whether it was intended to or not for this article, has functioned as a sort of foil. It has functioned as a provocation against which Vladimir Putin can, I think, very plausibly argue that Russia has absolutely not changed its nuclear policy. It is not going to lower the nuclear threshold no matter how much the West is provoking it, no matter how much the West is implying that he’s going to start a nuclear war. He’s simply saying, look, we will only do this in retaliation and we will only do this if Russia is existentially challenged. Now, Russia is so big, the West would have to do a heck of a lot to challenge it existentially. We have already had more than a month, a year and a half of the Ukraine war. There is absolutely no nuclear saber-rattling on the part of the Russians. And I think that it allowed, I think, the Russian position to be made clear because the West seemed to be essentially implying that such a change has taken place. It allowed it to be established definitively that no such change has taken place. And then I want to say something about civilization state. I’ve thought about it as well. Like, what is the point of invoking the idea of civilization state? And I would say that it really goes back to the roots of colonialism. What has been fascinating about President Putin’s speeches at this year’s Valdai, last year’s Valdai, and more generally at speeches he has made in a number of occasions in different venues, is the extent to which his understanding of imperialism has really sharpened to the point where it is practically like, I mean, coming from me, this is a compliment, it’s practically as good as a good solid Marxist understanding of imperialism. But in any case, it is very factually based and so on. Now, what is imperialism? The imperialism has always been imposed on the world on the grounds that Western civilization is superior and that the West is bearing the burden, the white man’s burden of bringing, of carrying out the civilizing mission. You all know these words and expressions. So to call Russia civilization state, China civilization state, India civilization state, and other, Africa has a civilization, et cetera. To call all these, to recall these civilizations is precisely to say Western civilization is one part, one among many of the world’s civilization. It’s going to have to learn to live on an equal basis with other civilizations, that other people have peoples have their ways of conducting themselves in the world, which must be respected. Other peoples have come up with ways of living with and cultivating diversity and multiculturalism and multi-religious societies and so on. And that the West should learn from it because the West is trying to impose homogeneity. And very cleverly, President Putin also pointed out that the West is actually forgetting its own civilizational values. That is to say this imperial aggression is not in keeping with the highest values of Western civilization. I think it’s a reminder that the West could do this. Michael. MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, here’s the problem with the way in which this idea of different civilizations was formulated. There’s one civilization that has declared war on all of the rest, and that’s the US and NATO. Now, the other civilizations have a choice. They really can’t go it together. The only way that they can resist this war against the United States and them is for them to be them. They need to be, there needs to be an umbrella and a common denominator over what is their policy of their civilization going to be. And I think Pepe’s going to be talking about where this seems to be going this weekend. But I think the common denominator has to be a full-fledged alternative, not only the de-dollarization we’ve spoken about, but a whole set of institutions that are not mere images of, but will pick up what the West pretended to do in creating the United Nations in 1945 and didn’t do. We do need an international court for crimes against humanity. It can’t be in the Hague. It’s got to be somewhere else. We do need an alternative to the World Bank. It can’t be in Washington. It’s got to be somewhere else along different lines, and we see already that China lending and on the Belt and Road has already exceeded the World Bank. We need an alternative to the International Monetary Fund and money creation. It can’t be in Washington. It has to be somewhere else. And we need probably a new United Nations where the United States cannot veto and paralyze the creation of the defense of these collective civilizations. And then when it comes to these collective civilizations, to what extent will they be based on mutual aid instead of self-interest? Of course, they’re different civilizations, and in the American press while you were there, there were all these articles saying, well, they can’t possibly get together because India is different from Islam, from China. How can they ever get together? Well, the problem is initially they get together by saying, we need to agree on a common basis for a full-fledged alternative to the NATO civilization that is trying to divide us and conquer one by one. Of course, they’d like to pick off one civilization after another, first Russia, then Iran, then you can go down the line. So we’re talking about the overall start of this. And I think China, Russia, Iran, and others see that this has to start with an economic foundation that people can agree upon as a balance of interests between these civilizations. And I understand from Pepe that there’s about to be a meeting on just this topic. PEPE ESCOBAR: Yes, on a practical, to go straight to the point … cutting to the chase in journalistic terms, this is what the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians especially are doing. Let’s look at the latest preamble to a genocide situation where we are, we have been dragged to it now. The Russians introduced a very serious draft resolution at the UN Security Council, which should be approved, if I’m not mistaken, in the next few hours after our conversation. It basically calls for a ceasefire, basically says that this announced, a chronicle of an announced genocide, to quote García Márquez, by the Israeli Minister of Defense, the IAF and the Prime Minister simply cannot happen. And of course, the now the ball, you know, throwing the ball away, the respect the rights of the Palestinian people, which everybody knows what it means. And the problem is that what it means nowadays is not a two state solution. It would have to be a one. Everybody knows that the two state solution is basically dead, you have to be a one state solution, but they are not spelling it out yet. This, this draft resolution was discussed via the channels that we know, relatively secretly, the Chinese. Everything that the Russians and the Chinese do on the international relations now is discussed between them. For instance, Lavrov and Wang Yi met yesterday before the arrival of Putin for the Belt and Road Summit in Beijing. So when Putin is going to meet Xi again in person during the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, we can imagine that there’s going to be the famous three or four hour discussion between both of them because the terrain has already been prepared by Lavrov and Wang Yi. And the main point at the moment is not only the constitution of the Eurasia, Afro-Eurasia and Global South integration, which is the main theme of the Belt and Road Forum, based on a connectivity corridor trade strategy, which also happens to be the overarching foreign policy concept of China for the next decades, at least, at least until 2049 and beyond. So this is one, just one vector. The other vector is how we are trying to defuse the situation that if we are extremely cynic, we could put it this way. Just when the Americans thought that they were able to change the narrative about their incoming massive humiliation in the steppes of Novorossiya by the Russians, and the humiliation is not only the U.S., but NATO as a whole. Just when they thought that they changed the narrative and they could talk about something else. Ah, there’s a new war coming and there’s a war in the Middle East. Forget about Ukraine. You all saw how Ukraine simply disappeared from mainstream media absolutely everywhere with the flip of a switch. They fall prey to a Zionist genocidal maniac. So this tells us everything we need to know about Western intelligence. They would know that this would happen. In fact, they already knew that this might happen because now we know there were serious signs that something was afoot in Gaza, that Hamas was preparing something. Egyptian intel, which has sources on the ground in Gaza, picked up the phone, called the Israelis and said, look, something big is going to happen. Nobody paid attention. IDF, Shin Bet, Mossad, cabinet of the prime minister, you name it, nobody. And this is what happened. So, of course, we don’t have a smoking gun, but this points to what? Let’s have our Pearl Harbor moment. Let’s have our 9-11 moment. And then we go for the final solution. And this was always, I’m very sorry to go really hardcore on this, but this is this Zionist gang final solution. Let’s get rid of Gaza. Let’s level Gaza to the ground. Let’s provoke an exodus. Send them to Egypt. And this is where we are now. So can you imagine Russian-China diplomacy? How are we going to turn this thing around in a manner that doesn’t lead these psychos in Washington, even crazier than they are, not to mention their psychotic vassal in Tel Aviv? At the same time, the Iranians on another vector, very politely, very diplomatically say, look, we don’t want war with anybody. If there is a ground invasion of Gaza, we will be forced to enter this war. And everybody [knows] what Iran entering this war is going to cause to the Zionist entity. And not to mention Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, Yemeni militias, the Chechens, you name it, the whole of Islam. Because the whole Al-Aqsa situation was the mother of all red lines for the Islamic world. So now we have on one side this maniac in Tel Aviv, supported by the Americans, simply fighting all the lands of Islam simultaneously. Can they get away with it? No. Do the Chinese and the Russians want this to happen? No. Is there a possible diplomatic solution? Only if the Americans call the maniac and said, pull the plug now. They are the only ones who can actually do that. And what do we hear from the American side? We see their mega-out-of-his-depth Secretary of State going to Israel and say, look, I am here as a Jew. My God. So this person was never a diplomat and he’ll never be. And with just this sentence, he inflamed the whole thing beyond any possible limit. And there’s no backtracking now. And obviously, there’s no talk of ceasefire. And now we know that there are directives straight to American diplomats that don’t talk about ceasefire with anybody. The pressure over the Russians and the Chinese is, look, the whole planet depends on you to find a diplomatic solution to this mess. And the way [Russian ambassador Vasily] Nebenzya at the UN framed it, he was, I’ve never seen him so somber because he knows that this thing can, you know, spiral out of control in a matter of hours. So this is where we are at the moment. So I would say that this seamless transition from one war to another and the way it was articulated and the way now that we have two vectors of the same global war hovering over us and to quote Bob Dylan, if you allow me, the long black cloud is coming down over all of us, you know, and we depend on basically Wang Yi, and Lavrov, and Putin, and Xi tomorrow in Beijing to say, how are we going to defuse all that? MICHAEL HUDSON: I think there’s been a whole change of consciousness throughout the rest of the world outside of the United States in the last week. And I think what’s happened has broken American foreign policy and the influence and the rest of the world. The whole you just pointed out correctly, maybe the whole rest of the world is so shocked they’re consolidated. They’re seeing the U.S. reaction and the resistance. And this points out a point you’d mentioned that President Putin had said no country in their right mind would do something. Well, that’s the kicker. The assumption is that other countries are going to act in their own self-interest. America has acted against itself, or rather, the Biden administration has sacrificed American self-interest and said we are going to give up America’s influence on the Near East, on Asia, of all of this, because we are tying American policy and Netanyahu. We are going to oppose what the majority of Jewish Democrats in the United States have been told over the weekend. They’re against Netanyahu. America has said it’s not simply that we’re for Netanyahu, we’re for Likud, we’re for the right wing, we’re for the fundamentalists there, because they’re saying exactly what our allies in Ukraine are saying. They’re saying you have to treat our enemies like cockroaches and subhumans. That’s how you mobilize their mentality. This is what America has said to the world, as if to the golden billion in the NATO, they’re treating the rest of the world like the Ukrainians are treating the Russian speakers as cockroaches, like Netanyahu is characterizing the Arabs and the Palestinians there. All of a sudden, this has led to force the world to make a choice. And you can see the effect of this on India, for instance. America had been trying to get India to oppose the Belt and Road Initiative by saying we have another plan and it can go over the sea and on the railroad. It can go via, it will avoid going through any of the Russian allies and avoid Central Asia. It’ll avoid the Arab, the Muslim countries. It’ll avoid, it’ll go from India and end up going through Israel. Well, you can imagine what this is. This has completely smashed India’s commitment to back the United States in all of this because Modi’s religious policy there is sort of in many ways are similar to the US and the Israeli policy there. So all of a sudden the gauntlet has been thrown down. What is civilization? Is this civilization or is this civilization versus the threat to civilization? That’s really what it’s come down to. RADHIKA DESAI: Well, I mean, Michael, what you’re saying is, is this civilization or is this barbarism? Because that’s what the West is promoting. It is promoting barbarism. But, you know, again, so many points I’d like to come back to because this is all very thought-provoking, Pepe. You did a great analysis, I think, of exactly where the West finds itself. And then, Michael, you’ve added excellent points about public opinion and so on. But let me just take, first of all, India in no particular order. You know, this government, the party that it represents, I mean, we’d have to do a whole other show. I mean, I’m going to talk about this in other ways. But the fact of the matter is that the current government in New Delhi is a government that that is of a party that was created in the 1920s and in the 30s in order directly inspired by fascism. It is as close to fascism that we have in India. And I would say that recently the similarities have only been multiplying. So I’ll leave it at that for now. It is the party that has always been uniformly pro-American, much more so than the general mainstream of Indian thinking. So, for example, when this party was in government between 1998 and 2004, although at that time it relied on a whole bunch of coalition partners, so it moderated its policy a little bit. And now the party is in power since 2014 on its own. But nevertheless, in 1998, what was one of the first acts of that government in office? It was to initiate the Pokhran explosions, the nuclear tests that were successfully conducted and directly hot upon the heels of the declaration of success of these nuclear tests. What does Prime Minister Bajpai do? He writes to Clinton and he says, President Clinton, we are there for you if you want to, if you want any help with China. This has always been the BJP’s position. And by the way, you know, earlier I was referring to bad governments in third world countries gumming up the works of the BRICS. This is a prime example. India’s the fact of the matter is before May 2024, we must have elections in India in order to win those elections, even though Mr. Modi has the backing of the corporate capitalist class to the hilt. He will be bankrolled like no prime minister, no world leader, I would say even more than the United States leaders have been bankrolled. And so he will have all that beside behind him. But still, he needs to whip up anti-China hysteria, anti-Pakistan hysteria. And now we will see, I’m sure that the recent spat between Canada and India will also play an important role in the elections where there will be a certain type of anti-Sikh rhetoric and they will try to establish that the Sikhs are working with and Sikhs are part of India. So I can go on. But Modi will be a great spoiler. And that’s one thing I wanted to say. But also this brings me to another small point that I wish to make. You know, there’s a general point I want to make. We are in a very dangerous moment. Pepe, you emphasize this. Michael, you emphasize this. I don’t think we have been this close to nuclear war ever before. We’ve got two active wars going on. The West is on the wrong side of both of them. And you know what? In this scenario, the West is the most irresponsible and reckless actor. It is the irresponsibility and recklessness of the West that have brought us this far. And it is the same irresponsibility and recklessness that might tip us over into something like a nuclear conflagration. I hope, obviously, I’m scared stiff of that happening. I hope, obviously, that that doesn’t happen. But we have to understand that because you see, there are two elements of this. Number one, domestically, these countries are essentially the politics of these countries are spinning out of the control of the established elites. That is why they finger, allegedly, the populism of the left and the populism of the right. And they are both wrong. And only we are the sane option. But you call yourself the sane option when, in fact, it is your activities, your actions, your policies that have brought Western countries to where they are at this level of sociopolitical division and political impasse. And by the way, the situation is the same in Israel. So in Israel, what you have is a Trump-like figure in charge with the liberal establishment up in arms against him. But both of them have the same policy vis-a-vis Gaza and Palestine, which has been encouraged for decades by, I think, President Putin and President Xi are absolutely right to say that the United States has tried to monopolize the so-called negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And although they claim to take a sort of neutral attitude, in reality, what that attitude has been about is one-sidedly favoring Israel in all of these negotiations. So domestically, things are spinning out of control in the capitals of all Western countries. And this is manifesting, which creates a very dangerous situation. There are no rational grounds on which these people can act within their universe. Basically, they are pulled and pushed in every direction. But then the second part of it is that their efforts to dominate the rest of the world, which they have done for 200 odd years, which is a mere blip in the history of human civilization. Those efforts are no longer working. The rest of the world, the world majority is absolutely not pliable. So what you have is a world order that is spinning out of the control of the sorcerer, of the sorcerer’s apprentice. And this is the danger that we are looking at. So maybe I’ll rest there, but I have a couple of other points to make. But I’ll give you guys a chance to say something if you want to at this point. PEPE ESCOBAR: Michael, you want to go? MICHAEL HUDSON: No, I want to hear what’s going to happen. How are we going to get out of this mess? PEPE ESCOBAR: Well, look, let me try to introduce a relatively optimistic note to the doom and gloom. Our conversation is taking place a few hours before the start of the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, which is immensely important for several reasons. First one I would say is that the Chinese leadership itself, Xi Jinping and the Politburo and the State Council, with all the guests that they’re going to have, they have guests from 130 nations at least. Some of them, did you know, for instance, all of you, our audience, the Taliban sent a high level delegation to the Belt and Road Forum. Compare that to two years ago when they were trying to, OK, what are we going to do now that we’re not occupied anymore? It’s very, very simple because the Chinese at the time and the Russians via the excellent Russian ambassador in Kabul, they say, look, it’s simple. We’re going to teach you a few things. You can learn from us. You can share our experience, how you’re going to be normalized in international relations. This doesn’t mean necessarily the West, but you’re going to be normalized with us and we’re going to help you to rebuild Afghanistan. So something that very few people know around the world, there are lots of mega infrastructure projects going on in Afghanistan as we speak. That’s something that we could not even imagine two years ago or during the whole American occupation. Roads that they are being built from northeast to northwest, the largest man-made canal in the world, you know, in the north of Afghanistan as well. Roads that are being repaved, the Salang Tunnel that is being upgraded. You name it. You don’t see one word about this on Western media, nothing. But Afghanistan under the Taliban already and with, I would say, guidance from Russia, China, Iran as well, and on a much smaller scale, India. India, the only thing that interests India is roads that can go through their corridor where they can build the so-called Indian Silk Road, which will use Afghanistan. To do trade with Central Asia. But Russia, China and Iran are much more advanced in terms of helping Afghanistan and much more straightforward. RADHIKA DESAI: Meanwhile, the United States is helping Afghanistan by keeping its money. PEPE ESCOBAR: It’s an excellent point, Radhika. It’s at six billion, if I’m not mistaken. All right. OK. And obviously, they did not give it back. We all know how it works. Well, the three targets of the Taliban delegation is absolutely fascinating. Number one, attract foreign investment to the Afghan economy. It’s fabulous because they’re going to have all their Central Asian neighbors over there. They’re going to sit at the same table and discuss projects, including projects that are already ongoing, especially in terms of highways, but also railways as well. And the Chinese are very much interested in building a highway connecting Afghanistan directly with Xinjiang. RADHIKA DESAI: They border anyway, there’s a tiny neck of land. PEPE ESCOBAR: Yes, the Wakhan Corridor, which is one of my fetishes, Radhika. I always wanted to go there, but it’s for us foreigners, obviously, it’s off limits. So I bordered the Wakhan Corridor when I was traveling in Afghanistan. At least I could see it. RADHIKA DESAI: And by the way, the reserves are $9.5 billion. PEPE ESCOBAR: And the other point, very, very important, they are going to discuss copper. Because the Chinese are already there, the copper mines, and obviously this is going to expand. So what does that tell you in practice? That the New Silk Roads are getting Afghanistan back, just like 2,000 years ago. This is going to be integrated with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. So this is going to be the China-Pakistan-Afghan Economic Corridor. And all of that, of course, means more integration with the Central Asian neighbors. So you see the change in discussions compared to a few years ago, where people in the West only referred to Afghanistan in terms of a security threat or terrorism. Now they are discussing economic corridors, sustainable development, and integrating Afghanistan in this crossroads between South Asia and Central Asia. And, of course, turning Afghanistan into a key node of Eurasia integration in this part of Eurasia. It’s absolutely extraordinary. And it’s great that they are going to discuss this now in Beijing with all the neighbors all together. Viktor Orbán, for instance, he got a reception of a rock star in Beijing, and he’s obviously thinking, well, this is not exactly what I get when I deal with the European Union. You see? And, of course, we’re going to have Africans, Latin Americans, etc. discussing, let’s say, Belt and Road Initiative 2.0 from now on. So there was a perception that maybe the Chinese, because the economy is not growing as much as it should be growing at the moment, but it’s still growing, they would accelerate new BRI projects. No, not at all. And there will be streamlined and there will be more little projects compared to big projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. No. So this is why we’re going to have this. Of course, we need to wait for the end of the summit to see if they’re going to announce big projects in Latin America, for instance, in Africa and across Central Asia and West Asia. But when you compare what the West is proposing at the moment, which is basically two wars, two fronts of the same war, with what the Chinese are doing the exact same week proposing, OK, Global South, come here, let’s discuss the second stage of our great integration project. I think it’s clear to anybody, especially to the Global South, right? RADHIKA DESAI: I mean, so well said, you know, Pepe, because you know what this means. Obviously, between war and development, it’s a no-brainer. You know, if you are a responsible policymaker of your country, you’re going to choose development. But there’s something bigger involved. You know, think about the fact that since at least the 19th century, since Halford Mackinder was writing his stuff about Eurasia and everything, the whole point was who was going to control this nodal area, which allows them to control essentially all of Eurasia. Well, the West’s approach, which has always been about domination, war and exploitation, is manifestly failing. And what’s emerging now is the fact that it is the Russians and the Chinese in cooperation with one another. And I hope and pray that we will have a government in India that can also take part in this, which will see the sense of cooperating with the Russians and the Chinese. Because imagine a world in which the Russians, the Chinese and the Indians could get together and work collectively. I mean, that would simply transform the world into something else. So that’s the first thing I wanted to say. And maybe I’ll sort of make a few winding up statements and then I’ll give you both a chance to add something and then we’ll stop. Well, the first thing I want to say is that, you know, Michael mentioned the UN and, you know, how the United States has always been undermining it. And of course, he’s absolutely right. And I just want to add one little thing. If you think about it, the creation of NATO within a few short years of the creation of the United Nations was itself a signal by essentially the imperialist countries that they wished to create an alternative agency that would essentially try to control the world. And we saw NATO come into its own after the Soviet Union disintegrated. Because, of course, as long as the Soviet Union existed, there was nothing NATO could, not much NATO could get up to. And as I like to say to my class, you know, although NATO is always portrayed as a Cold War entity, it actually should be understood as an imperialist entity. What was the thing about the Cold War is that the existence of the Soviet Union kept NATO in check. I say to them, guess how many operations did NATO engage in during the Cold War? Exactly zero. And since then, it has been continuously at war all the time. So it shows you what the character of NATO is. So that has always been. And the further accoutrements of, you know, rules based international order and democracy promotion and human rights and all that claptrap has simply been the modern version of the white man’s burden and the civilizing mission and so on. Just further lingo with which to justify essentially an exploitative relationship. The second point I want to make, and this is very important because there’s a lot of chat, you know, a lot of progressive people are getting getting inveigled with this chat that, you know, the BRICS countries are so diverse. They were five. They were already too different. Now there are 11. Tomorrow there will be more. How will they ever come up to any agreement? There will always be disagreement, etc. But this is where I think one of the key, shall we say, flaws of mainstream international relations lies because mainstream international relations never discusses imperialism. It tends to imagine that conflicts of interest are natural in the world. But if you take away the desire to dominate, diversity in itself has never been an obstacle to agreement. So really, you have to think about diversity versus domination. Diversity in itself is not the problem. Domination is always the problem. Diversity may give rise to small agreements, disagreements, which are easily resolved. You can make little adjustments, tweaks and so on to accommodate diversity. But you cannot accommodate domination. If the parties concerned who are being dominated refuse to accept domination, you are always going to have disagreement. So in that sense, I would say that, you know, this is a false problem. I think that the BRICS countries, particularly provided they are not governed by the likes of Bolsonaro or for that matter, Modi, they will find a way because there is a will to find a way and there is already going back to the Group of 77, the New International Economic Order. There are traditions within the third world of essentially creating cooperation, creating international relations based on mutual respect and non-aggression and so on and so forth. And then finally, I just want to say one big thing that I did intervene and lots of people at the Valdai Club. I made this point in one of the first meetings and a lot of people came to me afterwards and said, this is a really important point. Today, the world is ensnared in a set of problems created essentially by one part of it. That is to say, the Atlantic world. They are the source of most of the problems. The rest of the world is ensnared in it, but it is slowly making its way out of it. But you see, I earlier referred to the level of dysfunction within Western societies, which is rising, political dysfunction is rising. And I feel that one of the dangers could very likely be is very likely that what we are going to see is advanced stages of political dysfunction and decay. The ungovernability of these societies will go to such a point and we will see some of this in the run up to the 2024 US elections. It will be such a stage where the dysfunction of these societies will itself create a problem for the rest of the world. How are they going to manage? We are not prepared for these dysfunctions to reach a critical point, possibly a catastrophic point. And I think that this is something that we should talk about, because the fact of the matter is new political forces are needed in all these Western countries to essentially take hold of political power and steer it in more stable, less unequal, more productive, more egalitarian and just directions. Because if this does not happen, I think the whole of humanity is in a lot of deep doo doo. So I just want to end with that. And I will give both of you a chance to say something and then we’ll wind up. MICHAEL HUDSON: I want to say one thing about being very careful about talking about nations as the building blocks. You said that America has always backed Israel. The Biden administration is not backing Israel. It’s backing the Netanyahu administration, while the majority of Israelis want to put him in jail through the Supreme Court. America says it’s a friend of Ukraine, but it’s not a friend of Ukraine. It overthrew the Ukrainian government in a coup. It’s a friend of the Nazis in Ukraine. The U.S. said it was a friend, a supporter of Chile, but not when Allende was elected. All of us, it’s the friend of Pinochet. The U.S. said, finally, we’re friends with Russia in the 1990s. But it wasn’t. It was. They were friends of Yeltsin and the neoliberals, not Russia. So what appears at first glance to be groups of nations with their national interests and maybe civilization, the fact is in every nation, as you were getting to at the end of your remarks, Radhika, in every nation there’s a conflict. Are we going to be financialized and neoliberal and as such as arms of client oligarchies of the United States? Or are we going to be a socialism instead of barbarism? You could say the same for every single country. The United States now is still trying in Central Asia to have color revolutions. There has to be a means of blocking this. So you don’t think of this as Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have national interests. There’s a divergence with the United States backing the neoliberal, let’s just say, Nazi groups, the Pinochet groups, the Zelensky groups, the Netanyahu group in each of these nations that it’s trying to have a color revolution. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely, Michael. Pepe, please. PEPE ESCOBAR: Yes, but the meeting this week between Putin and the president of Kyrgyzstan, very, very important. And he recently met Tokayev from Kazakhstan as well. Russia is basically warning the Central Asians, the heartland, look, we know what the Americans are up to. You know, they try in the Caucasus, they will try in Central Asia. You are all targets. We got your back. But you have to do your homework as well. So Kyrgyzstan understands this perfectly. Kyrgyzstan is very fragile. Kazakhstan is much more complicated because there are a lot of Atlanticists in positions of power in Kazakhstan. I’m going to Kazakhstan next month. So I’m going to, no, December. So I’m going to learn on the spot what’s really going on. It’s a very murky situation. Nobody can tell you exactly what the Tokayev administration is up to. They are not the Nazarbayev clan, which was trying to do multi-vector policy according to themselves. Tokayev tries multi-vector policy as well, but he’s in favor of keeping sanctions against Russia. And everybody in Moscow knows that Russia, for a great deal of what they are importing, they depend on Kazakhstan. The fact that you go to Moscow and you find everything is basically because of two places, Turkey and Kazakhstan. So the Kazakhs have their own economic interests, geoeconomic interests, and the fact that they are not only part of the New Silk Roads, of Belt and Road, BRI. They are also part of the Eurasian Economic Union, and they are part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So you cannot treat the big brother in all these organizations with playing this double game. So we can assume that this is more or less what Putin very diplomatically told Tokayev. So there are efforts to more or less control the near abroad from the Russians. From the Chinese, it’s very, very simple. Chinese investments all over. And this is what they are going to discuss with the Central Asians at the Belt and Road Forum. So Russia and China, in terms of the heartland, the heartland is theirs. But they are very much aware that the Americans are going to try everything in the book, outside the book, or beyond the book, to provoke color revolutions all over again. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. So I think we’ve gone for a very long time. I just wanted to say one very quick thing before we end, but it’s been a fantastic conversation, Pepe. Thanks for your insights, Michael, as always. But let me just say one quick thing. I couldn’t agree more with what you said, Michael. You know, the fact of the matter is we always, for shorthand, refer to Israel and India and what have you. But you always have to talk about the nature of the state or, for that matter, the United States. You know, it’s so easy to say down with the United States. I was in a demonstration the other day, just yesterday, about Gaza. And, of course, people were saying shame on the United States, etc. But it is not the ordinary people of the United States that want this. It is the elites who want this. And the point is, indeed, the ordinary people of all of these countries will be instrumental in finding the solution that all these countries need. But I would say the best example of this whole issue of, you know, countries and their people. Everyone in the West, and I’ve said this before, but I just want to say this again because it’s so important. Everyone in the West who says we stand with Ukraine, they are party to the destruction of that entity. They are party to the misery that has been inflicted on that people. They are party to the arrangement in which, as John Mearsheimer said, the United States and the West wants to fight Russia till the last Ukrainian. This is what they are sanctioning by saying that they are standing up for Ukraine. They’re doing no such thing. But, unfortunately, our media is simply not bringing this out. They are busy creating news stories out of government press releases. So that’s where we are. That’s why programs like ours, I think, are important. And the reportage that you are doing, the scholarship that Michael and I are trying to do, is really so critically important. So thanks, everyone, for joining us. Thanks again to Pepe. We hope to have you again soon. We hope also Michael and I have been discussing some of the topics of the next programs. And we definitely want to do one on sanctions and other such things besides. So please continue to watch out for our shows and see you next time. Thank you and goodbye.

Write an article about: Iran & Russia pledge to cut US dollar from global trade, strengthen China alliance. 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.

Ali Khamenei, China, Ebrahim Raisi, economics, Iran, Kazakhstan, podcast, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia, Turkey, Vladimir Putin

Russian President Putin visited Iran, signed a $40 billion energy cooperation agreement, and pledged to strengthen their economic and military alliance with China. Moscow and Tehran also called to drop the US dollar and use local currencies for trade. In a significant example of growing Eurasian integration, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Iran, signed a $40 billion energy cooperation agreement, and pledged to strengthen their economic and military alliance with China. Moscow and Tehran also called to drop the US dollar and use local currencies for trade. A map of the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC) Passage from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard” (emphasis added): Finally, some possible contingencies involving future political alignments should also be briefly noted, subject to fuller discussion in pertinent chapters. In the past, international affairs were largely dominated by contests among individual states for regional domination. Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power. However, whether any such coalitions do or do not arise to challenge American primacy will in fact depend to a very large degree on how effectively the United States responds to the major dilemmas identified here. Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an “antihegemonic” coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances. It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower. Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously. From Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard”

Write an article about: CIA has trained Ukrainians to kill Russian-speakers since 2014 US-backed coup. 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.

CIA, Donbas, Russia, Ukraine

CIA paramilitaries have been active in Ukraine training elite special operations forces to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainian separatists since soon after the 2014 US-sponsored coup. The US spy agency boasted that its influence “cannot be overestimated.” The Central Intelligence Agency has been active in Ukraine training elite special operations forces to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainian separatists since 2014, when a US-sponsored coup d’etat overthrew the elected government in Kiev. Yahoo News revealed this in a March 16 report titled “Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion.” The article details how “CIA paramilitaries” began traveling to Ukraine in 2014 to train and advise forces to fight against Russian-speaking Ukrainian militants in the eastern Donbas region. These Russian-speaking independence fighters rose up against Kiev after a 2014 US-backed coup toppled democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, who had maintained a policy of political neutrality, balancing Ukraine between the West and Russia. Washington instead installed a pro-NATO puppet regime that repressed the rights of the Russian-speaking minority in the east of the country. Yahoo News described the operation as a “covert CIA training program run from Ukraine’s eastern frontlines,” noting that it focused on developing Ukrainian special operations units, teaching them “irregular warfare” tactics. The US spy agency additionally sent “tactical specialists, like snipers, who also worked for the CIA Special Activities Center.” It likewise developed secure communications systems for the Ukrainian forces. An anonymous CIA officer involved in the operation said, “Our job is to have an exponential impact” on the Ukrainian forces. Another official told Yahoo News that the effects of the CIA program in Ukraine “cannot be overestimated,” and that the spy agency developed elite units that form “a strong nucleus” for Kiev’s military. This CIA operation was secret. But publicly, Washington was sending Ukraine large numbers of weapons, and the US military was openly training Ukrainian soldiers, Yahoo News noted, including by developing snipers and teaching fighters how to use Javelin anti-tank missiles and M141 Bunker Defeat Munitions. A post shared by JMTG-U (@jmtgukraine) After Russia invaded Ukraine this February 24, the United States and other NATO member states sent the country at least 17,000 anti-tank weapons, including Javelin missiles, along with 2,000 stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Some of these weapons have ended up in the hands of Ukrainian neo-Nazis from far-right extremist groups like Azov. Washington and its NATO military alliance have made it clear that they are fueling an insurgency inside Ukraine. After approving $350 million in weapons for Kiev in late February, the US government this March passed a staggering $13.6 billion aid package for Ukraine, which includes $6.5 billion in military support. Yahoo News also reported in January that the CIA had since 2015 been training Ukrainian paramilitaries inside the United States. A former CIA officer stated clearly, weeks before Russia invaded, that the “United States is training an insurgency,” adding that the spy agency was teaching Ukrainian militants “to kill Russians.” Yahoo News falsely portrayed the conflict that raged from 2014 to 2022 in the Donbas as a fight between Ukrainians and Russians. In reality, researchers at the Pentagon-backed RAND Corporation admitted that “even by Kyiv’s own estimates, the vast majority of rebel forces consist of locals—not soldiers of the regular Russian military.” A former CIA officer admitted the spy agency is training far-right Ukrainian nationalists to “kill Russians” and wage an “insurgency” against Moscowhttps://t.co/Awtotoylnz — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) January 25, 2022

Write an article about: Pakistan’s prime minister accuses US diplomat of ‘conspiracy’ to overthrow his elected government. 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.

China, Donald Lu, Imran Khan, Pakistan, Qamar Javed Bajwa, Qasim Suri, Russia

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan accused top US diplomat Donald Lu of organizing a “foreign conspiracy” to topple his government. Video of Lu testifying in the Senate confirms Washington is angry over Khan’s growing relations with Russia. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan has accused a top US diplomat of threatening his government as part of a “foreign conspiracy” to overthrow him. This March, opposition politicians in Pakistan tried to push a no-confidence motion through the National Assembly, seeking to remove Khan from office. Khan, who was democratically elected in 2018, said the US government was supporting these opposition lawmakers in their attempt to oust him. “I’m taking the name of US, the conspiracy has been hatched with the help of America to remove me,” the Pakistani prime minister said, in Urdu-language comments translated by the media. In a meeting with leaders of his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Khan singled out Donald Lu, the US assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. According to the prime minister, Lu threatened Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Asad Majeed, warning that there would be serious “implications” if Khan was not ousted. Washington allegedly told Majeed that US-Pakistani relations could not improve if Khan remained in power. Khan accused the US embassy of organizing Pakistani opposition lawmakers to vote for the no-confidence motion in the National Assembly. In previous comments, Khan had also said that Washington sent a letter threatening him for rejecting its attempts to create US military bases in Pakistan. Khan hinted that the soft-coup attempt was aimed at reversing his independent foreign policy. Under Khan, Pakistan has deepened its alliance with China, greatly improved relations with Russia, and maintained staunch support for Palestine. Washington has rejected these allegations. However, Khan’s comments are bolstered by testimony that Lu himself gave in a March 2 hearing of the US Senate Subcommittee on Near East, South East, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. A video clip of Assistant Secretary of State Lu in the hearing, which went viral on Twitter, shows him admitting that the US government had pressured Pakistan to condemn Russia for its military intervention in Ukraine. Khan’s government has refused to denounce Moscow, joining many other countries in the Global South that have remained neutral in the NATO-Russia proxy war. This is Huge ! US under Secretary Donald Lu admits he approached Pakistani FO officials as Pakistan abstained to vote against Russian aggression against Ukraine. Sri Lanka also abstained from voting and “ facing Financial crisis ” while Regime Change attempt in Pakistan. pic.twitter.com/FeNkkFBQ5F — MNA (@Engr_Naveed111) April 4, 2022 Lu’s video testimony confirms that Washington is angry because of Islamabad’s growing relations with Moscow. Imran Khan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Beijing Olympics. The Pakistani leader subsequently took a trip to Moscow on February 24, the beginning of the military campaign in Ukraine. After his visit, Khan announced that Pakistan would be expanding its economic ties with Russia, importing its wheat and gas, while ignoring Western sanctions. Although the country is a close ally of China, Pakistan has for decades had a difficult relationship with Russia. Under Khan, Islamabad’s tensions with Moscow have significantly softened. Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad published an article in Multipolarista analyzing the numerous reasons why Washington would want to remove Imran Khan from power, including his growing alliance with China and Russia, his refusal to normalize relations with Israel, and his gradual move away from Saudi Arabia. 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 The deputy speaker of Pakistan’s National Assembly, Qasim Suri, suspended the opposition’s no-confidence motion, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it was part of a “conspiracy” supported by “foreign powers.” This means that Khan has 90 days to hold snap elections. There are worries in Pakistan, however, that the soft-coup attempt against Khan could escalate into an old-fashioned military coup. Pakistan’s army is very powerful, and notorious for overthrowing civilian leaders. An elected Pakistani prime minister has never completed a full term. Pakistan’s military is also closely linked to the United States, and frequently acts to promote its interests. In concerning comments made in the middle of this controversy, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Qamar Javed Bajwa praised the United States and Europe. Breaking with the elected prime minister, he criticized Russia over its war in Ukraine. These remarks suggest that Khan may have lost the support of top military leaders. General Bajwa: ‘We share a long history of excellent relationship with the United States which remains our largest export market; UK/EU vital to our national interests; Russian aggression on Ukraine is very unfortunate, this is a huge tragedy.’ This is huge. pic.twitter.com/4bufYu45Lc — Murtaza Ali Shah (@MurtazaViews) April 2, 2022

Write an article about: Trapped in IMF debt, Argentina turns to Russia and joins China’s Belt & Road. 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.

Alberto Fernández, Argentina, Belt and Road Initiative, China, Covid-19, IMF, International Monetary Fund, Mauricio Macri, Russia, Sinopharm, Sputnik V, vaccines, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

Argentina is trapped in $44 billion of IMF odious debt taken on by corrupt right-wing regimes. Seeking alternatives to US hegemony, President Alberto Fernández traveled to Russia and China, forming an alliance with the Eurasian powers, joining the Belt and Road Initiative. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) The United States constantly intervenes in the internal affairs of Latin America, organizing coups d’etat, destabilizing independent governments, trapping nations in debt, and imposing sanctions. Washington sees the region as its own property, with President Joe Biden referring to it this January as “America’s front yard.” Seeking alternatives to US hegemony, progressive governments in Latin America have increasingly looked across the ocean to form alliances with China and Russia. Argentina’s President Alberto Fernández did exactly that this February, taking historic trips to Beijing and Moscow to meet with his counterparts Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. Fernández signed a series of strategic agreements, officially incorporating Argentina into Beijing’s international Belt and Road Initiative, while expanding economic partnerships with the Eurasian powers and telling Moscow that Argentina “should be the door to enter” Latin America. China offered $23.7 billion in funding for infrastructure projects and investments in Argentina’s economy. In the meetings, Fernández also asked for Argentina to join the BRICS framework, alongside Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Xi and Putin reportedly both agreed. “I am consistently working to rid Argentina of this dependence on the IMF and the US,” Fernández explained. “I want Argentina to open up new opportunities.” The Argentine president’s comments and meetings with Putin and Xi reportedly angered the US government. Argentina is a Latin American powerhouse, with significant natural resources and the third-largest economy in the region (after Brazil and Mexico, both of which have significantly larger populations). But Argentina’s development has often been weighed down by debt traps imposed from abroad, resulting in frequent economic crises, cycles of high inflation, and currency devaluations. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) – a de facto economic arm of the United States, over which Washington alone has veto power – has significant control over Argentina, having trapped the nation in huge sums of odious debt. In 2018, Argentina’s right-wing President Mauricio Macri requested the largest loan in the history of the IMF: a staggering $57.1 billion bailout. Macri was notorious for his corruption, and this was no secret at the time. By agreeing to give such an enormous sum of money to Macri’s scandal-plagued government, the IMF knew it was ensnaring Argentina in debt it would not be able to pay off. But this was far from the first time the US-dominated financial instrument had trapped Argentina in odious debt. In December 2021, the IMF published an internal report admitting that the 2018 bailout completely failed to stabilize Argentina’s economy. But when Argentina’s center-left President Alberto Fernández entered office in December 2019, his country was ensnared in $44.5 billion in debt from this bailout that the IMF itself admitted was a total failure. ($44.5 billion of the $57.1 billion loan had already been disbursed, and Fernández cancelled the rest.) The Argentine government has tried to renegotiate the debt, but in order to do so the IMF has imposed conditions that severely restrict the nation’s sovereignty – such as appointing a British economist who “will virtually be the new economic minister,” acting as a kind of “co-government,” warned prominent diplomat Alicia Castro. Seeking ways around these US debt traps, Fernández decided this February to turn to the two rising Eurasian superpowers. On February 3, Argentine President Alberto Fernández travelled to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. “I’m certain Argentina has to stop being so dependent on the [International Monetary] Fund and the United States, and has to open up to other places, and that is where it seems to me that Russia has a very important place,” Fernández said, explaining his motivation for the trip. ???? | "Estamos dando un paso importante para que la Argentina y Rusia profundicen sus lazos", expresó el presidente @alferdez en una declaración conjunta que brindó junto a su par Vladímir Putin. #GiraPresidencial ? @KremlinRussia_Ehttps://t.co/aHl8tOuPZy pic.twitter.com/APoQR6VHtU — Casa Rosada (@CasaRosada) February 3, 2022 Fernández added that, for Russia, Argentina “should be the door to enter” the region, telling Putin, “We could be a venue for the development of your cooperation with Latin American nations.” The two leaders discussed Russian investment in the Argentine economy, trade, railroad construction, and energy technology. Fernández also thanked Moscow for collaborating with his country in the production of its Sputnik V covid-19 vaccine. Argentina was the first country in the western hemisphere to do so. The Argentine president even pointed out in their meeting that he has received three doses of the Sputnik V vaccine. Putin added, “Me too.” Putin said the two countries agree on many issues, calling Argentina “one of Russia’s key partners in Latin America.” Es un honor haberme reunido con Vladímir Putin, presidente de Rusia. Tuvimos la oportunidad de intercambiar ideas sobre cómo podemos complementar mucho más el vínculo entre nuestras naciones. pic.twitter.com/ntmDGn6jtD — Alberto Fernández (@alferdez) February 3, 2022 Just three days after meeting with Putin, President Alberto Fernández travelled to China on February 6 to meet with President Xi Jinping. In this historic trip, Argentina officially joined Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, a massive global infrastructure program. Fernández and other top Argentine officials signed agreements for $23.7 billion in Chinese financing, including investments and infrastructure projects. The funding will be disbursed in two parts: one, which is already approved, will provide Argentina with $14 billion for 10 infrastructure projects; the second, for $9.7 billion, will finance the South American nation’s integration into the Belt and Road. There are three joint Chinese-Argentine projects that were reportedly at the top of Fernández’s list: creating 5G networks, developing Argentina’s lithium industry, and building the Atucha III nuclear power plant. Tuve una cordial, amistosa y fructífera reunión con Xi Jinping, presidente de China. Acordamos la incorporación de Argentina a la Franja y la Ruta de la Seda. Es una excelente noticia. Nuestro país obtendrá más de US$ 23 mil millones de inversiones chinas para obras y proyectos. pic.twitter.com/LGyIJ6zWdG — Alberto Fernández (@alferdez) February 6, 2022 Fernández also discussed plans for Argentina to produce China’s Sinopharm covid-19 vaccine, in addition to Russia’s Sputnik V. Argentina and China signed a comprehensive memorandum of understanding, including 13 documents for cooperation in areas such as green energy, technology, education, agriculture, communication, and nuclear energy. Fernández and Xi discussed ways to “strengthen relations of political, commercial, economic, scientific, and cultural cooperation between both countries,” according to an Argentine government readout of the meeting. The two leaders apparently hit it off very well, with Fernández telling Xi, “If you were Argentine, you would be a Peronist.” ???? | El presidente @alferdez mantuvo reuniones sobre el proyecto de producir en Argentina la vacuna de Sinopharm, participó de la inauguración de los JJOO de Invierno #Beijing2022 y visitó el Museo de la Historia del Partido Comunista. #GiraPresidencialhttps://t.co/acSH9rvpM7 pic.twitter.com/Edz7hHRLE8 — Casa Rosada (@CasaRosada) February 4, 2022 Argentina’s incorporation into the Belt and Road comes mere weeks after Nicaragua joined the initiative in January, and Cuba in December. Latin America’s growing links with China and Russia show how the increasingly multipolar international system offers countries in the Global South new potential allies who can serve as bulwarks against and alternatives to Washington’s hegemony. While right-wing leaders in Latin America keep looking north to the United States as their political compass, progressive governments are reaching across the ocean to the Eurasian powers of China, Russia, and Iran, building new international alliances that weaken Washington’s geopolitical grip over a region that the US president still insists is its “front yard.”

Write an article about: US, UK, France promised USSR not to expand NATO east of Germany, newly discovered document proves. 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.

Britain, Europe, France, NATO, Russia, Soviet Union, UK, United Kingdom, USSR

Notes from a 1991 meeting prove that the US, UK, France, and Germany assured the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east. It’s part of a growing body of evidence that the West broke its promise to Russia. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) A newly discovered document provides more evidence that Western governments broke their promise not to expand NATO eastward after German reunification. Notes from a 1991 meeting between top US, British, French, and German officials confirm that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for Central and Eastern Europe. Germany’s diplomatic representative emphasized that the Soviet Union was promised in 1990 that “we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe” river, in eastern Germany. The document, which was formerly classified as secret, comes from the British National Archives. It was made widely known this February by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, but was actually first published by US political scientist Joshua Shifrinson in 2019. The document describes a meeting between senior officials from the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany in the city of Bonn on March 6, 1991. The subject of the gathering was “Security in Central and Eastern Europe.” German diplomat Jürgen Chrobog is quoted in the notes saying, “We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We could not therefore offer membership of NATO to Poland and the others.” The 2+4 negotiations were talks in 1990 that allowed for the reunification of Germany, featuring capitalist West Germany and socialist East Germany (the 2) along with the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and France (the 4). Chrobog’s comments in the notes, therefore, confirm that the Western powers had promised the USSR in 1990 that they would not expand NATO eastward after German reunification. Further clarifying this fact, the document adds that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for countries east of Germany. Since the end of the First Cold War and the overthrow of the Soviet Union,14 countries in Central and Eastern Europe have joined the US-led NATO military alliance – all countries east of Germany, in flagrant violation of the promise not to expand. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO. In 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined as well. In 2009, Albania and Croatia joined. In 2017, Montenegro joined. In 2020, North Macedonia joined. NATO has also discussed the possibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine joining in the future. In December 2021, the Russian Federation demanded that NATO agree to a series of security guarantees, including a promise not to add any more members. The United States and NATO rejected Moscow’s demands. A map of NATO expansion The newly discovered 1991 diplomatic record is part of a growing body of evidence that the Russian government’s accusation that NATO broke its promise is indeed correct. As Geopolitical Economy Report previously noted, declassified documents from the governments of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and the former Soviet Union and Russian Federation prove that NATO pledged not to expand east. The National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, DC published records showing that US Secretary of State James Baker reassured Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev “not once, but three times” that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward,” in a February 9, 1990 meeting. Baker admitted that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” US Secretary of State Blinken claimed the military alliance “NATO never promised not to admit new members.” This is a lie contradicted by multiple Western government documents, showing NATO promised the USSR not to expand "one inch eastward" past Germanyhttps://t.co/X6sSXLDngV — Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) January 27, 2022

Write an article about: Most important stories of 2023: Gaza, Ukraine, China, BRICS, dedollarization, bank crises, inflation. 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.

Argentina, Brazil, BRICS, China, crypto, de-dollarization, debt, dollar, Donald Trump, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fed, Federal Reserve, Gaza, Gina Raimondo, Imran Khan, India, interest, Iran, Israel, Janet Yellen, Javier Milei, Jerome Powell, Joe Biden, Lula da Silva, Narendra Modi, Pakistan, Pedro Castillo, Peru, Russia, Sam Bankman-Fried, Saudi Arabia, SBF, UAE, United Arab Emirates

These were the most important geopolitical and economic issues of 2023, including the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, US-China tensions, BRICS expansion, growing de-dollarization, inflation crisis, crypto fraud, bank crashes, European de-industrialization, and more. These were the most important geopolitical and economic issues of 2023, including Israel’s brutal war on Gaza and NATO’s failure to defeat Russia in Ukraine, expansion of BRICS and growth of the de-dollarization movement, inflation crisis and rising interest rates, crypto fraud scandals and several bank collapses, stagnation and de-industrialization in Europe amid an escalating US tech war on China, and much more. Journalist Ben Norton reviews the chaotic year. Washington Post: “More than 20,000 dead in Gaza, a historic human toll” Geopolitical Economy Report: “Gaza is one of the most heavily bombed areas in history: Israel has turned Gaza into one of the most heavily bombed areas in history, according to a report in the Financial Times. Top UN experts warn that the Palestinian people are at risk of genocide” United Nations: “Two Thirds of Gaza War Dead Are Women and Children, Briefers Say, as Security Council Debates Their Plight” Save the Children: “Gaza: 3,195 children killed in three weeks surpasses annual number of children killed in conflict zones since 2019” Reuters: “Gaza war ‘most dangerous ever’ for journalists, says rights group” Wall Street Journal: “More U.N. Workers Killed in Israel-Gaza War Than in Any Single Conflict” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people” Haaretz: “‘We’re Rolling Out Nakba 2023,’ Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation” South Africa’s Department of International Relations & Cooperation: “South Africa approaches the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention with respect to acts committed by Israel in the context of its attacks on Gaza” READ | The Republic of South Africa institutes proceedings against the State of Israel and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures. pic.twitter.com/du9DaHUF0H — DIRCO South Africa (@DIRCO_ZA) December 29, 2023 Geopolitical Economy Report: “US blocks Gaza peace proposal at UN for 3rd time, holding world hostage: The US government has paralyzed the United Nations, voting against the rest of the world and preventing peace in Gaza by vetoing three different resolutions in the Security Council. Meanwhile, Washington continues giving weapons to Israel” Wall Street Journal: “U.S. Sends Israel 2,000-Pound Bunker Buster Bombs for Gaza War” Washington Post (2022): “U.S. wants Russian military ‘weakened’ from Ukraine invasion, [Defense Secretary Lloyd] Austin says” New York Times (2022): “Commando Network Coordinates Flow of Weapons in Ukraine, Officials Say: A secretive operation involving U.S. Special Operations forces hints at the scale of the effort to assist Ukraine’s still outgunned military” The Economist (2023): “Putin seems to be winning the war in Ukraine—for now” The Telegraph (2023): “Ukraine is losing, but the UK must stand by it” AFP / France 24 (2023): “‘We’re losing’: Ukrainians reel from war chief’s stalemate warning“: “The frontline between the Ukrainian army and Russian forces occupying the east and south of the country has barely moved since last November [2022]” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Ukraine war is frozen, no territorial changes expected, says Council on Foreign Relations chief, while dismissing peace talks: The president of the US government-linked Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, said the proxy war in Ukraine is frozen and he expects no territorial changes in the next year of fighting. At the same time, he dismissed the possibility of peace negotations” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “West sabotaged Ukraine peace deal with Russia, admit Zelensky official and Germany’s ex leader: Russia wanted to sign a peace deal with Ukraine in March 2022, but NATO countries sabotaged it, according to Germany’s former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the parliamentary faction leader of Zelensky’s political party, Davyd Arakhamia” To the last Ukrainian: People with "amputated limbs, practical blindness, absence of one lung or eye and bilateral deafness" can be conscripted into military based on draft of new law on mobilization. "The large draft law on mobilization exempts from military service on the… pic.twitter.com/c1yS7P1Wui — Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) December 25, 2023 Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “US/France threaten intervention in resource-rich Niger: Fears of war in West Africa: The US and France have threatened intervention to re-install a pro-Western regime in Niger, which produces uranium needed for nuclear energy, has untapped oil reserves, and hosts strategic US drone bases and French troops. This follows coups led by nationalist, anti-colonial military officers in West Africa” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Burkina Faso’s new president condemns imperialism, quotes Che Guevara, allies with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba: Burkina Faso’s new President Ibrahim Traoré has vowed to fight imperialism and neocolonialism. Pledging a ‘refoundation of the nation’, invoking revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara, and quoting Che Guevara, his government has allied with Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba” The Economist (2023): “After Niger’s coup, the drums of war are growing louder“: “Canvassing by Premise Data, a polling firm, for The Economist in the first survey conducted since the coup found that 78% of respondents support the actions of the junta and that 73% think it should stay in power ‘for an extended period’ or ‘until new elections are held'” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Richest 1% took 2/3rds of global wealth since 2020 – twice as much as 99% of population earned: In 2020 and 2021, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population took nearly two-thirds of all new wealth – six times greater than the wealth made by the poorest 90% of workers. And while billionaires get richer, global poverty is increasing, Oxfam warns” Oxfam (2023): “Survival of the Richest” report When you exclude China's remarkable growth, the economic gap between "emerging and developing" countries in the Global South and rich imperialist countries in the North has not changed in over a decade. Global inequality is not getting better over timehttps://t.co/Jd70GJOB3F pic.twitter.com/9kIYCSGP5T — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 14, 2023 Geopolitical Economy Report: “BRICS expanding into economic powerhouse: Petrodollar under threat: In its South Africa summit, BRICS invited six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The bloc now represents 37% of global GDP (PPP), 40% of global oil production, and roughly 1/3rd of global gas production, challenging the US petrodollar system UPI: “Argentina’s Milei says his nation won’t join with China, Russia in economic alliance” Geopolitical Economy Report: “BRICS New Development Bank de-dollarizing, adding Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe as members: The BRICS bloc’s New Development Bank, an alternative to the US-dominated World Bank, is de-dollarizing its loans, promoting local currencies, and adding new members: Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe” Geopolitical Economy Report: “‘World becoming more multipolar’, Western hegemony declining, admits European Central Bank: European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde acknowledged “the tectonic plates of geopolitics are shifting faster” and “we may see the world becoming more multipolar”, with the decline of US dollar hegemony, war in Ukraine, and rise of China” CNBC: “Calls to move away from the U.S. dollar are growing — but the greenback is still king” Foreign Policy: “A BRICS Currency Could Shake the Dollar’s Dominance: De-dollarization’s moment might finally be here” Geopolitical Economy Report: “Countries worldwide are dropping the US dollar: De-dollarization in China, Russia, Brazil, ASEAN: The global de-dollarization campaign is gaining momentum, as countries around the world seek alternatives to the hegemony of the US dollar. China, Russia, Brazil, India, ASEAN nations, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are now using local currencies in trade” Bloomberg: “Dollar’s Share in Central-Bank Reserves Declines, IMF Data Shows” Geopolitical Economy Report: “‘Dollar suffered stunning collapse in 2022’: Share of global reserves fell to 47%, decreasing at 10 times rate: ‘The dollar suffered a stunning collapse in 2022 in its market share as a reserve currency’, largely due to US sanctions, falling from 73% of reserves in 2001 to 47% in 2022, according to economist Stephen Jen. Countries in the Global South are seeking economic alternatives in a multipolar world” Geopolitical Economy Report: “US Congress plots to save dollar dominance amid global de-dollarization rebellion: The US Congress held a hearing titled ‘Dollar Dominance: Preserving the U.S. Dollar’s Status as the Global Reserve Currency’, as countries around the world join the de-dollarization rebellion against Washington’s ‘exorbitant privilege'” Geopolitical Economy Report: “Sanctions ‘undermine hegemony of dollar’, US Treasury admits: US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted to CNN that Washington’s unilateral sanctions on countries around the world ‘could undermine the hegemony of the dollar'” Washington Post: “U.S. intensifies push to use Moscow’s $300 billion war chest for Kyiv: Considerable amounts of Kremlin funds are frozen in Western nations, and the Biden administration is increasingly interested in using them to benefit Ukraine” New York Times: “U.S. and Europe Eye Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine as Funding Dries Up: Despite legal reservations, policymakers are weighing the consequences of using $300 billion in Russian assets to help Kyiv’s war effort” Wall Street Journal: “Central Banks Look to Increase Gold Reserves as Geopolitical Worries Mount: Up to 24% of central banks were looking to raise gold holdings in 2023, according to a new survey from the World Gold Council” St. Louis Fed: Federal Funds Effective Rate data and chart Geopolitical Economy Report (2022): “US Federal Reserve says its goal is ‘to get wages down’: US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell said his goal is “to get wages down,” complaining workers have too much power in the labor market. Economist Michael Hudson says this is “junk economics,” and corporate monopolies are driving inflation, not wages” The Guardian (2023): “Greedflation: corporate profiteering ‘significantly’ boosted global prices, study shows: Multinationals in particular hiked prices far above rise in costs to deliver an outsize impact on cost of living crisis, report concludes” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Corporate profits were biggest driver of inflation in Europe, IMF admits: Rising corporate profits have caused 45% of inflation in Europe, compared to 40% for rising import prices and just 15% for workers’ wages, according to research by IMF economists” UN Global Crisis Response Group (2023): “A world of debt: A growing burden to global prosperity” report Economists Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram Development and Change journal (2023): “Chronicles of Debt Crises Foretold” The Economist (2023): “Africa faces a mounting debt crisis: Rising rates are hurting some of its brightest economic stars” Reuters (2023): “Debt squeeze leaves sub-Saharan Africa’s governments in fiscal bind” Reuters (2023): “Ethiopia becomes Africa’s latest sovereign default” France 24 (2023): “G77+China summit in Cuba calls on Global South to ‘change the rules of the game‘: The G77+China, a group of developing and emerging countries representing 80 percent of the world’s population, kicked off a summit in Cuba Friday with a call to “change the rules of the game” of the global order” DW (2023): “G77 summit in Cuba calls for new global order: The G77 is a bloc of countries from the Global South representing 80% of the world’s population. At the summit, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the world is failing developing countries” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “4 US banks crash in 2 months: Banking crisis explained by economist Michael Hudson: Economist Michael Hudson discusses the collapse of four US banks in two months, giant JP Morgan Chase taking over First Republic Bank, and how government regulators are in bed with the bankers”. American Banker (2023): “Dramatic collapses made 2023 the biggest year ever for bank failures” New York Times (2023): “3 Failed Banks This Year Were Bigger Than 25 That Crumbled in 2008” The Guardian (2008): “Greenspan – I was wrong about the economy. Sort of: Former Fed chief admits ‘mistake’ over regulation”. “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” said Greenspan. Reuters (2017): “Fed’s Yellen expects no new financial crisis in ‘our lifetimes’“: “Would I say there will never, ever be another financial crisis?” then Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said. “You know probably that would be going too far but I do think we’re much safer and I hope that it will not be in our lifetimes and I don’t believe it will be”. UBS (2023): “UBS completes Credit Suisse acquisition” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “US government bailout of Silicon Valley and banks is $300B gift to rich oligarchs: The US Federal Reserve printed $300 billion in a week to save collapsing banks and bail out Silicon Valley oligarchs. 93% of Silicon Valley Bank’s deposits were uninsured, over the FDIC limit of $250,000, but the government still paid them. 56% of SVB’s loans went to venture capitalist and private equity firms”. Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “US bank bailout benefited billionaires, exposing corruption: ‘I understand why Americans are angry’: Before it collapsed and its billionaire depositors were bailed out by the US government, Silicon Valley Bank successfully lobbied Congress to remove regulations on it. A senator admitted, ‘I understand why Americans are angry, even disgusted'”. Reuters (2023): “Crypto scam: Inside the billion-dollar ‘pig-butchering’ industry” The Block (2023): “Crypto users lost $1.8 billion in 2023 hacks and scams, Immunefi says” NPR (2023): “FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is found guilty of all charges including fraud” MarketWatch (2023): “Here are the politicians who received money from FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried” The Guardian (2023): “Eurozone economy shrinks by 0.1%, putting it at brink of recession: Ireland posts biggest decline, while Germany contracts by 0.1% and France grows by 0.1%” Political economists Charlotte Sophia Bez and Lorenzo Feltrin at LSE (2023): “Why Europe must address the problem of ‘noxious deindustrialisation’” European Council on Foreign Relations (2023): “The art of vassalisation: How Russia’s war on Ukraine has transformed transatlantic relations“: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revealed Europeans’ profound dependence on the US for their security, despite EU efforts at achieving ‘strategic autonomy’… Europe becoming an American vassal is unwise for both sides” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “US blew up Nord Stream pipelines connecting Russia to Germany, journalist Seymour Hersh reports: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported the US government destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian gas to Germany. The Biden administration approved the CIA operation, which used explosives and Navy divers, with help from NATO member Norway” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Facebook censors journalist Seymour Hersh’s report on Nord Stream pipeline attack: Facebook censored a report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh on the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines between Russia and Germany, forcing users to instead read a website funded and partially owned by NATO member Norway” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “German lawmaker denounces Ukraine ‘proxy war’ and US ‘terrorist attack’ on Nord Stream pipelines: In this interview, German Member of Parliament Sevim Dağdelen, of the Left Party, Die Linke, condemned the NATO ‘proxy war’ in Ukraine, saying EU members are acting as US ‘vassal states’. She also denounced the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines as a ‘terrorist attack'” Reuters (2023): “IMF upgrades China’s 2023, 2024 GDP growth forecasts“: “China’s economy is set to grow 5.4% this year, having made a ‘strong’ post-COVID recovery, the International Monetary Fund said on [November 7], making an upward revision to its earlier forecast of 5% growth, while expecting slower growth next year”. Bloomberg (2017): “Housing Should Be for Living In, Not for Speculation, Xi Says” Caixin (2020): “Regulators’ Three Red Lines on Debt Spur Property Developers to Curb Leverage” This is probably one of the most important charts right now about the Chinese economy. To offset the collapse in the real estate sector, Beijing has managed to surge credit to the manufacturing sector, which has helped prevent a total collapse of domestic credit growth and demand pic.twitter.com/YPa0LQYYjZ — Shanghai Macro Strategist (@ShanghaiMacro) October 9, 2023 For example, Chinese production of solar cells and EVs have absolutely gone through the roof. pic.twitter.com/eZslX9HniV — Shanghai Macro Strategist (@ShanghaiMacro) October 9, 2023 Reuters (2023): “China to lead global renewable growth with record installations – Woodmac” Wall Street Journal (2023): “China’s Green Revolution Is Quietly Succeeding” BBC (2023): “China overtakes Japan as world’s top car exporter” People’s Republic of China’s State Council (2020): “New development plan for NEVs unveiled: The State Council on Nov 2 issued a circular aimed at boosting the high-quality development of new energy vehicles (NEV) from 2021 to 2035″ Bloomberg (2023): “Chinese Carmaker Overtakes Tesla as World’s Most Popular EV Maker: Elon Musk once scoffed at the notion that BYD could compete with his company. Now, the automaker run by billionaire Wang Chuanfu is poised to be the new No. 1 in electric vehicles” In 2011, Elon Musk scoffed at the idea of BYD competing with Tesla in a Bloomberg TV interview. Now, the Chinese carmaker is set to become the world's No. 1 EV maker https://t.co/Ilio0p6mYG pic.twitter.com/EX4mwqbdq7 — Bloomberg (@business) December 27, 2023 Los Angeles Times (2015): “Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies” Business Insider (2021): “Elon Musk is speaking out against government subsidies. Here’s a list of the billions of dollars his businesses have received” NBC News: “Air Force general predicts war with China in 2025, tells officers to prep by firing ‘a clip’ at a target, and ‘aim for the head’” Geopolitical Economy Report (2022): “US waging ‘unilateral’ economic and tech war to halt China’s rise, DC insiders say openly: The Biden administration’s aggressive sanctions aim to ‘kneecap’ China’s tech sector. A former Pentagon official acknowledged it is a ‘disproportionate’ and “unilateral” attack, a ‘form of economic containment'” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Chinese balloon was not spying, US gov’t admits months after manufactured crisis” Reuters (2023): “Biden calls Xi a dictator after carefully planned summit” Politico (2023): “Raimondo chides Congress on China tech threat“: US Commerce Secretary Gina “Raimondo defends export controls: Gina Raimondo over the weekend said China is ‘the biggest threat we’ve ever had’ and that the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security needs a bigger budget to help the United States outpace the country’s technological innovation. ‘We cannot let China get these chips. Period,’ she said at the Reagan Defense Forum, a symposium of government and industry officials in California” CNBC (2021): “U.S. needs to work with Europe to slow China’s innovation rate, [Commerce Secretary Gina] Raimondo says“: “If we really want to slow down China’s rate of innovation, we need to work with Europe,” Raimondo said. Financial Times (2023): “How Huawei surprised the US with a cutting-edge chip made in China: The inside story of how the country’s flagship tech company kept its edge in the semiconductor war despite sanctions” Economic Times (2023): “From India to UK, here are the countries that have ban on TikTok” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “US woos India’s far-right PM Modi to help wage new cold war on China: The US government is trying to divide the BRICS bloc and recruit India for its new cold war on China. Biden doesn’t care that far-right Prime Minister Modi is closely linked to fascistic Hindu-supremacist groups that violently oppress minorities” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Europe pays more for banned Russian oil, resold by India – as EU wages fall: The EU sanctioned Russia and boycotted its oil, yet is still buying it indirectly from India, at a higher price. This is fueling both de-dollarization and inflation in the Eurozone, where workers’ real wages dropped 6.5% from 2020 to 2022″ Financial Times (2023): “The west’s Russia oil ban, one year on: How a shadow fleet undermined the price cap” A “shadow fleet” of secretively run tankers has helped Russia avoid the oil price cap imposed by the G7. Flows of Russian oil to Europe have almost run dry, going instead to India, China and Turkey. @FT graph. https://t.co/ySvukY0drj pic.twitter.com/wVudgQMZWV — EU Energy News (@EUEnergyNews) December 11, 2023 The Intercept (2023): “Secret Pakistan Cable Documents U.S. Pressure to Remove Imran Khan: ‘All will be forgiven,’ said a U.S. diplomat, if the no-confidence vote against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan succeeds” The Guardian (2023): “Exiled Bolsonaro lives it up in Florida as legal woes grow back home: Ex-Brazilian president faces criminal inquiries, including an investigation into his alleged role in the Brasília uprising” El País (2023): “Brazilian military caught in the crossfire after failed coup attempt against Lula’s government: The Armed Forces is facing a slump in popular credibility amid the requirement to punish those possibly responsible for backing an attempt to annul the result of the 2022 elections” Financial Times (2023): “Brazil’s Lula calls for end to dollar trade dominance: Leftist president lends his voice to Beijing’s efforts to boost renminbi’s role in global commerce” France 24 (2023): “Brazil’s Lula criticises US dollar and IMF during China visit: The two countries have recently announced a deal to trade in their own currencies, dropping the dollar as an intermediary. Lula also criticised the IMF, accusing it of ‘asphyxiating’ the economy of certain countries” Associated Press (2023): “Brazil’s Lula proposes South America currency to rival US dollar: The president is hosting a regional summit as he seeks to to revive a bloc of 12 politically polarised countries. Lula also gave a warm welcome to Venezuela’s Maduro, and criticised sanctions imposed on the nation by the US and others”. The Guardian (2023): “‘Prison or bullet’: new Argentina government promises harsh response to protest: President Javier Milei and his allies are preparing new security guidelines in anticipation of protests against currency devaluation” The Guardian (2023): “Javier Milei’s radical economic policies for Argentina met with protests: New libertarian president accused of drawing up a ‘battle plan against working people’” The Conversation (2023): “Release of Alberto Fujimori in Peru rekindles fears of backsliding on human rights” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Peru’s natural resources: CIA-linked US ambassador meets with mining and energy ministers to talk ‘investments’: Peru has large reserves of copper, gold, zinc, silver, lead, iron, and natural gas. After a coup overthrew left-wing President Pedro Castillo, the US ambassador, CIA veteran Lisa Kenna, met with mining and energy ministers to discuss ‘investments’. Europe is importing Peruvian LNG to replace Russian energy”. Goldman Sachs (2022): “Green Metals: Copper is the New Oil” Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “Peru’s coup-plotting congress has 6% approval, 91% disapproval (but full US backing): A polling firm found that Peru’s coup-plotting, right-wing-controlled congress has 6% approval and 91% disapproval. Unelected leader Dina Boluarte has 15% approval and 78% disapproval. But they have the full support of the US, Canada, and foreign mining corporations”. Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “US President Bush praised dictator Fujimori as ‘Peru’s hope for the future’: US President George H. W. Bush welcomed far-right Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori to the White House in 1991, heroizing him as “Peru’s hope for the future” and praising his neoliberal economic policies”. Geopolitical Economy Report (2023): “‘Mexico is not a US colony!’: AMLO condemns invasion threats, celebrates nationalization of oil, lithium: Mexico’s leftist President AMLO condemned ‘hypocritical’ Republicans who want the US military to invade, declaring ‘Mexico is an independent and free country, not a US colony or protectorate!’ In a massive rally, López Obrador also celebrated the expropriation of oil and lithium, condemning exploitative foreign corporations”. Politico (2023): “GOP embraces a new foreign policy: Bomb Mexico to stop fentanyl: Republicans suggest everything from terrorist labels to an invasion to decimate drug cartels in Mexico”. US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York: “U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, His Wife, And Three New Jersey Businessmen Charged With Bribery Offenses” Gallup (2023): “Biden Ends 2023 With 39% Job Approval” New York Times (2023): “Trump Leads in 5 Critical States as Voters Blast Biden, Times/Siena Poll Finds“

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

Avril Haines, Bolivia, China, Cold War Two, Cuba, Donald Trump, James Mattis, Joe Biden, Juan Gonzalez, Matt Gaetz, new cold war, Nicaragua, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Venezuela

The United States has turned Latin America and the Caribbean into a key battlefield in its new cold war on China and Russia, invoking the 200-year-old colonialist Monroe Doctrine to justify aggressive interventionist policies. You can listen to a podcast version of this article here. The United States has turned Latin America and the Caribbean into a key battlefield in its new cold war on China and Russia. Washington’s hybrid war on Beijing and Moscow took shape in 2018, when the Pentagon published a National Defense Strategy identifying the two Eurasian powers as the biggest “threats” to US national security. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the US government had shaped its foreign policy around a so-called “war on terror.” But Defense Secretary James Mattis announced in January 2018 that the Pentagon had changed its priorities, and “great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.” The US director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, echoed this perspective in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing this March. Summarizing the US intelligence community’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment report, Haines said China and Russia constitute the top “threats” to Washington, and she emphasized that Beijing in particular “remains an unparalleled priority for the intelligence community.” In this Cold War Two, Latin America has been caught in Washington’s crosshairs. After Russia invaded Western ally Ukraine on February 24, the US military responded by threatening China and Venezuela. On February 26, the US Navy sent a guided-missile destroyer warship through the narrow Taiwan Strait, in a move that the Chinese government condemned as an “adventurist” and “provocative action” seeking “to bolster the ‘Taiwan independence’ forces.” Then on February 27 and 28, the US Navy held anti-submarine warfare exercises with the Colombian military, using a nuclear submarine for the first time ever. Making it clear that this was a threat aimed at Beijing’s leftist ally in Caracas, the exercises were held in the Caribbean Sea, near the border of Venezuela. Colombia is the first and only special “partner” that the US-led NATO military alliance has in Latin America. A post shared by U.S. Southern Command (@ussouthcom) Washington’s economic warfare on Moscow has also targeted Latin America. US President Joe Biden’s special assistant for Latin America, Juan S. González, revealed in an interview on February 25 that the devastating new sanctions imposed on Russia over its intervention in Ukraine also seek to hurt the economies of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. González, who serves as the US National Security Council’s senior director for the Western Hemisphere, stated clearly, “The sanctions against Russia are so robust that they will have an impact on those governments that have economic affiliations with Russia, and that is by design. So Venezuela is going to start feeling that pressure. Nicaragua is going to feel that pressure, along with Cuba.” These three Latin American nations with socialist governments were demonized as the so-called “Troika of Tyranny” by John Bolton, the Iraq War architect and neoconservative national security advisor for former president Donald Trump. The fact that Latin America is on the frontlines of Washington’s new cold war is also reflected in US officials’ increasing references to the Monroe Doctrine, an 1823 declaration that the United States considers the region to essentially be its colonial backyard. Bolton invoked this two-century-old colonialist doctrine to justify Washington’s numerous coup attempts against Venezuela’s democratically elected socialist government. Trump himself also cited the Monroe Doctrine in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in 2018. “It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere,” Trump stated on the world stage. The US president was referencing Latin America’s bilateral relations with China and Russia, which he portrayed as “threats.” Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of US oil giant ExxonMobil, likewise praised the Monroe Doctrine, while ironically claiming China is the one with “imperial” ambitions in the region. When Argentina’s center-left President Alberto Fernández took a historic trip to China and Russia this February, to try to find ways around the $44.5 billion in odious debt that his country has been trapped in by the US-controlled International Monetary Fund (IMF), the hawks in Washington were furious. Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a key Trump ally representing northern Florida, characterized Fernández’s trip as a sign of a “significant threat to our nation accelerating rapidly close to home,” fuming that “Argentina, a critical nation and economy in the Americas, has just lashed itself to the Chinese Communist Party, by signing on to the One Belt One Road Initiative.” On the floor of the House of Representatives on February 7, Gaetz angrily described Argentina’s new partnership with China as “a direct challenge to the Monroe Doctrine.” Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a key ally of Donald Trump, invoked the 200-year-old colonialist Monroe Doctrine on the floor of the Congress and called Argentina a "threat" to US "security" because of its alliance with China. Read more here: https://t.co/aCiWQ7fGOc pic.twitter.com/xyVYkxfFT9 — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 8, 2022 Yet this colonialist rhetoric is by no means limited to Republicans. The Democratic president has made similar comments. At a press conference on January 19, Biden referred to Latin America as the US “front yard,” stating, “We used to talk about, when I was a kid in college, about ‘America’s backyard.’ It’s not America’s backyard. Everything south of the Mexican border is America’s front yard.” For his part, Biden has continued most of Trump’s policies in Latin America, expanding illegal US sanctions on Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, while still recognizing unelected coup leader Juan Guaidó as supposed “president” (even as the Biden administration pressures Caracas to make up for sanctioned Russian oil). Washington has strong-armed governments in Latin America and the Caribbean, pushing them to reduce or even cut off their ties with China and Russia. While China has become the largest trading partner for many countries in the region, the United States has resorted to blackmail to desperately try to stop the expansion of Huawei 5G networks, even when nations don’t have suitable technological alternatives. Right-wing opposition leaders in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia have joined Washington in demonizing Beijing, while vilifying Moscow too, demanding that their governments cut ties with the Eurasian powers and instead strengthen relations with (or rather subordinate themselves to) the United States. In its Second Cold War, the United States sees Latin America and the Caribbean as especially strategic because it is one of the few regions of the world where countries still recognize the independence of Taiwan. Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China, and 93% of UN member states recognize this fact – including the United States, at least on paper, although not in practice. Yet 13 countries (plus the Vatican) consider Taiwan to be an independent state. All 13 are small, making up just 0.2% of global gross domestic product, but eight of them are in Latin America and the Caribbean. Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines still have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. These are all the friends Taiwan has left in the world https://t.co/DEnhigr0d0 — Bloomberg Next China (@next_china) December 10, 2021 US and Taiwanese authorities have used the carrot (favorable economic deals) and the stick (blackmail) to prevent these countries from normalizing relations with the People’s Republic of China. The US government supports secessionists in Taiwan, and has sent military personnel there to train them to eventually fight a war with mainland China. The number of US troops in Taiwan has doubled under Biden. Washington’s goal is to turn Taiwan into a neo-colonial outpost, hoping to build a large US military base there with nuclear weapons aimed at the mainland, as it had from the 1950s to the 1970s, at the height of the First Cold War. Despite Washington’s intense pressure campaign, many parts of Latin America are deepening their integration with China and Russia – just as Beijing and Moscow are bolstering their own strategic partnership. Cuba officially incorporated into China’s massive global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative, this December. Nicaragua then followed suit in January. Venezuela had already joined years before. The right-wing US-backed regimes that governed Nicaragua in the neoliberal era, from 1990 to 2006, had cut ties with the People’s Republic of China and formed a close alliance with Taiwan. Nicaragua’s Sandinista government reversed this policy, re-establishing relations with Beijing this December, then promptly signing a series of important agreements for Chinese help in building public housing and infrastructure, including hospitals, renewable energy, roads, railways, and ports, as well as water and public health systems. In addition to being part of the anti-imperialist Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA), Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Bolivia have joined China and Russia as key members of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, a diplomatic alliance aimed at challenging imperialist hegemony and unipolarity. This Group of Friends reflects a new political pole that is being developed to push back against the aggression of the US-EU-NATO imperialist bloc. This new cold war alignment was clearly reflected in the March 2 UN General Assembly vote on Russia’s military incursion in Ukraine. The countries in Latin America with socialist and anti-imperialist governments – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia – either abstained or did not vote for the resolution condemning Russia. Other nations with socialist governments – China, Vietnam, Lao, and the DPRK – or which waged successful anti-colonialist revolutionary struggles – such as Iran, Eritrea, Algeria, South Africa, Angola, Syria, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique – likewise abstained or voted against the anti-Russian resolution, while the Western imperialist powers and their allies and proxies voted for it. These are the fault lines of the new cold war. Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton discussed this subject at the March 19 event “21st Century Socialism: China and Latin America on the Frontline,” organized by Friends of Socialist China. You can watch video of the talk below:

Write an article about: Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire with economist Michael Hudson. 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.

China, dollar, imperialism, Michael Hudson, Russia

Economist Michael Hudson discusses his book “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire” and the financial motivations behind the US new cold war on China and Russia. Economist Michael Hudson discusses the update of his book “Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire” and the financial motivations behind the US new cold war on China and Russia. Hudson has published a new, third edition of his book Super Imperialism that updates his analysis for the 21st century, discussing the new cold war on China and Russia and the ongoing transition from a US dollar-dominated financialized system to a “multipolar de-dollarized economy.” Hudson explains how the strategy of US economic hegemony has evolved since World War One. BENJAMIN NORTON: Hello, everyone, this is Moderate Rebels live. I’m Ben Norton. As always, I’m joined by my co-host, Max Blumenthal. And today we have back one of our most popular guests, one of our favorite guests, Professor Michael Hudson. People probably know who he is. He is a prominent economist, a very unique thinker. He has written several books not only on economics, but also on history and human society. He’s an expert on balance of payments, and debt, and a lot of topics. And today we’re going to talk about a new edition of his book that was just published. We actually had Professor Hudson on over a year ago to talk about his legendary book Super Imperialism. He actually just published a new edition of it. You can see here, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. And he just published the third edition. It just came out. So we wanted to have him on to talk about why Professor Hudson updated this book that he published back in the 1970s. This is now the third edition. The second edition was published in 2002 or 2003, at the beginning of the so-called War on Terror. And I think it’s pretty appropriate, Professor Hudson, we can begin with this – I think it’s pretty appropriate that your first edition of Super Imperialism was published after Richard Nixon took the dollar off of gold in the early 1970s. And then the second edition was published after 9/11 and the beginning of the War on Terror, which represents a kind of new phase of imperialism. And then finally, your third edition here was just published, and your new edition encompasses the new cold war. The final chapter talks about the increasing economic competition between the US on one side and China and Russia on the other side. And you talk about the move toward a “de-dollarized multi-polar economy.” So can you talk about the differences in the editions and how they reflect the changes in US super imperialism, the system that you described back in the 1970s? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the first edition was published in September of 1972, 13 months after President Nixon took the dollar off gold. And everybody was worried that, oh, without gold, how are we going to control the world? How are we going to control Europe? Because we’re losing all the gold. Because the entire balance-of-payments deficit in the 1950s and the ’60s and early 70s came from military spending. And they thought that if you had to lose your gold stock, which was the source of world power, as a result of military spending, how can you control the world? Well, what I wrote was that there was a new means of controlling the world and going off gold had actually locked in America’s control, because now that it had forced other central banks not to buy gold, what were they going to do? All they could do was recycle the dollar surpluses they were getting into U.S. Treasury bonds. Because that’s what central banks bought; they would buy Treasury bonds. So then what I said was that all this deficit coming from the military spending abroad is going to be recycled to the United States by central banks who have to recycle their money into dollars, otherwise their currencies are going to go way up, and that will price their exports out of the market, and it’ll make their economies basically overvalued. So to keep down the value, they buy U.S. dollar securities, and America would not let some by big companies; it wouldn’t let them buy anything important, only U.S. Treasury bonds. So the irony is that the larger the balance-of-payments deficit became, the more money was recycled into financing the U.S. budget deficit, which also was largely military. Well, I thought that this was going to be a warning to other countries. And indeed, there was a very quick Spanish translation and Japanese translation. But the main purchases, as we’ve talked about a year ago, were the CIA and the Defense Department. Immediately Herman Kahn hired me to the Hudson Institute and gave a very large grant for me to explain to the government how imperialism was working. And the U.S. government used this as a how-to-do-it book. Well, it went out of print, and Pluto Press offered to make a new addition, but it had hundreds and hundreds of typographical errors, and I didn’t like the reset. And I was going to live with that until I began to work in China, 10 or 15 years ago, and the Chinese government wanted me to do a new version to upgrade it as a key to how they can de-dollarize. And from their point of view, they want to see how they can decouple not only from the United States, but from the West. They don’t look at there as being any competition between China and the United States, certainly not industrial competition. The United States decided it was going to de-industrialize, because its corporations could essentially hire cheaper labor abroad than they could hire in the United States. The United States has got so debt-oriented and so privatized. Since the Reagan Revolution, the American economy was Thatcher-ized, and that made it a high-cost economy. The cost of housing has gone way up. The cost of medical insurance has gone way up. The debt burden has gone way up. And America has now priced itself out of the market. So China and Russia look at America as an object lesson, as how do we avoid here having the dynamic that occurred in the United States. It doesn’t have anything to do with capitalism versus socialism or other isms. It has to do with the basic dynamics of debt. And China realizes that, ok, we’re going to do make our economy productive in the way that the United States and Germany did in the 19th century. It’s a mixed economy. And as a mixed economy, we’re going to have the government provide the basic utilities at a subsidized rate, instead of letting them be privatized, so that we can have a low-priced economy. And the most important public utility to China, as it was to Russia, is to keep money creation, banking, and credit in the public domain. So right now, you’ve seen the problems and the news about the Chinese company [Evergrande] getting into trouble. And in America, if the largest real estate corporation like BlackRock were to go under, that would bring down the banks; it would bring down everything. It doesn’t doesn’t have a ripple in China, because the the debts are owed to the government, and the government can simply write down the debt. It can decide what to do, to protect the home buyers who put money into buying apartments low. It can tax away the land rent to prevent the housing from being essentially financialized. So China is trying to de-financialize its real estate, de-financialize its industry. It’s not a rivalry with the United States; it’s a rejection of the whole neoliberal structure that the United States has put in place. And what I discuss and Super Imperialism is how the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were created as a means of imposing a neoliberal, anti-government structure on the world to prevent other countries from regulating their industry or from regulating their agriculture. The function of the World Bank basically was to make Third World countries, the Global South, dependent on the United States for their food supply, by only funding export agriculture, export plantation crops, not growing their own food. The function of the IMF was to use debt leverage to force other countries to impose austerity on their populations, and to essentially say we will control what government you have, because if your government does something that the United States officials don’t like, we’re just going to raid your currency, force of austerity on you, and you’ll be voted out of power. So essentially, the United States, what it calls the international organizations, as if this is a world organization, is actually a very nationalistic tool of the United States to distort the agriculture and industry and commercial development of other countries, to serve U.S. interests and specifically U.S. financial interests. And the mode of control, obviously, is not military anymore; it’s financial. And Super Imperialism is about how America is different from European colonialism by controlling the world financially and covertly, politically, not by military force. And yet all of this requires an enormous subsidy of foreign countries that are now decoupling from the dollar and no longer giving America the free ride that it has been getting since 1971, when all governments could do with their balance-of-payments surpluses were to buy Treasury bonds. Now they’re buying gold. They’re buying each other’s currencies. They’re doing everything except holding dollars. And that’s the big change in the world. So when the Chinese ask me to rewrite this book for their audience – and I spend a lot of time with China – I thought, well, I’m going to fix up Super Imperialism; I’m going to re-edit it; I’m going to include some episodes that I didn’t include before; and I’m going to show how the framework of international relations has been transformed in a way that isn’t being discussed in the press. BENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, you said something there that, not necessarily to push back, but to complement your analysis, you said that it’s no longer about military domination, but financial. I would say it’s both, and that they are kind of two sides of the same coin that reinforce each other. One of the points that you make throughout the book is that the U.S. military occupies many parts of the world, including it has occupied Japan since 1945, Korea since the 1950s, the early 1950s; there are troops in Germany and many other countries. So the US military presence clearly in Afghanistan and Syria right now and Iraq, it’s still a huge part of it, but complementing that, you point out in your book, is that those U.S. military occupations are essentially paid for by the country that is being occupied by the U.S. military. Can you explain how that works? And how that that scheme – you keep calling it in your book, again and again, a free lunch, that the U.S. has a free lunch; it has accomplished an economic scheme that no other country was able to accomplish. Can you explain how that still operates today? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well it’s not that the country that is hosting the troops is paying; it’s the payment-surplus countries in general. It’s Saudi Arabia; it’s Germany; it’s the prosperous countries that are paying. Here’s what happens. And here’s what happened during the Vietnam War. And here’s what was not in the Vietnam Papers that McNamara asked for. When the United States spent money in Vietnam, or when it spends it now in the Near East or the 800 military bases it has, these dollars go into the domestic economy. And when you’re in Japan and Korea, what do you do? You turn these dollars, you make an export, you get the spending – you turn it in for domestic currency to your central bank. The central bank now ends up with these dollars that are thrown off by American military spending. And what is the central bank going to do with the dollars? Well, central banks – America told Japan already in the 1970s, when Japan was basically funding, 22 percent of the entire U.S. budget deficit was funded by Japan in 1986. And America said, look, we’re not going to let you buy any major company. We’re going to let other, former whisky sellers, the Seagram people buy DuPont, but we won’t let you buy DuPont, because you’re Japanese. We’re not going to let you buy a company. You can buy Rockefeller Center, and lose a billion dollars on it. You can buy a Pebble Beach golf course. But really, you’re going to have to take the money that you’re getting in Japan for the US exports, and you’re going to have to invest it in Treasury bills. Otherwise, we’re going to impose punitive tariffs against you and we’re going to do something you don’t like. Because remember, you Japanese, you’re the yakuza, you’re the crooks that we put in power to fight the socialists to make sure Japan didn’t go socialist. You’re the gangs. You’re going to do what we say. And Japan did exactly what the United States told them to do, recycled its auto export earnings and electronic exports to help finance the US balance-of-payments deficit and the US budget deficit simultaneously. So it was Japan, Germany, France, other countries that ended up with all these dollars that are spent abroad. For instance, the money America spent in Vietnam, because that was French Indo-China earlier, the money was all sent to French banks. And General de Gaulle would turn in the dollars being thrown off by the army in Vietnam to buy gold every month, much to their embarrassment. Germany did the same thing with this dollars. So basically, America wants the ability to say we have one power, we can wreck your economy. If you don’t do it, we say, we can make you look like Libya, we can make you look like Iraq, and we can tear you up. We can make you like Afghanistan. We have one power. We don’t have economic power. We don’t have productivity. We don’t have competitive power. But we can destroy you, and we’re willing to destroy you, because otherwise we’re going under. And we’re not going to feel safe unless we have the power to destroy you and prevent you from having the power to fight back and protect yourself. So it can only do this if it can control the financial system that recycles all of this military spending abroad in the United States, otherwise America would have to either print the money or tax its corporations and people, which would make it even more high cost. So America essentially has painted itself into a corner as a result of its military spending. It has lost its industrial advantage. It has lost its international competitiveness. And the only thing that it has left to do is the power to destroy, if other countries don’t essentially surrender their economies to control by the US, pretending to be objective and non-nationalistic by saying, we’re not controlling you, the the World Bank is controlling you, the IMF is controlling you, the international organizations are controlling you. But it’s a double standard. And my book shows how this double standard has perverted these seemingly international organizations into nationalistic arms, basically, of the Defense Department and State Department. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Professor Hudson, you write in Super Imperialism about how the United States, coming out of World War Two, was facing a balance-of-payments problem. It had a surplus and it managed to resolve this problem through a cold war, in which it moved into deficit spending in order to promote foreign export markets and world currency stability. I wonder if you can expound on that and maybe take us into the new cold war and the economic rationale for a very different United States, arguably a declining empire that has agitated a new cold war. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, in 1944 and 1945, it was apparent that the war was going to be over, and the United States had gained power since World War One, essentially by staying out of war and by building up its own industry. So the United States essentially structured the post-war world so that it would increase its economic power. And indeed, from 1945 to 1951, the United States increased its balance, its gold supply, to three-quarters of the world’s gold, monetary gold, all in the United States. Well, this was a problem for the US, because Europe and other countries said, well, wait a minute, we’ve been on the gold standard now for a century, but we’re not going to be impoverished if you can have all the gold, but we’re going to go in a different standard. This is what the discussion between John Maynard Keynes and the American Treasury was all about at the end of World War Two. Europe said if you’re going to have all the gold and control the money, we’re not going to operate without money, we’re just going to go off gold. That’s how we de-dollarize, by going off gold, and the dollar was as good as gold. So the United States then decided to go to war in Korea, and the Korean War, from 1950 to 1951 onwards, every single year, the balance-of-payments deficit got worse and worse, and the entire balance-of-payments deficit was military. So American military spending was actually welcomed by other countries because they said, oh, now we don’t have to create a new monetary system and go it alone. Now we can still earn enough dollars that we can finance our own economic growth. And they were amenable to staying in the American economic orbit. BENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, sorry to cut you off really quickly, but I just want to underscore a point that you make in your book that I think is crucial to understand this transition you’re talking about. You say in the book that, before World War Two, and immediately after World War Two, around that time period, from the 1920s into the 1940s, the U.S. was a global creditor. But then the point you make is that after the Korean War, when the Cold War began getting hot, and the U.S. began waging these these proxy wars against the Soviet Union and China and other socialist and communist forces, in Korea and Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia, your argument is that from the ’50s on, the U.S. went from being the global creditor to the global debtor, so a major shift. MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes. The difference is that the American debt to foreign countries is a debt that it never expects to pay, because how is it going to pay? The debt is owed by the U.S. government to other governments. BENJAMIN NORTON: In the form of treasuries, Treasury bonds. MICHAEL HUDSON: Treasury bonds. Yeah, exactly. And this debt is basically created by military spending. So America has been able to control other countries by issuing its money. The debt that America has is the money of other countries. The central bank reserves that they hold in dollars in Treasury bonds is counted as their monetary reserves for their own economy. So just like the American dollars you have in your pocket are technically a debt of the U.S. Treasury, these dollar bills or five dollar bills or 50 dollar bills, nobody expects them to be repaid, because if they were repaid, they wouldn’t be any more money. BENJAMIN NORTON: And no one can force the U.S. to repay them because of the U.S. military. So at the end of the day, the reason that the U.S. can have this global debtor status is because no one can invade it. MICHAEL HUDSON: That was the case until recently. Well, you know, it’s true that the United States cannot repay its debt because it doesn’t have enough gold to repay. And it’s not going to repay in the way that Latin America or other countries repay, by selling its industry. It’s not going to pay its foreign debt by saying, ok, why don’t you take that Amazon? Why don’t you take General Motors? Why don’t you take Boeing? You know, we’ll pay by giving you the industry just like we’ve made you countries give us your industry when you’re in debt. America simply isn’t going to do that. But other countries don’t have to ask to get repaid for their dollars. They can say, ok, we’re not going to hold dollars. So China has decided we want to just minimize our holdings of dollars, except for what we need for trading on the foreign-exchange markets to keep the exchange rate stable. Russia is avoiding dollars. Iran is the avoiding values. Obviously, Venezuela is avoiding dollars, because anything that Venezuela holds, the U.S. can simply grab their accounts. So other countries are afraid to have their gold in the United States. Even Germany has said send us back the gold that we have on deposit at the Federal Reserve. We don’t trust you anymore. Give us our gold. Everybody is dumping the dollar, and nobody wants to be repaid. The dollar now is like a hot potato, and nobody wants to hold it except pliant satellite economies of the United States that don’t want to upset the United States because of the power, bribery power if nothing else, that the United States has over European politicians, Asian politicians, all the overt support that the United States can wield. But other economies are just dumping the dollar. And so all these dollars are being turned in to hard currency, each other’s currencies, gold, each other’s industry, real economic means of production. And so now we’re winding down the whole free-lunch system of issuing dollars that will not be repaid. It’s as if you’re going to the grocery store and you give them an IOU and then they ask, well, you know, you ran up a bill last month and you owe us 50 dollars. We have your IOU. And you say, well, you give this IOU to your dairy suppliers, or your vegetable suppliers, just use it as money, we’ll pay someday. And somehow your IOU that you got something for just gets used as other people’s money. Well, that’s what the United States does on a global scale. BENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, another point that that you addressed recently, a few minutes ago, also in your book you call food imperialism, is the role of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the World Bank in trying to make other countries dependent on U.S. food exports. In the new chapter, in your updated Super Imperialism book, you refer to this as “U.S. food imperialism versus a new international economic order.” So can you explain your argument? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the World Bank ideally was supposed to make loans for other countries to earn dollars. In other words, so they could buy American exports of things. But the most central element of American diplomacy for the last 80 years has been to promote U.S. farm exports. So the World Bank did not make any loans to Chile or Venezuela or Latin America to increase their own food supply. You have to buy your grain and your basic food from the United States. We want to develop your agriculture, but we will only develop export crops because you are a tropical country that can be exported, that we can’t grow in the United States, palm oil or whatever, coffee, bananas. We’re going to promote plantation crops, not food supply, so that countries have become more and more dependent on the U.S. for food. And that means that the United States can do to other countries what it tried to do to China after Mao’s revolution. It can say, well, you had a revolution, we don’t like. We’re going to put sanctions on you and we’re not going to export any more food to you. Now, you can starve if you don’t reject Mao’s revolution and thank Chiang Kai-shek. Well, Canada broke that. Canada said, well, if America won’t sell you the grain, we’re going to sell you the grain. So that that broke it. Other countries are now realizing in order to be independent and prevent the U.S. from “Your money, or your life” threat, they’re all growing their own food. They’re all being independent. The United States two years ago, more than two years ago, thought that it was going to really hurt Russia by putting sanctions on agricultural exports to Russia, and said, boy, now you’re going to suffer. So all of a sudden, the Baltic countries couldn’t export cheese or other things to Russia. What Russia did was say this is the most wonderful thing that has happened. Now we can develop our own agriculture. Russia is now producing its own cheese, that it used to get from Lithuania. Russia is now the largest agricultural exporter in the world, and displaced the United States. So the result of the United States trying to hurt Russia and make it a dependent has actually forced Russia to become independent in food and immune from the U.S. food threat. It still has the food threat over Latin America. And that’s why when Hillary went down to Honduras and the Honduran president [Manuel Zelaya] wanted to develop Honduran agriculture, immediately Hillary had a coup d’etat, had the army take over in a coup d’etat and establish a dictatorship that promised the United States not to grow its own food, but to remain dependent on the United States. So the United States could feel secure, secure that it could starve Honduras to death if Honduras didn’t do what it wanted, and was dependent on the U.S. for food. That’s the kind of food strangulation that the United States has sought through every country. And it has used the World Bank and the IMF and the international banking system to impose sanctions, and to only make loans for industries and agriculture and sectors that do not compete with the United States, but actually end up serving the U.S. economy as inputs. So other countries are turned into economic and trade satellites of the United States. That’s the aim of the U.S. control of the World Bank, the IMF. And that’s why the United States will not join any organization in which it does not have veto power. It insists on being able to veto any policy of other countries acting in their own interests independently of the United States, or in ways that do not actually enable the United States to be the main beneficiaries of foreign countries’ growth. MAX BLUMENTHAL: That’s what we call the “rules-based order.” MICHAEL HUDSON: Right. That’s exactly right. MAX BLUMENTHAL: We make up the rules, and order everyone around. Mafia rule. And ironically, after Hillary’s sort of instrumentalized coup in Honduras, her husband – or right before Hillary entered the State Department, her husband had apologized for destroying Haiti’s indigenous food economy, basically its ability to produce rice, so that they would import rice from his home state of Arkansas. So yeah there’s a certain irony there. We also saw, in WikiLeaks cables, Hillary go down to Haiti and demand that they cancel a massive pay hike of sweatshop workers from something like 37 cents an hour to 45 cents an hour, which is consistent. We’ve also seen the release of Meng Wanzhou, I guess she is the CFO or COO of Huawei, a Chinese tech firm. And I think this is relevant to the conversation here. A key facet of the U.S. great power competition with China revolves around tech. And you write how, you describe how in the post-war period, the U.S. sought to foster dependency not only with food, but also with military wares and specifically technology. And now you have a situation where the U.S. is being outpaced by China in 5G and demanding that the U.K. ban 5G. So what is happening here? How will the U.S. fare in a world where it can no longer foster dependency on its own technology? And what will it do to remedy the situation? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well when you say technology, what you really mean economically is economic rent, monopoly rent. And America cannot compete on the basis of cost for industry. It can’t compete in a profit-making industry because there aren’t profits. You can’t make a profit if your labor costs, and your economy, and your transport costs, and your health costs are so high. But you can make a monopoly rents. And the function of technology for the United States is to make other countries obliged to pay anything that the the large information technology and high tech companies can charge. So the technology sector is really a monopoly sector, and it wants to keep it monopolized. The problem is that no country for the last 5000 years has been able to keep a monopoly. You remember that maybe 3000 years, 2000 years ago, China had a monopoly in silk. And then Marco Polo and Catholic priests brought back silkworms to Italy and began the Italian silk. I guess that was 1000 years ago. So you can try to get a temporary monopoly on technology, like from Google or from Apple, but ultimately, you can’t really prevent other countries from doing it. So the United States essentially has not been doing much innovation. Let’s take IBM as an example. IBM was really the first high-tech company that was made a monopoly, but it wasn’t very imaginative. It had to be told by insurance companies to go and begin making computers in the late ’30s and to develop it. By the 1960s, IBM was using about $10 million a year to buy back its own shares. And Google and Amazon are spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year now to buy back their own shares, not to invest in new technology, in research and development, in developing new technology and 5G technology, and the other technology that China is developing. But when China is a mixed economy, the public and private sector together, when it is trying to develop the technology sectors that are the mirror image of Google and other things, like TikTok replacing Facebook, they’re doing it much better because they’re not trying to make capital gains in stocks. The purpose of technology, to China, isn’t to increase the price of the stock in the companies that make it. They’re trying to lower the cost of production and develop new technologies to develop their technology better. So obviously, China is getting a lead. The United States has made a policy decision: We don’t need a lead; all we need to do is establish a monopoly rent. And let China get way ahead of us. Let it be more efficient. Let it be more lower cost. Let it be more modern. As long as we have enough satellites in Europe and Latin America, and in Asia, to promise only to buy U.S. goods, they’ll buy high-cost, less efficient, American 3G or 4G technology, and let China and its Belt and Road Initiative countries develop 5G. So we’re really having a technological divergence in the world. America, living in the short term, wants to have high-priced, hit-and-run, very quick profits for Facebook and Google and the others, while China’s trying to look at the long run and develop an actual technological economy that will create a new non-dollar trading and currency area, that will be independent of U.S. Threats. And America in 10 years can tell China, well, we are not going to let you use Facebook or Google anymore. China can say that’s fine. We have our own systems. They work much better. We’ll go our own way. BENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, there’s another really interesting part of your book Super Imperialism, well you talk about this throughout, but specifically one of the arguments you make is that one of the primary U.S. economic competitors after World War One, well, during and after World War One, and then leading to World War Two, leading to the end of the British Empire, was England, was Britain, the British economy. Can you talk about how essentially the U.S. helped to collapse the Sterling Area? And for people who don’t know, explain what the Sterling Area is, how the U.S. helped to collapse that. And then also, the point you make in the book in the last chapter, is how the U.S. did something similar to another so-called ally, to Japan, how in the 1980s, the U.S. basically waged a kind of economic war against the Japanese economy, which permanently crippled it. Japan had had been one of the largest economies in the world, and it has never really, truly recovered from that. So can you talk about how the U.S. has waged economic war not only against its adversaries, but even so-called allies like Britain and Japan? MICHAEL HUDSON: The number one U.S. enemy has always been its closest friend, its closest rival. It fought against England, and then France. And they were getting a free lunch through the Sterling Area and the Franc Area in the following way: England’s colonies had to do their banking in England. They had to keep the savings in England. The government had to keep all of its revenues in England. So when World War One broke out, England simply told the government, give us a gift of all of your money. Mass famine in India, mass starvation, because England just grabbed the money that India had in sterling. Well, during World War Two, there wasn’t much international trade, and so raw materials producers – India, Argentina, and other countries – had maintained close connections with England. And there weren’t many consumer goods to buy. Countries had to be self-sufficient. But India, Argentina, and the Sterling Area countries had to keep all of their money in sterling. The United States insisted that, number one, that sterling balances that were held by India and other countries be allowed to be spent outside of sterling. You couldn’t tie the sterling balances to say they have to be spent in England. And that was what the sterling balances were before. England says, ok, you’ve got a lot of savings here in England in sterling; you have to spend that money on British goods and British companies. You have to keep within the English economy. Not only did the Americans say, first of all, no country can limit its spending to say you have to keep the money in your former colonial power. But it insisted as a condition to lending England the British Loan – in 1944, England was desperate by the last year of the war. It needed food. It needed supplies. It needed industry. And America said, we’re going to make you a loan, called the British Loan, but as a result, you’re going to have to keep your own pound sterling at five dollars a sterling. You’re going to have to keep it at a high price. You’re not going to be able to devalue it in order to compete with us. And England, as a result, from 1945 to about 1950, had to take this huge overvalued sterling, so that there was no way that English companies could compete with American companies. And America was able to undersell England and grab the Indian market, the Argentine market, the market for almost all the countries that had been within the Sterling Area, and undersell it. So America had essentially gained control of Britain’s domestic financial policy by insisting that this policy be set in Washington, not in London. So it asked England to commit economic suicide, and England said, well, we don’t have a choice, otherwise we’re going to starve. And it threw its lot in with the United States, hoping the United States would protect it. And in the new edition of Super Imperialism, I quote the debates that occurred in the House of Lords, when the House of Lords saw exactly what was going to happen. They said, wait a minute, the United States is treating us as if we’re Germany; it treated us as if we’re the defeated party in World War Two. Are we really going to go along with this? And they saw just what was happening, and they said, well, we really don’t have a choice. We surrender; we’re going to let our policy be run by the United States. The same thing in Japan. In 1985, when there was the famous Plaza Accord, you had Reagonomics going full blast. And Secretary of State James Baker said, what is Reaganomics? It means we want low interest rates; we want to cut taxes on the rich, and even though we’re going to cut taxes, we’re going to have a huge budget deficit. Somebody is going to have to fund this. And in the past, countries running a budget deficit, which Reagan and Bush quadrupled America’s foreign debt from 1981 to 1992 – who is going to buy this debt? Because if we make Americans buy this debt, we’re going to have to pay high interest. So it told Japan, we want you to agree to buy a big chunk of our foreign debt. England and Europe said, ok, we’re going to go along and we’re going to buy a big chunk of it too. So essentially, America forced Japan not only to buy the debt, but to revalue its currency. And its currency went from 240 yen per dollar to 200 yen, meaning a dollar would only buy 200 yen. And then finally, America would only buy 100 yen. And all of a sudden, car prices, electronic prices in Japan, export prices doubled; it lost the market. And essentially went broke. And that was what was called the bubble economy. The Reagan economy was a bubble economy in America, but the bubble was felt or absorbed by Japan, by England, and by Europe. That was the the genius of Reaganomics, to make other countries bear the costs of the American tax cuts. BENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, this is an article I have up here in The Wall Street Journal in 2018, titled “The Old U.S. Trade War with Japan Looms Over Today’s Dispute with China.” Do you think there are parallels? I mean, clearly Japan has been a key U.S. ally since World War Two, whereas China has become a serious adversary. So the political relationship between the U.S. and Japan and the U.S. and China is very different. But do you see parallels between the U.S. policy, economically, toward Japan in the ’80s and now with China? MICHAEL HUDSON: There was a lot of discussion recently in China about the Plaza Accord and the Louvre Accord. There’s no parallel at all. They’re looking at this as an object lesson. They say, we saw what the United States did to Japan. We’re not going to let the United States do it to us. We’re not going to inflate our economy and create a bubble here just so that we are as inflated as the US economy is. We’re going to lower our prices. We’re not going to make a financial boom and a real estate boom. We’re going to do just the opposite. Instead of letting banks getting rich on real estate loans, like to Evergrande, we’re going to let Evergrande go under. We’re going to let the bondholders of Evergrande go under. We’re going to let the stockholders of Evergrande go under. And we’re going to create a basic tax system and public support system to minimize the cost of housing. So that, while the American middle class and political parties think that they’re getting rich, as their housing prices are going up, the Chinese people think they’re going to get rich as housing prices go down, and they can afford more and more housing at a lower and lower price, while their wages go up. So there is no rivalry at all there. They’re looking at the United States and deciding we want to go in a different direction. We’re looking at what’s happening with Japan, and we’re never going to be like it. And there are Japanese too – every company in Japan, as I was told when I visited Nippon Steel years ago, the heads of the companies are all very pro-U.S. And they have to work with the United States importers and corporations in order to succeed. But the number two person or someone else is going to be an option number two, and option number two is we can make a step function, all of a sudden we can switch. Do we want to reorient our economy toward China instead of the United States? This is the nightmare of the United States. What if Japan and Korea and other countries decide to throw in their lot with with China instead of with the United States? And now that America is putting the squeeze on Japan and other Asian countries to support its military spending and its trade deficit even more, these countries are saying, what do we get out of the U.S. relationship? Wouldn’t we be better if we can make a deal with China to say, ok, about the South China Sea, we’re going to make a map that all of us get to share in the South China Sea oil and gas reserves? We’re going to have peace, and that includes Taiwan. Most of the Taiwanese officials, including central bank officials that I used to meet with, all say, you know, ultimately we want to, we plan on rejoining China. We’re going to try to take as much of a business position in mainland China as we can. But ultimately, the economy is going to re-merge. It’s just a question of when we can get a better deal from China than we get in the United States. And as the United States is in a state of rapid shrinkage of its economy right now, all of a sudden other countries are saying that very quickly, well, let’s rethink our position and maybe we’re going to do better off not following the neoliberal plan of the United States. Let’s have a mixed economy where the government and industry and labor work together to develop the economy instead of a polarized, financialized, Reagan- and Thatcherized economy that you’re having in the United States and England. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, maybe you can address the U.S. economy right now, which is in a state of catastrophe, but which might actually be kind of a controlled demolition, if you consider the discussions that began prior to the pandemic, in late 2019. BlackRock was calling for just massive printing of money from the Fed. And they’ve just been doping the economy ever since, to stave off inflation. But now Biden’s worst problem, the greatest problem Biden faces now, is inflation, high food prices; gas prices are going up. The U.K. is seeing record gas prices, too. And global supply chains are what we would call verkakte. And I don’t know if you want to address that, but the U.S. economy is just seeing massive, massive amounts of workers being financially disempowered, a downwardly mobile middle class, endless printing of money, and more wealth for this very – I mean, it’s not even the 1 percent; it’s like the 0.1 percent percent – and it’s beginning to plague Biden through inflation. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well that is happening, but not in the way you described. The Federal Reserve has hardly spent any money into the economy at all. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well in the banking sector. MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s printing trillions and trillions of dollars, more money, more essential credit than ever before, but all of this credit has gone into the stock market and the bond market and the packaged loan market. It’s all gone for assets that the 1 percent of the economy hold. It has financed asset price inflation, not domestic inflation. The domestic inflation is something that comes not from an increase in the money supply, but from supply shortages. And this is a result of the neoliberal management philosophy that corporations have. In order to increase their reported profits, they have cut costs wherever they could. And one way they found of cutting costs is to minimize inventories. 80 years ago, every company would have enough inventory on hand so that if there was an interruption in its imports, in its raw materials, in the supplies that it needs, it has enough to get by. But the corporate managers said let’s have something called just-in-time inventory. That is, if we need a part, we’re not trying to order it six months in advance and hold it in a warehouse; we’ll just pay for it that day and order it. And all of the companies together in the United States thought, the economy is going to shrink, we don’t need any inventories, because everybody is going to be poor. They thought they were going to be poor, because they were making the economy poor, by predatory practices that they were following. They were getting rich by impoverishing the economy. They thought the economy couldn’t buy what they produce, so they didn’t need any inventories. Well, all of a sudden, they ran out; they depleted all of the inventories. And there were huge, huge orders, in China, in Asia, in Japan, in Korea, for electronics exports, for chips, for everything else. And now you see, the price of shipping has multiplied tenfold. It costs 10 times as much to ship a container from China to New York today than it did a year ago. So what is happening is a shortage from just the neoliberal, really socially incompetent management of American corporations. Other companies throughout the rest of the world have tried to, they keep inventories; they’re not having this problem. This is unique only the United States is not. It’s not people are richer and have so much more money; it’s that there’s a shortage. In the case of housing, which has gone up – it’s the most rapid increase, over 10 percent in the last year, that’s essentially because BlackRock has said, the era of rising into the middle class by getting home ownership is over. Our ideal here at BlackRock is the 19th-century ideal; really, it’s the 14th-century ideal. It’s the landlords. We want to turn the American economy away from a home ownership economy into a renter’s economy. And if we had BlackRock and our fellow landlords can monopolize the control of housing, and bid it all the way, we all of a sudden will have a monopoly in housing costs. We can raise it 10 percent this year, 10 percent next year. And the banks are going to lend to us to buy out all of this real estate at 1 percent or 2 percent, and they’ll charge 3 or 4 or 5 percent to other people. All of a sudden you’re going to have a concentration of home ownership in the hands of large corporations. And the middle-class ideal of home ownership is going to be squeezed out. The other major growth is in pharmaceuticals and medical care. It’s way up, medical insurance, 10 or 15 percent. The one thing that corporations in America are willing to fight to the death for is to prevent socialized medicine, to prevent public health. Because they realize if we can prevent public health in America, then workers, the American population is going to have only one way of getting health care and avoiding the threat of bankruptcy if they get sick. They’ll have to go to work for an employer. Because the health is going to, insurance is going to come from the employer. And if they don’t go to work for the employer, they won’t get health care, and they can go broke very easily. And if they go on strike, they lose their health insurance, and then they’ll go broke. If they complain about the job, they’ll get fired, they’ll lose the health insurance. The new way of controlling labor, the class war in the United States, is to privatize pharmaceuticals and health care and prevent people from having access to health care and pharmaceuticals, unless it’s through their employer. And that’s why wages have not gone up. Because this is what Alan Greenspan called the traumatized worker syndrome. They’re powerless. They’re afraid to complain against the job. They’re completely dependent on the employer for everything they have. And in some cases, it may be like a Soviet Russia, they’ll even become dependent on their employer for housing, as it was in Russia, because they can’t afford houses of their own, which are now all corporately owned. BENJAMIN NORTON: Well the difference, of course, was that in the Soviet Union, it was public housing and it was provided to everyone as part of the government, whereas now we’re talking about feudalism, neo-feudalism, where your landlord is your boss and you’re treated like a serf. But you made an important point, Professor Hudson, about short-term versus long-term thinking. And this actually, I think, is related to the energy crisis we have seen in Europe. And it really reflects this idea you’re talking about of this neoliberal mentality that, we can just get everything we want right here in the market in the short term. And that’s this crisis now where the European Commission canceled all of these long-term contracts that it had with Russia for importing gas and also oil from Russia. So the EU had access to all of this Russian energy. And then as a political protest against Russia, as part of the new cold war, they canceled all of these long-term contracts, and instead, they were just buying Russian gas and oil on the spot market, in the short term. And then the price of gas and also oil just skyrocketed recently. And now there’s a huge demand in Asia, and largely because countries in East Asia have for the most part recovered from the coronavirus pandemic. So now Europe has a huge shortage of gas and oil, and they’re of course blaming Russia, and they’re doing all the typical things that they do. But the irony is that it’s the same kind of short-term neoliberal philosophy that you’re talking about, where the bankers who run the European Commission said, we don’t need contracts; we don’t need long-term deals; we can just buy everything short term every single day by day or week, week by week in the spot market. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I think you’re talking also about the Nord Stream Two pipeline that the Germans and the Europeans were blocking. So when a European politician said we would rather all starve in the dark than have to buy from the Russians, what they mean is, we would rather take the bribes that we’re getting into our bank accounts from the Americans. We would rarely get the high prices and all of the support from the Americans, and let our 99 percent of the population starve, so that we can get rich off what the Americans are paying us to starve the Europeans of energy and freeze in the dark, just so that Russia won’t get get the payment for this. So obviously, Russia is thinking, well, it can now sell all the gas that it wants to China. At some point, it’ll decide, if Europe doesn’t want to buy our gas, if it’s not going to open the Nord Stream Two pipeline. The pipeline is all there. All they have to do is open the pipeline, and the price of gas will come down. And the Europeans are – what Putin recognized, and [Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov have been saying is, the European Commission does not represent Europe; Brussels works for Washington. Brussels is an arm of the U.S. State Department. It has nothing to do with the European population. Europe is not a democracy; it’s an oligarchy. But it’s also a militarized oligarchy controlled by the United States. And so Europe is acting, is willing to have its houses freeze, its pipes freeze over, floods in houses, just in order to please the Americans. How long can this go on without there being a revolution? The amazing thing is that protest is coming from the right, not from the left. You have the Alternative für Deutschland party on the right, and Die Linke, the Left Party, has fallen. The socialists have not taken an anti-American stand because America has gained such has control, has made the European socialist parties, just like it has made the British Labor Party under Tony Blair. The socialist parties and left-wing parties of Europe are all pro-American. And they’re not talking about economics. They’re not talking about welfare. I can’t even summarize what they’re saying, because it’s a mush. But the irony is that it’s the right wing that is becoming the nationalistic power in Europe to break away from the United States, not the left. And I don’t see Europe ending up as much more than a dead zone. And I think President Biden feels the same way. He is obviously pivoting towards Asia and has left Europe, and England, and Ukraine, and the Baltics just to go their own way. And no matter how bad things look in the United States, I think things look worse for Europe right now. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, you see the same dynamic at play with the protests in Italy and France against the green pass, and the construction of what, in my opinion, is a kind of digital authoritarianism, just exploiting the emergency atmosphere of the pandemic. The right is gaining power. A nationalist right is gaining power. And there are workers and unionists involved in these protests. Trieste, the Italian port city, is seeing dock dockworkers rise up. But the left is, I mean, it seems to be largely absent. And the same in the US, with the protests against government mandates. Whatever you think about them, we need to make this objective observation and determine what it means for left-right dynamics when workers are being intimidated. This all is being guided, this policy, is being guided in many ways through the World Economic Forum. And there is a vocabulary out there about a Great Reset, which is something that Klaus Schwab, the president of the World Economic Forum, has openly proposed in his latest book about the pandemic. But it has been denounced as a conspiracy theory by Naomi Klein in The Intercept. And I think a lot of what we have been talking about is kind of consistent with how people understand the Great Reset, you know, pivoting towards a kind of feudalistic and authoritarian capitalism that is highly digitized, in order in order to manage an impoverished middle class. What are your thoughts on the Great Reset? Is it a conspiracy theory? Is it something real? And if so, what does it mean to you? MICHAEL HUDSON: It would love to be a conspiracy, but not all conspiracies are successful. They’re hoping that they can bamboozle the world into believing rhetoric instead of reality. And they’re hoping that people will think that the future is something that has never been in the world before. And what they’re calling democracy is a country without government. There are only two kinds of governments possible in the world. One is the usual kind that you have had ever since Sumer in Babylonia: a mixed economy, with the government providing basic services, and the public private sector doing the trade and the innovation. The other is something that you had briefly in Rome before it collapsed, and you’re now idealizing in the United States: it’s an economy with no government at all. You get rid of all government power to regulate or tax business. You want all of the planning – you want a centrally planned economy, much more centrally planned than you have in China and even in Russia. But the central planner is going to be Wall Street, and the city of London, and the Paris Bourse. You’re going to have financial planners take over the planning, and they’re going to do it with the corporations as a means basically of subduing, of squeezing out more and more of a surplus out of the people who produce it, labor, basically, and other countries that produce raw materials. And that is the dream. Can they convince, can Klaus [Schwab] and the attendees who go to these [World Economic Forum] meetings really convince people that you can get along without government and let the neoliberals do to the world economy what Margaret Thatcher did for England, and somehow think that you’re getting richer? Because the cost of your housing is going up, and your salary is going up, but even more than it goes up, you have to pay it for medical care, for housing, for your debt service, and for just the cost of living. How do we convince the world that they’re getting better and better when actually they’re getting poorer and poorer, and we’re concentrating more and more of the wealth in our own hands? Now you can call that a conspiracy. I think it’s sort of a pipe dream if they think they can get the rest of the world to go along with it. And I guess it’s the Abraham Lincoln statement, you can fool some of the people some of the time, some of them all, but you can’t fool China and Russia, and Iran, and India, and North Korea, and South Korea all the time. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it could be a conspiracy, but that’s in many ways how history is dictated. I’d refer to Michael Parenti’s lecture on capitalism and conspiracy and class power from 1993, where he makes the case that history is really not an accident. And now more than ever, it’s being decided in Davos. So I think that on that point – well I guess I’ll just pitch to Ben here. I know Ben as a question. BENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, this is this is a good question from [a viewer]. This is for Professor Hudson. What do you think of Richard Werner and Henry George, and about Jeff Snider’s assertion that demand for U.S. debt is due to its value as collateral in the eurodollar system as opposed to the petrodollar? MICHAEL HUDSON: Richard Werner has been a friend of mine and a colleague for many years. I think what he’s writing on money creation is wonderful. We’re good colleagues. We’ve had some of the same students. I thoroughly applaud and support him. I loathe Henry George, because he essentially was an anti-socialist and a right-winger of the late-19th century, and he spent his life fighting against socialism. He wanted to basically get rid of government. And his followers, essentially, George spent his time going, and George’s followers, for 20 years before World War One, going around the country debating with socialists over, is the future of the economy going to be socialist, or is it going to be the Ayn Rand-type economy that Henry George wondered. Well once the Russian Revolution occurred, the Georgists turned into anti-Bolsheviks. And the followers of George in the United States basically became an anti-Semitic group, very friendly to the Nazis, to the Nazi Party. And in Germany, the Georgists were among the first to join the Nazi Party. So I’m all for land taxation. That is a socialist policy. That’s the policy of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, the whole 19th-century political economy aimed at getting rid of the landlord class and getting rid of economic rent as unearned income. Henry George did not have a theory of value and price, and without that you don’t have a concept of economic rent. So the Georgists today around the right wing of the political spectrum. I had some contact with them at one point, and I was just appalled that they were the feeders, one of the feeder organizations into the Ayn Rand movement. So I can’t think of anyone more opposite from Richard Werner than the Henry George people. BENJAMIN NORTON: And the other part of his question was about the eurodollar system as opposed to the petrodollar. MICHAEL HUDSON: Oh, they’re both the same system, the petrodollars, the deal was – and this was what was done in the aftermath of my publication of Super Imperialism. I went down to the White House and met with the Treasury officials and the State Department officials, and they said, we have told Saudi Arabia – this is when the price of grain was quadrupled, and Saudi Arabia quadrupled the price of oil in response. So the Treasury told Saudi Arabia, you can keep charging whatever you want for the oil, but all the export proceeds you have, you have to invest back in the United States. You can invest it in the stock market. You can’t buy American companies. You can buy stocks and bonds, and especially government treasury bonds to finance things. So petrodollars were a means of recycling oil export proceeds into the American banking system and into the U.S. government budget. The eurodollars were the same thing, but slightly different. Russia really created the eurodollar market, because it was afraid to hold dollars in the United States in the 1950s, because the United States could simply grab the money, like it did with Venezuela. And so it held them in England. And so what happened was Citibank and Chase Manhattan Bank found that they could then borrow these dollars from their London branches. And Chase’s largest depositor, when I was working for it, as their balance-of-payments economist in the 1960s, was the eurodollars from the London branch. So all of these dollars that other countries would accumulate and be afraid to invest in the United States were put into British banks, that sent this money to the head offices back in the United States to essentially liquefy the American economy. And there were no reserve requirements on eurodollars. So if Chase or Citibank would get a regular deposit from somebody, and make a loan against it, they’d have to keep reserves against it. But you didn’t have to have any reserve requirements for the eurodollar deposit. So the eurodollar system was a free lunch for the commercial banking system in the United States in the 1950s and ’60s. MAX BLUMENTHAL: I wanted to go back to some comments you made earlier about the U.S. and Japan and how the U.S.’s best allies are often it often get treated as its worst enemies. This kind of reminded me of the AUKUS deal and France. The former French ambassador to Washington, I think his name is Gerard Araud, commented that after this deal, where France was basically stabbed in the back – it had what, like I don’t know the dollar sum, BENJAMIN NORTON: Over $60 billion. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Over $60 billion in diesel subs to Australia. And the deal was canceled after it was inked, apparently because the U.S. just stepped in with more advanced nuclear subs. And Araud said we need to return to a de Gaullist policy; we need a neo-de Gaullist policy. I wanted you, professor, to weigh in. Just give us your thoughts on AUKUS, on the deal, what it signals for the new cold war, but also for U.S.-French relations and the U.S. treatment of Europe. And maybe you could remind us what happened when de Gaulle tried to collect on what he was owed. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the English language is an enormous language, and it’s always expanding the words. And one of the new terms that is come into the English language about two years ago, a year or two ago, was a translation from the Russian: non-agreement capable. In other words, just like a Trump wrote the bestseller The Art of Breaking the Deal, that’s become the American policy: we can break any deal we want, because we can make our own reality. That’s what the neocons said: We make the deal, but we can make our own reality. So the United States, and Australia – U.S. satellites would have a deal with France to say we’re going to buy a submarine. But the Americans could say, wait a minute, buy our submarines, because we need our companies would rather make profits in dollars than have you order something from France that will make profits for French companies. So without telling France at all, it told Australia, just break the deal. And Australia essentially – it is not well known, but the prime minister actually lives in a basement of the Pentagon in Washington. MAX BLUMENTHAL: I thought they just kept his brain there in a jar. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well it is in a jar. MAX BLUMENTHAL: What exists of it, anyway. MICHAEL HUDSON: At any rate, Australia has never been known to do anything that America or London didn’t want. Well, once Australia actually elected a socialist prime minister, and all of a sudden the British representatives said, no, you’re not allowed to elect anyone the queen of England doesn’t recognize; you have to cancel the election. And they did. They didn’t say we want to be free of England. They said, oh, ok, who should we elect? And America told England to tell Australia to elect. So Australia is hopeless. But at any rate, this led France to say, we have been double crossed again. We want to look at, just like Germany, we want to look at making better deals with Russia. We can see that one part of the world is growing: China, Russia, the mixed economies, not the oligarchy, the financialized economies. So they’re shifting. And when you say what happened to de Gaulle – well, in May, I guess, was it [1968] – de Gaulle had been cashing in the dollars he was getting from America’s spending in Southeast Asia, he was cashing them in for gold. So America, the CIA, bragged that it had organized the big May riots in Paris. And the riots led to de Gaulle being replaced by a more left-wing party that was thoroughly under the control of the United States. So obviously, the French are worrying, ok, if we try to follow a policy of turning east, of turning towards Russia, China, and the mixed economies, with active governments instead of banks, America is going to try to do to us what it did not only to de Gaulle, but it did to Italy after World War Two, getting rid of the communists; Greece after World War Two, assassinating the communist leadership; essentially just coming and in every country, trying to interfere and meddle in elections. So they’re trying to prevent the United States from using the Green Party in Germany’s turn, following the U.S., with a very nationalistic anti-Russian, pro-American position. So Europe is realizing, breaking away from dependence on the United States, breaking away from letting the United States have all of the European surplus, and telling us to freeze in the dark and to impoverish ourselves, just so that U.S. neocons can create a world – breaking away is not going to be a pretty sight. They’re going to do to us what Hillary did the Honduras, and what and what Obama did to Libya. And we have got to be prepared for that. But at a certain point, we we just get tired of surrendering. At a certain point, we just can’t live this way anymore. And that’s the point at which Europe is maybe five years away from realizing. BENJAMIN NORTON: Well, that’s a good image, and I think it’s important to stress that point, that these policies that Washington carry out abroad always come back home, they always come back home. And just wrapping up here in the last few minutes. But that this actually reminded me, Professor Hudson, have you heard of this book by this French executive, Frederic Pierucci, who wrote this interesting book called The American Trap: My Battle to Expose America’s Secret Economic War Against the Rest of the World? It’s a very interesting book. This guy Frederic Pierucci, he was previously was an executive at the French transport company Alstom. And the U.S. government accused him of so-called corruption. And he was kind of the first case of like a Meng Wanzhou, before Meng Wanzhou, a few years before her. He was arrested actually in the United States, and he was held as what he claimed to be an “economic hostage.” And this is the beginning of this campaign we now see against Alex Saab from Venezuela, Meng Wanzhou from China, and also there’s a North Korean businessman whom the U.S. is trying to imprison. And what’s interesting is the Washington Post did a story about this book. Here’s the Washington Post article; it’s titled “An unlikely winner in the U.S. trade war: A French businessman’s book about his battle with the DOJ.” And here’s the translation of The American Trap. So I haven’t read this book; I want to get a copy of it. But essentially, from the summaries that I’ve read about this book, The American Trap, he argues that the U.S. has been carrying out a kind of economic war against French companies, in the same way it carried out those policies you explained against Japanese companies in the 1980s. MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s probably true. I have not heard of the book; nobody sent me a copy. I don’t know about it. But it seems that that’s the American modus operandi. It tries to prevent any real competition. People talk about the Thucydides problem as if there’s a competition. The United States wants to prevent any competition. And the real competition isn’t among countries; it’s economic systems. And the economic system, as I said, is one of finance-centered oligarchy, as opposed to a government promoting rising living standards and technology, and increasing our productivity. And I think America has joined the wrong side of history. And it’s a result of the combination of neoliberalism and the neocon military plan that somehow thinks that military force can force other countries to submit to what you called neo- feudalism, which indeed it is. And the question is – that has never worked over time. It’s very short term. But then these people think, well, they’re probably in their 50s or 60s now; they only have 20 years to live. All they care about is getting rich for the next 20 years. They don’t care if they leave a bankrupt America in their place. That’s their business plan. The business plan is to load the country down with debt, shrink the economy – but they’ll take their money and run. And the question is, where are they going to run to? If the rest of the world is going its own way, that they’re driving the world to grow its own way. That’s the dynamic that is at work. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Ben, maybe we can put Professor Hudson’s book on screen now and tell everyone where they can find it, the new edition. MICHAEL HUDSON: I guess it’s easier to buy books on Amazon now than it is in the bookstores. So it’s up there now. BENJAMIN NORTON: And do you know if there’s going to be an e-book version? Because I’ve only seen physical copies. MICHAEL HUDSON: I don’t know how to make e-books. I just don’t know if there will. The paperback will be out on, I think, [October 18 or 19]. BENJAMIN NORTON: Oh, great, there’s going to be a paperback out? MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, but I don’t know about e-books. BENJAMIN NORTON: Excellent, well, I would highly recommend checking out this book. Fortunately, he sent Max and me a copy. It’s incredible reading. As someone, I’m certainly not an economics expert, this book for me is just really eye-opening. I had a copy of the second edition that I would go back to regularly. I use it kind of like a textbook, because there’s just so much good information in there. There’s a lot of history. In fact, something that Professor Hudson talks about in his book is that one of the main differences, well, one of the several differences – there are many differences between the way he teaches economics and other mainstream economists – is that he actually talks about economic history. And in your book, Professor Hudson, you say that very few economists these days teach economic history because – at least in U.S. economics departments – because if you actually studied economic history, you would see how different it is from all of the neoliberal textbooks. MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s right. There’s been a rewriting. America got rich by being a mixed economy, where the government took an active role in subsidizing basic infrastructure. And all this changed in the 1980s. And the neoliberalism has sort of pretended that Adam Smith was an advocate of basically the neoliberalism of Ayn Rand, instead of being anti-landlord, anti-monopoly, and not really thinking very much of the ethics of businessmen. BENJAMIN NORTON: And then there’s one final question here, Professor Hudson: Are you thinking of doing an audiobook version? MICHAEL HUDSON: No, I don’t know anybody who does audio books. BENJAMIN NORTON: Well, maybe we can talk about it. MAX BLUMENTHAL: Who should we get to read it? Is James Earl Jones still around? I always have actors read my books, and I don’t know who they are. And I always ask the publisher, can I please just, once, read the book? And they won’t let me in. Then they bring these D-list actors in. And it’s just so bizarre to listen to it. They read it so concisely. And I hate it. So don’t. Sometimes you want to avoid an audio book. Don’t wish for it, because you just might get it. MICHAEL HUDSON: You’ve got to read, Because sometimes you want to look at the previous page. I’m really old fashioned. MAX BLUMENTHAL: No really, with this book, you really do want to read it. It’s the kind of book you want to read several times. As Ben said, it’s sort of like a textbook that has a rich narrative arc that courses through every page. And then you might want to check the citations as well. I mean, every historical episode could demand its own book. So I’m really benefiting from it. I have benefited a lot from, I guess this is our third conversation, so I really hope he can make these kind of a running series. I’m actually at the tail end of three hours of livestreaming because I just did my own live stream. So I’m sort of hallucinating. I really have nothing else to say. BENJAMIN NORTON: And yeah, well, we’ll end on that. Do you have anything to add, Professor Hudson, before we leave? MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah. It is a textbook in China. And as I said, they asked me to update it. So if you want to see what China’s strategy is vis-a-vis the United States, this explains what is on their mind. BENJAMIN NORTON: Great, well, on that note, I would say anyone who wants to check out Professor Hudson’s work, they can go to Michael-Hudson.com. He has a lot of good resources. I read his columns regularly, because I’m not an economics expert, so his columns are very digestible. And he talks about current affairs and the new cold war. So it’s always a pleasure to have you, Professor Hudson, thanks for joining us again. MICHAEL HUDSON: Thanks a lot for the discussion.

Write an article about: CIA is training Ukrainian paramilitaries to ‘kill Russians’. 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.

CIA, Maidan, Russia, Ukraine

The CIA is training far-right Ukrainian nationalists to “kill Russians” and wage an “insurgency” against Moscow. The CIA has, since 2015, been training Ukrainian special forces and paramilitaries to “kill Russians.” The covert program started under US President Barack Obama and was subsequently expanded by both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The CIA has also been in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region advising anti-Russian fighters. This is according to a January 13 report in Yahoo News, titled “CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades.” “The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel,” reported Yahoo News’ national security correspondent Zach Dorfman. A former CIA official told the outlet, “The United States is training an insurgency.” The CIA’s goal is to teach Ukrainian fighters “to kill Russians,” he said. An excerpt from the Yahoo News report in which a former CIA officer says the “United States is training an insurgency” to “kill Russians” To understand Moscow’s perspective on what is happening in Ukraine, imagine this scenario: What would the United States do if Russia orchestrated a violent coup d’etat in Mexico – as Washington did in Russia’s neighbor Ukraine in 2014 – then Russian spy agencies spent years training Mexican gangs to kill North Americans, and sent them to the US border to fight an “insurgency”? That is what Washington is doing on the Russian border.

Write an article about: French ambassador: US ‘rules-based order’ means Western domination, violating international law. 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.

China, Cold War Two, France, Gérard Araud, new cold war, Russia, sanctions, Ukraine, UN, United Nations

France’s ex US Ambassador Gérard Araud criticized Washington for frequently violating international law and said its so-called “rules-based order” is an unfair “Western order” based on “hegemony.” He condemned the new cold war on China, instead calling for mutual compromises. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) France’s former ambassador to the United States, Gérard Araud, has publicly criticized Washington, saying it frequently violates international law and that its so-called “rules-based order” is actually an unfair “Western order.” The top French diplomat warned that the United States is engaged in “economic warfare” against China, and that Europe is concerned about Washington’s “containment policy,” because many European countries do not want to be forced to “choose a camp” in a new cold war. Araud condemned US diplomats for insisting that Washington must always be the “leader” of the world, and stressed that the West should work with other countries in the Global South, “on an equal basis,” in order “to find a compromise with our own interests.” He cautioned against making “maximalist” demands, “of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.” Araud made these remarks in a November 14 panel discussion titled “Is America Ready for a Multipolar World?“, hosted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank in Washington, DC that advocates for a more restrained, less bellicose foreign policy. Gérard Araud’s credentials could hardly be any more elite. A retired senior French diplomat, he served as the country’s ambassador to the United States from 2014 to 2019. From 2009 to 2014, he was Paris’ representative to the United Nations. Before that, Araud served as France’s ambassador to Israel, and he previously worked with NATO. He was also appointed as a “senior distinguished fellow” at the Atlantic Council, NATO’s notoriously belligerent think tank in Washington. This blue-blooded background makes Araud’s frank comments even more important, as they reflect the feelings of a segment of the French ruling class and European political class, which is uncomfortable with Washington’s unipolar domination and wants power to be more decentralized in the world. In a shockingly blunt moment in the panel discussion, Gérard Araud explained that the so-called “rules-based order” is actually just a “Western order,” and that the United States and Europe unfairly dominate international organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF): To be frank, I’ve always been extremely skeptical about this idea of a ‘rules-based order.’ Personally, for instance, look, I was the permanent representative to the United Nations. We love the United Nations, but the Americans not too much, you know. And actually when you look at the hierarchy of the United Nations, everybody there is ours. The Secretary General [António Guterres] is Portuguese. He was South Korean [Ban Ki-moon]. But when you look at all the under secretaries general, all of them really are either American, French, British, and so on. When you look at the World Bank, when you look at the IMF, and so on. So that’s the first element: this order is our order. And the second element is also that, actually, this order is reflecting the balance of power in 1945. You know, you look at the permanent members of the Security Council. Really people forget that, if China and Russia are obliged to oppose [with] their veto, it is because frankly the Security Council is most of the time, 95% of the time, has a Western-oriented majority. So this order frankly – and you can also be sarcastic, because, when the Americans basically want to do whatever they want, including when it’s against international law, as they define it, they do it. And that’s the vision that the rest of the world has of this order. You know really, when I was in – the United Nations is a fascinating spot, because you have ambassadors of all the countries, and you can have conversations with them, and the vision they project of the world, their vision of the world, is certainly not a ‘rules-based order’; it’s a Western order. And they accuse us of double standards, hypocrisy, and so on and so on. So I’m not sure that this question about the ‘rules’ is really the critical question. I think the first assessment that we should do will be maybe, as we say in French, to put ourselves in the shoes of the other side, to try to understand how they see the world. Araud argued that if the international community is serious about creating a “rules-based order,” it must entail “integrating all the major stakeholders into the managing of the world, you know really bringing the Chinese, the Indians, and really other countries, and trying to build with them, on an equal basis, the world of tomorrow.” “That’s the only way,” he added. “We should really ask the Indians, ask the Chinese, the Brazilians, and other countries, really to work with us on an equal basis. And that’s something – it’s not only the Americans, also the Westerners, you know, really trying to get out of our moral high ground, and to understand that they have their own interests, that on some issues we should work together, on other issues we shouldn’t work together.” “Let’s not try to rebuild the Fortress West,” he implored. “It shouldn’t be the future of our foreign policy.” Gérard Araud revealed that, in Europe, there is “concern” that the United States has a “containment policy” against China. “I think the international relationship will be largely dominated by the rivalry between China and the United States. And foreign policy I think in the coming years will be to find the modus vivendi … between the two powers,” he said. He warned that Washington is engaged in “economic warfare” against Beijing, that the US is trying “basically to cut any relationship with China in the field of advanced chips, which is sending a message of, ‘We are going to try to prevent you from becoming an advanced economy.’ It’s really, it’s economic warfare.” “Really on the American side is the development of economic warfare against China. It’s really cutting, making impossible cooperation in a very important, critical field, for the future of the Chinese economy,” he added. Araud pointed out that China is not just “emerging”; it is in fact “re-emerging” to a prominent geopolitical position, like it had for hundreds of years, before the rise of European colonialism. He stressed that many countries in Asia don’t want to be forced to pick a side in this new cold war, and are afraid of becoming a zone of proxy conflicts like Europe was in the first cold war: Asia doesn’t want to be the Europe of the Cold War. They don’t want to have a bamboo curtain. They don’t want to choose their camp. Australia has chosen its camp, but it’s a particular case. But Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, they don’t want to choose their camp, and we shouldn’t demand they choose their camp. So we need to have a flexible policy of talking to the Chinese, because talking is also a way of reassuring them, trying to understand their interests, also to define our interests not in a maximalist way, of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony. Araud challenged the idea that the United States must be the unipolar “leader” of the world, stating: The Americans entered the world, in a sense, being already the big boy on the block. In 1945, it was 40% of the world’s GDP. Which also may explain what is American diplomacy. The word of American diplomats, the word of American diplomacy is ‘leadership.’ Really, it’s always striking for foreigners, as soon as there is a debate about American foreign policy, immediately people say, ‘We have to restore our leadership.’ Leadership. And other countries may say, ‘Why leadership?’ Gérard Araud similarly criticized Western media outlets for their cartoonishly negative coverage of China. The top French diplomat called on officials to “try to see the world from Beijing”: When you look at the European or Western newspapers, you have the impression that China is a sort of a dark monster which is moving forward, never committing a mistake, never really facing any problem, and going to the domination of the world – you know, the Chinese work 20 hours a day, they don’t want a vacation, they don’t care, they want to dominate the world. Maybe that if we will try to see the world from Beijing, really we will consider certainly that all the borders of China are more or less unstable, or threatened, or facing unfriendly countries, and that’s from the Chinese point of view. Maybe they want to improve their situation. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept it, but maybe to see, to remember, that any defensive measure of one side is always seen as offensive by the other side. So let’s understand that China has its own interests. You know, even dictatorships have legitimate interests. And so let’s look at these interests, and let’s try to find a compromise with our own interests. Araud went on to point out that the US government is constantly militarily threatening China, sending warships across the planet to its coasts, but would never for a second tolerate Beijing doing the same to it: When I was in Washington, just after the [hawkish anti-China] speech of Vice President Pence to the Hudson [Institute] in October 2018, I met a lot of specialists on China in Washington, DC, but when I was trying to tell them, you know, your [US] ships are patrolling at 200 miles from the Chinese coast, at 5000 miles from the American coast, what would be your reaction if Chinese ships were patrolling at 200 miles from your coast? And obviously my interlocutors didn’t understand what I meant. And that’s the question, you know, really trying to figure out what are the reasonable interests of the other side. Araud stressed that China “is not a military threat” to the West. With this new cold war between the United States and China, Gérard Araud explained, “in this context, Russia is a bit like Austria-Hungary with Germany before the First World War, is a bit doomed to be the ‘brilliant second’ of China.” While Araud harshly denounced Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he also criticized the Western sanctions on Moscow, which he cautioned, “on the European side, it is inflicting to ourselves some pain.” He warned that Europe is in a “dead end” with Russia, “because as long as the war in Ukraine will go on, and my bet unfortunately is that it may go on for a long time, it will be impossible for the Europeans, and the Americans in a sense, but also for the Europeans to end the sanctions on Russia, which means that our relationship with Russia may be frozen for an indefinite future.” “And I think it’s very difficult to have diplomatic activity [with Russia] in this situation,” he added. You can watch the full panel discussion hosted by the Quincy Institute below:

Write an article about: Iran proposes new currency for trade with China, Russia, India, Pakistan in Shanghai Cooperation Organization. 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.

China, de-dollarization, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

Iran proposed a new currency for trade with China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This could help circumvent illegal Western sanctions and weaken US dollar hegemony. Iran has proposed creating a new currency to do trade with China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Tehran sent a letter to the SCO in early 2022 suggesting that a new currency could help the Eurasian nations strengthen their bilateral trade with each other, according to Iran’s foreign minister for economic diplomacy, Mehdi Safari. A Eurasian currency would also make it easier for these countries to circumvent unilateral Western sanctions, which are illegal under international law. Such a development would directly challenge the US-dominated financial system and the status of the dollar as the de facto global reserve currency. The US dollar is still used in the majority of global trade transactions, although the overall percentage is shrinking by the year. Brazil’s left-wing leader Lula da Silva has similarly pledged that, if he wins the October 2022 presidential elections, he will create a new currency for trade within Latin America, called the Sur (“South”), in order to combat “the dependency on the dollar”. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a Eurasian political and economic alliance that brings together countries representing more than 40% of global population and roughly one-third of the world’s GDP. The 2018 SCO heads of state summit The SCO was formed in the 2001, at first largely as a security organization aimed at combatting terrorism and extremism and promoting peace and stability in Asia. In the two decades since, the SCO has evolved into a highly influential political and economic organization. China, Russia, India, and Pakistan are all members of the SCO, along with the Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Iran became accepted as a member of the SCO in September 2021, initiating a technical accession process that could take a year or two. Afghanistan, Belarus, and Mongolia are also recognized as SCO observer states. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was founded in 2001 by China and Russia, and has become a counterbalance to the US-led NATO cartel (though the SCO is not exactly a military alliance in the same way) Iran is now a member. Belarus is likely next, then maybe Afghanistan pic.twitter.com/LzF0k3MyLN — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 17, 2021 On May 26, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization held its 17th forum meeting, via video. The conference was chaired by Russia. Dozens of figures from the eight Eurasian member states discussed “more intensive interaction between the SCO states in the field of international security, economic cooperation matters and expanded cultural and humanitarian cooperation”, the organization reported. Several members of the SCO, including Russia, Iran, and China, have been targeted by unilateral US sanctions, which violate international law. A new Eurasian currency would help these sanctioned nations trade with each other, without the need of dollars and access to the US-controlled financial system. Russia and China have sought to de-dollarize their economies for several years, recognizing how the US government has weaponized its currency through the use of financial sanctions. The devastating Western sanctions imposed on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine have accelerated this process of de-dollarization. The Western proxy war on Russia has also led to a significant deepening of the integration of the Russian and Chinese economies. While the US and EU isolate Moscow over Ukraine, China is strengthening its "rock solid" alliance with Russia, calling it its “most important strategic partner” In response to Western sanctions, Russian banks are moving to a Chinese payment systemhttps://t.co/YMjtUqegbz — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 9, 2022 These sanctions have likewise encouraged countries in Asia to develop new forms of trade using other currencies. China is purchasing Russian oil in its own currency, the yuan. India and Russia are doing trade together in their own currencies, the rupee and ruble, respectively. In 2020, Iran’s central bank effectively dropped the dollar and listed the Chinese yuan as its top foreign exchange currency. China and Iran subsequently signed a historic 25-year cooperation agreement in 2021. As part of the deal, China will reportedly invest $400 billion to help develop Iran’s economy and infrastructure, in return for oil.

Write an article about: Anti-China hawks’ drive to expand NATO into Asia may destroy Western military alliance. 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.

China, Geopolitical Economy Hour, Michael Hudson, NATO, Pepe Escobar, Radhika Desai, Russia, Ukraine

Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are joined by geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar to discuss how the war hawks’ drive to expand NATO into Asia to contain China may destroy the Western military alliance. Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are joined by geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar to discuss how the war hawks’ drive to expand NATO into Asia to contain China may destroy the Western military alliance. You can find more episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour here. RADHIKA DESAI: Hello everyone and welcome to the [15th] Geopolitical Economy Hour, a program that discusses the political and geopolitical economy of our time. I’m Radhika Desai. MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson. RADHIKA DESAI: And today we have once again Pepe Escobar, roving reporter extraordinaire. Welcome, Pepe. PEPE ESCOBAR: Thank you. It’s an enormous pleasure to be with you guys again. RADHIKA DESAI: And today we are going to continue the discussion we started in the last Geopolitical Economy Hour, entitled “NATO Out of Bounds: War Against Russia, War Against China”. Last time we discussed where the Vilnius Summit had left NATO, and the divisions within the alliance that the summit had exposed; how the proxy war on Russia was faring; and how the Biden project of uniting so-called democracies against so-called autocracies relies so critically on the outcome of this war, which by present indications does not look good for Ukraine, and it does not look good for NATO. We then went on to discuss how much longer Europe and other US allies could sustain the appearance of NATO unity, which is cracking as we speak, and ended with a discussion of how the grain deal [the Black Sea Grain Initiative] had broken down. Now that discussion already permitted us to expand our frame out of Europe and to take in the world as a whole, because, as it became very clear in our discussion, you cannot understand the breakdown of the grain deal unless you put it in the larger context of how imperialism has a long and murderous history of attempting to deny food security to most of the world. So now today we are going to continue that discussion by focusing on the danger of NATO being transformed from a North Atlantic Treaty Organization to a North and South Atlantic and Pacific Treaty Organization, as Biden leads to an ever-widening and deepening hybrid war on China with trade, technology, diplomatic, and military aspects, but which is coming ever closer to some kind of military war. So once again, we framed our discussion around several questions, so I will just begin by posing the first one: What is the United States’ wider intention and strategy vis-a-vis China in the so-called Indo-Pacific region? What do recent events mean for the region? I’m thinking of events such as the visit of high-ranking Chinese and Russian officials to Pyongyang to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the armistice in the Korean War. I’m thinking of Western hysteria over the recent agreement between China and the Solomon Islands, one of a very large number of Pacific island nations. The recent announcement of a new package of military aid to Taiwan from the United States, which essentially is going to be done by a kind of presidential decree, using the same military drawdown program that President Biden has been using to fuel the war in Ukraine. And generally, I’m thinking of rising tensions in the region, thanks to the announcement of AUKUS a couple of years ago, and the reactivation of the so-called Quad alliance, or incipient alliance, whatever you want to call it, between the United States, South Korea, Japan, and India. And of course, there has been the recent NATO declaration that it considers China a threat. U.S. strategy is not easy to understand, because, while on the one hand, there seems to be some effort to promote dialogue with the visits of recent high-ranking U.S. officials, such as Antony Blinken and Janet Yellen, while on the other hand, U.S. actions continue to ratchet up tensions across all the fronts. So, Michael, why don’t you start us off with your views on this matter? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, today is just two years since America was driven out of Afghanistan, and we’re seeing a repeat of the defeat in Ukraine. So the U.S. and NATO have lost Ukraine, but they want to keep the fighting going because Biden said this is a fight against China that’s going to take two decades, maybe three decades. So it looks like the Pacific and even the Arctic may become the new U.S. disruption zone. Now, especially since Russia and China are working with North Korea to develop ports for the new trade from the Pacific via the Arctic to Northern Europe. So the United States is losing militarily, but it looks like it’s going to lose Europe in a few years. And the American strategic plan since the 1990s was to absorb the Warsaw Pact into NATO. And it’s done that, but now it looks like it’s overplaying its hand. And the cost ultimately may be to lose Western Europe, headed by Germany, France, and Italy. And we’re already seeing, in the last few days, just since our last broadcast, we’re seeing riots throughout Europe as the economy and employment are declining. And there’s discussion, where is the German chemical industry, led by the BASF company, going to go? They’ve announced they are not going to make any further capital investments in Germany. They say that they’re being pressured to move their facilities to the United States. And they already have facilities in China. So where will the German industrial population go when it abandons the country, just like Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania’s population have fallen by about one-third since 1990? When you look at how this all works out geopolitically, the Baltics and Central Europe are not important economically. Their population is declining. And only Poland has a military value, because of its dreams of recovering where it was in the 16th century, when it controlled most of Scandinavia and the Baltics. So the U.S. is pushing the insistence, either you’re with us or against us. And the break that’s coming may move Western Europe into the Russian and SCO – Shanghai Cooperation Organization – orbit. When they finally make the decision, if they do decide, “Gee, we shouldn’t have lost the trade with Russia. And now we’re being told to stop trading with China. Maybe we shouldn’t have made that”. If they reverse their decision, this is going to be irreversible. And you could say the same of the Global South countries that are being pressured – and indeed, most of the Global Majority – they’re being forced to choose, either you’re with the U.S., whose industrial economy is shrinking, or you’re with the expanding BRICS+, plus the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So where are these countries going to realign over the next few years? The U.S. can keep England as a dependency. And England’s fate is, I think, going to be a warning to what happens to countries that adopt U.S.-style finance capitalism instead of socialist industrialization and public services as a human right. PEPE ESCOBAR: Michael gave us the big picture, right? I would like to focus on something that happened these past few days, which is enormous, and I would say, for most of the planet, quite unforeseen, which is Russia bringing back North Korea, the DPRK, to the rank of a very important Global South power with enormous reach. So we have [Russian] Ministry of Defense Sergei Shoigu received like Mick Jagger in Pyongyang. He got a true rock star welcome, the whole thing, including a private audience with Kim Jong-un and obviously the whole leadership of the DPRK. What leaked, of course, was the possibility of many military agreements and increasing their military collaboration. What did not leak is the best part of them all, because it’s the geoeconomic part. What do the Russians really want to do with Pyongyang? They want to integrate Pyongyang with South Korea, with Seoul. And of course, this will mean Russia developing a sort of go-between, diplomacy between both. And they have the possibility to do both, because they are also respected in Seoul. And something that has already been discussed at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. These discussions, they started at least three or four years ago in Vladivostok. And what they’re all about basically is to build a trans-Korean railway, which is going to connect with the trans-Siberian and connect both Koreas to the Russian far east, and then all the way across Eurasia. So imagine that you are a Samsung businessman in Seoul. You look at that and say, “Wow, I don’t need to use cargo tankers anymore; I can have direct access to the enormous developing market in the Russian far east, not to mention the whole of Eurasia via Russia, just by building a railway”. Very, very simple. Which sooner or later, and I would say, with Chinese input, could become a high-speed rail. Considering that the Chinese are already investing in high-speed rail in Russia, and considering that if there is a duplication of the trans-Siberian into a trans-Siberian high-speed rail is going to be built by the Chinese, this trans-Korean railway could also be built with Chinese input, technical input as well. And financed via a Chinese Silk Road Fund, the BRICS Development Bank, Russian banks, etc. It could be a reorganization of finance, East Eurasia style. So they were discussing that, of course, and this is going to be re-discussed, and they’re going to get deeper into it at the next Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in early September. So it’s around the corner, literally. So the fact that this is happening now, it’s very, very important, because this is a sort of a preamble to what they’re going to get into at the next Eastern Economic Forum. So everybody is happy with this arrangement. North Korea, because they are brought back to the forefront of trade in the parts of Eurasia. The possibility of having some sort of geoeconomic deal between North Korea and South Korea. Russia, developing the far east and integrating the far east with the Koreas. And China, of course, because this also integrates this part of Eurasia, this Northern Eurasia framework. And it’s part of BRICS. It’s part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And this opens, I would say, this leaves us with the possibility of North Korea sooner or later getting integrated into the Eurasia Economic Union. And that’s fantastic, because I see that happening in at least two stages. The first stage, the EAEU strikes a free trade agreement with North Korea, just like the ones they have with Cuba, or with Vietnam in Southeast Asia. And they are also working with Indonesia to have an EAEU free trade deal with Indonesia. They could also do the same thing with North Korea. And fantastic, this bypasses US sanctions, because it’s going to be – the EAEU basically, Russia is 80% of the firepower of the EAEU. They can devise a settlement mechanism involving North Korea that bypasses the US dollar completely. You have expansion of EAEU to Northeast Asia, which is very important. The Chinese are going to love it as well, because they can also, even if they’re not part of the EAEU – don’t forget that Putin and Xi have already said, and the directives are already there – the Belt and Road Initiative, BRI and EAEU, they have to converge. And this would be a perfect example of convergence between BRI and EAEU. So that’s why, the way I see this visit by Shoigu as Mick Jagger, it extrapolates it everywhere, geoeconomically and geopolitically. And it’s no wonder that it was not even mentioned, I would say, or barely mentioned in Western mainstream media. RADHIKA DESAI: That’s absolutely true. And I mean, the more one thinks about it, the fact of the matter is that it is only a matter of time when the US’s strategy will stop working in the region. So first of all, I mean, this idea that the United States can extend NATO to the Pacific is not going to wash, because the Pacific region has historically focused on its own economic development. The Chinese are essentially pitting their own strategy of proposing economic development to the NATO strategy of securitizing everything, and essentially turning everything into a military conflict or a military alliance. We’re going to see the contestation of these two visions in the region. And I would say, basically, it’s a matter of time before everybody begins to realize that what the United States is doing in Asia, what the United States has been doing around the world, at least since the Second World War, if not before, is essentially, well, the United States says it is providing protection to the world; in reality, the United States has been running a protection racket. What is a protection racket? A protection racket is to promise to provide security against dangers that you have yourself created, so that your promise to provide security appears credible and attractive. So, for example, the United States has continued to foment disunity on the Korean Peninsula. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Koreans, North and South, deeply yearn for some form of unification. There is absolutely no doubt. And this is attested to by the fact that, periodically, governments come to power that have advanced progress towards unification, but the United States then comes in and disrupts it. It’s only when Koreans realize this that they will stop voting for those forces. And I think it’s a matter of time. Similarly, in the case of Taiwan, already we are seeing in the run-up to the elections that are due, I think, in a few months, you have in the appearance, side by side with the KMT that wishes to promote peaceful reconciliation with China, the emergence of a new party that is going to do the same. This is going to essentially push the DPP out of the picture. So they’re not going to win. Similarly, also you read in the papers, although Japan has signed, has pronounced a new military policy in recent years that people say should be unthinkable in a country with a pacifist constitution, but in reality you see that the overwhelming majority of the Japanese are not going to join any kind of US-led war against [China over] Taiwan. And so finally, what I’m really driving at is that the wonderful specifics that you gave about what can happen just in the case of North Korea, this is part of a wider set of pressures that I like to think of as the exertion of the economic magnetism, the economic gravity of China. And no country can afford not to respond to that. And so we are going to see a shift, but at the same time, in terms of what we can expect to happen in the next few years, maybe even few decades, is an attempt on the part of the United States to stop this inexorable development from occurring. And you were saying, Michael, that I agree with you, that, at one level, it looks as the United States is looking at a multi-decade war. But we also read in the papers that the United States feels compelled to do something now, because they think that they have up to 2027 before China will become capable of really resisting US forces. But yeah, I mean, this is a kind of a segue into the next question, which is basically, what can the US expect from its allies? MICHAEL HUDSON: Japan has sort of a Stockholm Syndrome, and it identifies with the United States because the US bombed it. And despite its export trade opportunities with China, its right-wing government is still willing to lose this market and sacrifice its economy for the United States once again, just as it did in the Plaza and Louvre Accords. And South Korea is really the key to all of this, partly because it’s so important in ship making, and it’s being pressured to continue cutting back its export of sophisticated ships to China. The Wall Street Journal just had a long report on that. But if it sees the promise of the Chinese market – and as Pepe has explained, the whole Eurasian market, thanks to the railroad – it’s going to decide, what it is going to choose: the export markets to resolve the military overhead and the threat of North Korea, or is it just going to continue to back the US? It’ll probably have to tell the US to remove its occupation troops, because I think the Korean War still is legally on. So we may finally see an end of the Korean War that began in 1950. PEPE ESCOBAR: Your question is what America will do essentially. Just look around and see what they are incapable of doing in several parts of the Global South or the Global Majority. For instance, Southeast Asia. Well, I lived in [Southeast Asia]; it’s my home. I moved to Southeast Asia in ’94, a long time ago. So I followed the relationship between the ASEAN 10, the 10 members of Southeast Asia, with Russia, China, India, and the US on the spot. And nowadays, everybody knows that the number one trade partner of all ASEAN is China. We also know that the U.S. has more margin of maneuver in some of the Southeast Asian nations than in others. For instance, Singapore, we usually joke that Singapore is an American aircraft carrier station in Southeast Asia, side by side with Indonesia and Malaysia. More and more relations between Indonesia and China are being, finally, there was a lot of mutual suspicion during the times of Suharto, of course, and immediately afterwards. And the Chinese have been very, very clever to explain to Indonesia, “Look, we don’t have any designs on your islands, the Natuna Islands in the South China Sea”. So the Indonesians are more relaxed. So now they are talking business, for instance, like, you know, Chinese investments, part of the Belt and Road Initiative across Indonesia. Philippines, we all know, it remains an on-off American colony. But the Americans, for instance, have absolutely zero penetration in, for instance, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. This is Chinese territory. And these have Belt and Road Initiative projects all over the space, like the absolutely extraordinary high-speed rail that the Chinese built from Yunnan to Vientiane. I saw that being built in the middle of the forest across the Mekong River. It’s something that only the Chinese are capable of pulling off. And they did in record time on top of it, because the Laos government said, “OK, come here, do everything”, and it’s the way to go. In Thailand, there’s going to be an extension, because, of course, of foreign interference, because of Thai lobbies fighting among themselves, the Thais haven’t even started to finish their own stretch, you see. But this proves that Southeast Asia, in terms of Chinese-U.S. relations, it’s a balancing act. But most of these nations know exactly what’s going to happen from now on. Their number one trade partner is China. And Chinese influence in all of them will continue to be very, very strong, directly and indirectly, via the Chinese diaspora in all of them, what we call the “bamboo internet”, which is strong in all of these nations. South America: South America, what they basically, against Argentina and Brazil, of course, the Americans have tactical victories. In case of Argentina, for instance, they forced Argentina to get a loan to pay another IMF loan. So basically, the plan is to get Argentina to keep begging for IMF loans ad infinitum. So this is plan A. There’s no plan B. Brazil is much more complicated. But for the moment, it’s a tactical victory, because the margin of maneuver of the Lula government is very, very slim. And we have the famous list of what you’re going to do, that Jake Sullivan went personally to Brasilia to hand out to the new Brazilian government. So obviously, Lula inside BRICS has to be very, very careful. Every time that he opens his mouth and he talks about de-dollarization, we see people shrinking in the beltway. So very complicated. And across Africa, of course, which I’m sure we’re going to discuss, we are watching basically a second wave of decolonization. And now, finally, the real thing with a new generation of young African patriots in Burkina Faso, in Mali, in Niger, in Gambia. And of course, with very, very important allies, not only Russia and China outside, but Algeria in the Maghreb, who plainly supports all these new governments in the Sahel area. So in terms of not only the U.S., but the collective West as a whole, they’re being expelled little by little, with or without AFRICOM, from Africa. And of course, in West Asia, they still cling to, for instance, Syria. Everybody seems to forget nowadays, with the war in Ukraine, that one-third of Syria is still occupied by the Americans. And they are plundering oil virtually on a daily or weekly basis, and wheat. And this disappeared completely from the narrative anywhere. Even in West Asia, the war in Syria is not over. The war in Syria continues, and there is an illegal occupation of one-third of the Syrian territory. So we have tactical victories. At the same time, we have Hezbollah growing stronger and stronger by the day. So the Americas are losing terrain everywhere. [The US has] tactical victories in Europe, of course. They managed to get Germany and the EU separated from Russia. But this is not eternal. This is a tactical victory for the moment. This could change in a matter of a few years only. And of course, across Eurasia, we all know what’s happening. Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS+, the Greater Eurasia Partnership conducted by Russia, Belt and Road Initiative. We’re going to have a forum in Beijing in October. This is it. Eurasia now is Eurasia controlled by Eurasians, and without foreign interference. Of course, we still have attempts at color revolutions. I’m going back to Central Asia soon. I’m going to see what’s happening in Kazakhstan now. Kazakhstan, they are so uncomfortable; they’re trying to hedge their bets, considering that they suffered a color revolution a year and a half ago. And there are sequels. This thing is not controlled yet. So it’s a very mixed picture, guys. I think we all agree that, in terms of tactical victories, the Americans have some serious ones. But in terms of the overall strategy, they are losing virtually in every continent. RADHIKA DESAI: And the very fact that Kazakhstan would be having second thoughts about this is a very important thing. Because from what I understand, of all the Central Asian republics, it is the most pro-Western. It is the most penetrated by American capital, and so on and so forth. So that’s really fascinating. And you’re absolutely right that the picture is very complex. But we can see where the undercurrent of history is going. It’s going away from the United States and toward China and Russia and so on. But at the same time, the undercurrent is one thing. But on the surface, the United States will continue to try and make attempts to block this from happening. There will be vain attempts, but they will be made. People will pay the price for it, et cetera. But still, if you try to, you know, as you say, the United States’ ability to conduct all this is in danger. One indication of this, as we’ve discussed in the past, is that the U.S. cannot, you know – today it’s in the news that the U.S. is going to use the drawdown facility that has been created for Ukraine to send weapons to Taiwan. But the fact of the matter is, what’s also being reported in the U.S. media itself, let alone elsewhere, is that the U.S. ability to produce the sort of arms that are necessary for theater operations today is actually very weak. It is not able to produce. The United States provides vast quantities of money to its pampered military-industrial complex to produce weapons that are of no use – or they are not sufficient. You know, they’re very good at producing high-priced, big-ticket items that cannot be used on the battlefield. Now, this is really a fascinating comment on capitalism, on American-style monopoly capitalism, that you have a pampered military-industrial complex that cannot produce what you need, and you still keep supporting them. So that’s one contradiction. And of course, there are also many others, you know, within an election campaign about to go into high gear in the United States. The unpopularity of the [Ukraine] war, even in the U.S., will be clear. Every other day, there is some item in some or the other newspaper saying, “You know, why are we sending so much money to Ukraine when we can invest in the U.S.?”, etc. So what are the U.S.’s options? I mean, Michael, you recently wrote a paper in which you said that the United States has lost any capacity to rationally calculate what it ought to do, what strategy will win. Perhaps you can say something about that. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the U.S. chip makers like Intel are protesting very loudly that China represents one-third of their market. And so if they’re told by the Biden administration to stop selling sophisticated chips to China, then the government is going to be told, well, you’ll have to make up maybe a $50 billion subsidy to us. And will the U.S. Treasury really be asked to replace the China market? That’s what’s already being debated in Congress. So if it does that, how is this kind of giveaway going to affect the U.S. presidential and the congressional elections just next year? This is already an issue. And business donors are not giving money to the Biden administration and the Democratic Party, because they’re wondering what to do. And on the other hand, you have Donald Trump trying to get votes by being even more anti-China than the Democrats. So the great unknown is how China is going to respond to the U.S. shooting itself in the foot. Is it going to be willing to turn the tables and retaliate by imposing its own sanctions? And it has a much stronger ability to impose sanctions on the U.S. than the U.S. has to impose sanctions on China. And [China] fired a warning shot a week ago by stopping the exports of gallium – it produces 80 percent of the world’s supply – and germanium, which it does 60 percent. And on August 1st, China just announced that it has limitations on rare earth exports. And rare earths are a key to making the magnetic characteristics that are required for sophisticated chip technology. So China can simply impose sanctions on trade that doesn’t have much monetary value, but a key technology value, and can limit the trade in raw materials only to its Shanghai Cooperation Organization allies, and say, “Well, look, I’ll provide you with all the materials, and you can make what the United States and Western Europe are no longer able to make, because they don’t have what only we can supply”. So the question is, when will China’s political mentality decide to actually fight the U.S. type of negative war with sanctions instead of the competitive cost-cutting, high-technology war that economic trade is supposed to fight? That’s the issue. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. And, you know, as you were talking, Michael, I was reminded of the fact that, of course, sanctions against Russia were supposed to, you know, “reduce the ruble to rubble” and, you know, push the Russian economy back into the stone age and whatnot. And, of course, if they didn’t win against Russia, they are not going to win against China. We know that, as you say, rightly, that perhaps China should engage a little bit more in the kind of action that it has just undertaken to deny the West important inputs that it needs, important raw materials that it needs. But even without such restrictions, China is already making U.S. sanctions useless, because it has rapidly accelerated its innovation in chip technology and so on. And you know that if the Chinese really roll up their sleeves and say we are going to attack this problem, that problem will be solved in relatively short time. If the Taiwanese can do it, why can’t the Chinese? It’s not you know, the Chinese have been happy to rely on imports since they were easily available. But if they are not, they will develop their own. So the sanctions are going to boomerang big time vis-a-vis China as well. In fact, in a much bigger way. And so the thing that becomes very clear is that it’s very unlikely that there’s going to be anything like an Asian NATO. In fact, given the failure of the war, as I’ve argued before, in Ukraine, the real question will become whether even a European NATO can survive. PEPE ESCOBAR: Radhika, can I change the subject a little bit? Touching on what Michael just said, it dawned on me that the ultimate form of sanctions against the empire is de-dollarization. Because if you don’t change the geoeconomic paradigm, nothing’s going to happen in terms of multipolar integration. So I’d like a little introduction and then I’m going to ask Michael a direct question. Because he’s probably the number one specialist in the world that can give us, without being part of the negotiations, that can give us, OK, what are they planning to do? It’s about the so-called BRICS new currency. What I learned from BRICS Sherpas is that there won’t be an announcement of a BRICS new currency in South Africa in three weeks, for a number of very complex reasons. First of all, they don’t have time. Second, their negotiations started only a few months ago. And this is something that I discussed in Moscow; you need five, six, seven years to design a system like that, if not 10 years, and start to implement it and test it with businesses first, and then with nation states. What is going to happen in South Africa is they’re going to announce an increase in bilateral trade in their own currencies, which is something that they already do. And they are already working on alternative settlements. So basically, starting with the five BRICS currencies – which significantly, [their names] all start with an “R”. That’s very, very quirky, isn’t it? Obviously, if we use renminbi instead of yuan, so we have renminbi, real, rand, rupee, and ruble. So we’re going to have the R5 together, organizing an alternative settlement system of payments. And this will be the first step towards multilateral trade in their own currencies, the five. Don’t forget that we’re going to have BRICS+. So we’re not going to have five; we’re going to have maybe seven, eight, nine, or even 10, depending on the first wave and the second wave of candidates to become parts of BRICS+. And then expanding multilateral trade with these national currencies. And, of course, building, okay, let’s start designing a system, and let’s try to sell this to our businesses in our individual nations, and then to other ones as well. And that will mean the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Eurasia Economic Union, etc. The Eurasia Economic Union, they have already started discussing an alternative currency three years ago, at least. And they’re still discussing it. Like, you know, two months ago, [Prominent Russian economist] Sergey Glazyev went to Beijing to discuss this with the Chinese. Essentially, it’s an extremely complex thing. And, of course, taking into consideration that the Chinese are terrified of American secondary sanctions, especially. So this is all extremely complicated. So my question to Michael would be, what would be the ideal path in terms of elaborating an alternative payment system inside BRICS first, then expanding to BRICS+, and then selling this system of payments, considering that the Chinese have their own payment system; the Russians have their own payment system; Iran have their own payment system. So getting these all together, so you can settle trade within this new framework, bypassing the U.S. dollar. And then you’re going to have your big enterprises, your big companies, individual nations say, “Well, this is an excellent deal, fantastic”. So now if we’re a company in Turkey, we can do business with a Russian company and we use an alternative payment system. What would be the best way to proceed ahead? And when would we reach a stage where we can actually discuss an alternative currency in terms of bypassing the U.S. dollar and the euro? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, actually, Radhika and I have devoted two programs of this series to just that question. And we pointed out that what people think of when they say BRICS currency is something like a euro that you can use for buying and selling things, either buying steel or spending at the grocery store. You’re absolutely right. That’s far away, because you need political integration to have that. But what we’re really talking about, and what the kind of currency that’s being talked about isn’t really a currency; it’s a bank credit, a bank settlement system, very much like the SDRs [Special Drawing Rights] for the IMF, except it won’t be controlled by the U.S. But most of all, this is what [John Maynard] Keynes supported in [the Bretton Woods Conference in] 1944 with the bancor. It’s a means of settlement only for spending among central banks. So it’s not a general currency. It’s a means of settling credits among central banks. And the credits are apparently going to be based on the artificial bank currency, tied to the price of raw materials that the member countries all support. And it’ll be very much like paper gold. Right now, the alternative to holding each other’s currencies or U.S. dollars is gold, because gold is an asset without a liability. It’s just something that you can invest in. But you have to somehow earn the money to buy the gold. Many countries have left their gold, since the pre-1991 movement devaluation. Countries used to leave their gold with the U.S. Federal Reserve to settle, buy, and sell in the gold market to stabilize their exchange rates. They never asked for their gold back. Finally, Germany asked a few years ago, and the Fed said, I’m sorry, all your gold is gone. We’ve kept down the price of gold to prevent people from moving away from the U.S. dollar by pledging it to commodity dealers. And we don’t have any gold to give you. And how much of the world’s gold has been left with the Federal Reserve? We don’t know. So to avoid the problem of how to really settle new gold, the BRICS bank will create a credit system where all the countries have credit to buy and sell with each other to be settled in their own currency, so that China, for instance, won’t hold too much Argentinian currency – especially since Argentina has just done the currency swap to pay the IMF for its foreign debt that it should have simply wiped out. So we’re talking about a central bank special currency, not a general spending currency. There are two different things that are often confused in the public discussion. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, and if I may add to that, because – you know, Michael and I have done work on this together in our programs, in a paper that we jointly wrote; and then also, independently, so Michael has done his work in Super Imperialism and so on; and my own work on geopolitical economy, is really, it’s primarily – in the book called Geopolitical Economy – it’s primarily a critique of the US dollar system, which I argue has never worked stably. So it has always run into crisis. And in order to appear to function, [the dollar system] has required the inflation, particularly after 1971, of very dangerous bubbles of financial activity. And the reason for that is very simple. You know, the loose talk – which, by the way, includes a lot of academics who engage in loose talk – loose talk of the naturalness of the sterling system and then the dollar system has given everybody to understand that somehow, yes, of course, the currency of the most powerful country should be the world’s currency. But this is, in fact, as we’ve shown, an extremely unstable situation. It cannot obtain. And that’s why Keynes in 1944, speaking on behalf of his country – not willing his country to be subject to the external authority of the dollar, knowing that the sterling can no longer perform the role it once used to perform, knowing intimately well why that was so – proposed the bancor. And essentially this completely separates out the issue of international settlement of imbalances from the ordinary requirements of money within a society. So within a society, money has to be run in order to create full employment, a productively dynamic, ecologically sustainable currency that will work domestically. But often the requirements of that may go directly counter to the need to maintain its international value. And gold, by the way, often people confuse it: gold is not money. When gold is used as money, it shows that there is no money. Gold is a commodity. You know, Michael said it’s an asset without liabilities, but maybe it’s even more pertinent to say it’s a commodity. So it’s a bit like, you know, going back to barter. So you give me steel and I’ll give you gold. That’s the exchange of two commodities. It just happens to be a widely accepted commodity. But people have proposed other things. But essentially, the resort to gold, the Germans and others saying we want our gold back, etc., it’s one of the signs – one of the many signs, by the way – that the American dollar system is not working. So essentially, the point that I’d like to make, therefore, is what would need to happen? You know, your original question was, you know, how will these currency plans work, etc.? So I would say that the first step would be to, of course, create a relatively stable system of exchange rates between these – let’s just assume it’s the five Rs. So let’s say, you know, what is the mutual exchange rate of the five Rs, and to try to stabilize them and so on? And then, in the long run, you know, this kind of system can work. They can even create a sort of bancor based on the five Rs – although originally Keynes had said, let’s not even not use any currencies; let’s just tie the value of bancor to a basket of a few dozen, most widely traded commodities, because that’s what ultimately matters in international trade. So you could do that, and maybe you can get there, but you can begin by stabilizing the values. But then I think the big step would have to be, you would have to try and create relatively balanced trade among all the trading partners. Why is that? Because, Michael said that we have to ensure that, you know, China does not end up with too much Argentinian currency or whatever, or any one of the five does not end up with too much of the currency of the other. Because what it shows is that one country buys a lot from another country, but that country, which is exporting a lot, has no use for its export revenues. Now, that would require a development plan among the holders of the five Rs so that, for example, let’s assume a trade relationship between China and Russia. Well, China and Russia have to ensure that each would want to buy things with what it earns from the other country. So if it’s absent, then maybe there should be investment and opportunity to develop the capacity to produce the thing. Because, you see, the genius of Keynes’s arrangement was that it had mechanisms within it to force people, force countries to move towards balance. Surplus countries were equally responsible, as were deficit countries, to try to address imbalances, both in terms of capital flows and in terms of trade. So once you create those mechanisms, then you create an incentive for, say, if China has too many rubles, then China says, “OK, Russians, we are going to help you develop this productive capacity, so that you can export more of X, Y, Z to us, etc.”. So I think that’s what needs to be done. And just one final point, Keynes’s genius is really apparent in our time because, just as Keynes said, a stable system should try to eliminate persistent imbalances. Now, move your eyes to the dollar system. The one thing it primarily relies on is the generation of persistent imbalances, because to provide the world with money on the basis of your persistent trade deficits and the current account deficits with the rest of the world, means that the whole system is reliant on imbalances, which means it is volatile and unstable. So, as you rightly say, Pepe, this is a very complex thing, and it’s going to take time to work out. But it won’t be worked out if people are laboring under misapprehension, such as that, you know, we need to create a currency like the euro rather than a currency like bancor. MICHAEL HUDSON: Just one thing about the dollar. You just mentioned, and everybody who discusses the dollar system talks about how the US has been providing dollars. In [my book] Super Imperialism, and my work for Arthur Anderson years ago, the US private sector is exactly in balance. Since 1950, year after year, from the Korean War to the Vietnam War, the private sector, trade and investment, is just in balance; it hasn’t provided any extra dollars at all to the world. The entire US deficit supplying dollars to the world has been military. It used to be called the dollar glut. It was to stop that, that [French] General de Gaulle kept cashing in [dollars for] gold. What the new system of the BRICS and the five Rs are going to cure is that the credit is not going to be paid by building 800 military bases around the other countries, to lock them into a dependency system. You’ll have the international payment settlement system demilitarized. That’s the basic aim of all this. The US dollar system is a militarized system. The dollars are US military spending abroad. That’s the number one reason for world peace, that the dollar system should be superseded. RADHIKA DESAI: I agree that in terms of trade, US trade was balanced for a long time, like longer than you might imagine. But certainly starting in the 1980s, the US trade deficit also made its own contribution to the current [account deficit]. The US trade deficit is today between 3 and 4 percent of US GDP. MICHAEL HUDSON: No, that’s absolutely fictitious. It’s based on fictitious statistics. Much of the trade deficit is in oil. When the oil comes in, it’s counted as a trade deficit. But only about 10 percent of the price of this oil is paid in non-dollars. All the oil that’s imported is from US oil companies. And the offset is the earnings on this, the interest paid, or the cost of producing this oil are all made in the United States. So you have investment inflows on the capital account and on the income account to offset the fictitious payments of oil imports that don’t involve foreign currency at all. RADHIKA DESAI: OK, I’m not quite sure what you mean, because the fact of the matter is that the whole point is that the United States pays for this oil in dollars. But let me just make another further point, which is that, you know, people tend to focus on the US trade deficit, and then they say, “Look, the Chinese are buying so many US treasuries and so they are essentially financing the trade deficit, and so this is a kind of a mutually supportive system” – “Chimerica” and all that. But in reality, what people forget is that what’s really keeping the dollar system going is not Chinese financing, not Chinese purchases of US treasury securities; what keeps the dollar system going is the vast expansion of financial activity, which goes in both directions. And so, for example, if you look at the statistics, the financial statistics about all the international capital flows that were going on, the bulk of them being in dollar-denominated assets in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis, the Chinese played hardly any role in it. The biggest role that was played, the part of the world that was most fully integrated into the US financial system, which was producing these toxic securities that led to the 2008 financial crisis, was Europe. And therefore, it is no wonder that Europe was the part of the world that suffered the most from the 2008 crisis. The 2008 crisis set the foundation for the 2010 Eurozone crisis, and so on and so forth. And that is why I really find it important to correct people when they term what happened in 2008 a global financial crisis; there was nothing global about it. It was a North Atlantic financial crisis. MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s right. PEPE ESCOBAR: I want to pose a question to both of you. Because I was reminded of something very clever that the Chinese are doing and maybe they are setting an example for the whole Global South. You know that they have now oil futures being traded at the Shanghai bourse, especially the GCC. It’s fascinating. So the GCC goes to the Shanghai bourse. They sell their oil futures. The Chinese buy it. They pay yuan. But then the GCC says, look, we don’t want all that yuan. You know, what are you going to do with so much yuan? The Chinese said, no problem. You can trade your yuan with gold using the Shanghai exchange, a clearing house, or in Hong Kong if you want. This is absolutely brilliant. Do you think that this could be expanded to the other BRICS, starting with the other BRICS, and then if we have, for instance, Iran and Saudi Arabia being part of BRICS+, adopting the same mechanism? RADHIKA DESAI: I think that can work. I would say that, you know, the role of gold, as I see, is always residual. If all the money in the world were actually backed by gold, we would suffer massive deflation, because there wouldn’t be enough money in the world, because there isn’t enough gold in the world. MICHAEL HUDSON: Gold only finances international balances, not general activity, as the gold exchange standard, not the gold standard. And again, the gold is an alternative, the easiest alternative to the dollar, because everybody accepts it. It’s taken a couple of thousand years, but they finally decided something that they can accept as an alternative. It’s a transition to the BRICS artificial currency. It’s a transition to something away from gold – the idea of an international currency that is not the embodiment of not the U.S. trade deficit, but U.S. military spending. RADHIKA DESAI: So then to further add to that, so I would say that essentially, when people buy gold, what they’re saying is they don’t want money; they want a commodity; they want that commodity, etc., an easily tradable commodity, so some kind of asset. So in that sense, it’s a good idea. You know, the function of gold, I often like to say that the sterling standard in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the sterling exchange standard was often called the gold standard, you know, because sterling was backed by gold. But two things. Number one, the genius of the system actually lay in creating such wide international acceptability for the sterling that it was rarely exchanged for gold. And the reason and the mechanisms by which this was done, we can talk about it. But the point is, it was rarely exchanged for gold. Keynes writes in his [book] Indian Currency and Finance, which is actually a primer on the functioning of the international gold standard, the sterling standard. And I’ll come in a minute to why a book on Indian currency and finance should serve as the primer on the gold standard. But let me just finish this point. He makes the point that the Bank of England had less gold than the Caja of Argentina. And he prided himself on that. And he also used to berate the French for holding gold. He says, look, you don’t need to, et cetera. But that’s a whole other set of questions. Now, let me come to how the British were able to do this. It’s because they drew – I mean, the so-called gold standard actually had very little to do with gold, except for the fact that gold was the benchmark of the value; the price of gold was the benchmark of the value of sterling, and sterling was occasionally exchanged into gold. And, you know, in those days, some gold coins did circulate. But that was really a very limited role. The real foundation of the sterling standard was the surpluses that the British drew from their colonies, chiefly British India, which is why a book on Indian currency and finance, which is really a description of how surpluses were transferred from India to the UK. What were the mechanisms employed in order to do this? So my point being that that is why this book is a primer on the gold standard. And the real foundation of the gold standard was the surpluses Britain extracted from its colonies, and then exported as capital exports. To where? To Europe, to North America and Oceania, and to some extent to South Africa – that is to say, to all its settler colonies. So if you think about it in a different way, Britain drew surpluses from her non-settler colonies – British India, Africa, the Caribbean – and exported them as capital exports to her settler colonies. This is really, it’s quite a racialized thing, but that is the way it was. It is primarily where the money went. And so Britain provided the world with liquidity by exporting capital, not by running deficits as the US would do later. The US had no choice. The US didn’t have colonies which it could squeeze to provide surpluses to export to the rest of the world. So the US had to take a different role. So to come back to your question, I think that the Chinese strategy of allowing things to be exchanged for gold is a good confidence-building measure. And, you know, at the moment, the transactions are few enough that it can do so. I mean, ultimately, the system should work so well that it does not need gold. Now, there again, the question is, if China tried to internationalize its currency on the model of the dollar, it would actually reduce China to the sort of economy the US has, of de-industrializing and aging infrastructure. So it will not do so. That is why Michael and I, and anyone who thinks about it, always says you should not internationalize your currency in that way, not to any significant extent; instead, you need this kind of artificial currency that will help settle international imbalances. PEPE ESCOBAR: So you’re right, Radhika. And this is the official position in Beijing. They want to go very, very slow with the internationalization of yuan. RADHIKA DESAI: Yes, yes, exactly. So, folks, I should say, you know, we’ve had a really wide-ranging discussion, as usual, absolutely fantastic. We’re about an hour and we’d like not to go too much over an hour. So let me ask you both to say any closing remarks you want to say. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you’ve been brought back to the point that we’ve been making in part one of this discussion, which is the U.S. sanctions were designed to isolate Russia’s raw materials and China’s information technology and shipmaking. These are not in the economic interest of America’s allies, or of China’s Asian neighbors, or even the United States. Europe is being told to buy its oil and gas from the U.S. Korea, and Japan, and Taiwan – Basically we’re back to the issue of whether trade is going to be economic or national security in nature. And it seems now, given the U.S. military presence, it’s going to be both. It’s going to be economic with national security. And I think it’s hard to see getting the U.S. using any military leverage at all, given the failure of the NATO tanks and the missiles and the anti-aircraft. And the idea is that basically the U.S. is, the dollar is being rejected. And at first glance, the thought of the BRICS and the Global Majority emerging may seem outrageous, but it’s no more outrageous than the thought that the Nobel — I want to make a suggestion that, just as the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Henry Kissinger for destroying Laos and Cambodia and covering Vietnam’s forest with Agent Orange, or Obama was given the Peace Prize for destroying Libya and confiscating its gold that Gaddafi had hoped to use for an African gold-based currency and turning it over, and the final Obama act starting today’s crisis with organizing the pro-Nazi coup in Ukraine, I think that America is trying to force Europeans to believe that war is peace in the same sense that Tacitus described a British chieftain of saying that Rome was making a desert and calling it peace. But in view of what we’re seeing in the last year and a half, I could imagine President Biden getting this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. It would fit in perfectly. It meets the traditional qualifications of destroying a country, Ukraine. But actually, there’s another reason which he can get it. Biden and Blinken and their neocon team have driven most of the entire Global Majority together to create an alternative to the U.S.-centered world that has become increasingly one-sided. And under the Biden administration, the United States is forcing the entire rest of the world, except for its NATO satellites, to create a new economic order. And that’s what we’ve been discussing. And this new international economic order is on the lines that the United Nations was supposed to be created in the first place, before it was taken over by the U.S. Self-sufficiency in food production for each country. They won’t have to run a trade deficit to import food, because, just like Russia was able to make itself independent in grain and become a grain exporter, other countries can do the same thing, when they’re freed from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund trying to block it. The new economic order will be a mixed economy along socialist lines, to uplift the entire economy, at least of the expanded BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And there will be a focus more on peaceful integration instead of military and financial integration. So it turns out that the NATO war in Ukraine has turned out to be this grand catalyst for this new world order. And just because this wasn’t Biden’s and Blinken’s original intention doesn’t mean that it’s not the effect in practice. And remember, [Charles Maurice de] Talleyrand, the French official in the 18th century, said of one policy, “It’s worse than a crime, it’s a blunder”. And you could say that that describes American policy perfectly. But let’s give it credit for this fortuitous blunder that has driven the whole Global Majority together, to make an alternative to the World Bank, an alternative to the IMF, and an alternative to the failed U.S.-centered unipolar order. PEPE ESCOBAR: Well, I am in touch with a group of Chinese writers and scholars, and they are always absolutely fascinated. And one of them, in fact, Michael was just talking about blunders. They said, this is the number one blunder in the history of the empire, and they won’t be able to recover. And the Chinese have a little bit of experience with blunders, right? Well, I would like to finish basically saying that in three weeks we’re going to have the BRICS Summit. So everything that Michael was telling us a little while ago is going to be discussed at the BRICS Summit. And this is what the Sherpas have been doing these past few weeks. The Sherpas were actually organizing and designing the proceedings, what’s going to happen, the agenda, and the procedures for BRICS Plus, the expansion. So in three weeks, we’re going to have a geopolitical, geoeconomic earthquake. There’s no question about that. Just to remind all of you, there is a list of potential members of BRICS+. This is fascinating because these are part of an organization parallel to BRICS called Friends of BRICS. Whenever there is a BRICS Summit, you have Friends of BRICS Summit as well. They interact and they also have their own mini summit. And this is exactly what happened in South Africa, what, two weeks ago, maximum. I’ll give you the list. Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Comoros, Gabon, and Kazakhstan. So probably the first tier, the first wave of BRICS+ is going to come from these guys to one, two, three, or four of these. And there’s also Belarus, which was not in Friends of BRICS, but it’s very close to Russia. And Belarus also applied for BRICS. You will notice that in this list, there’s no Argentina, unfortunately. And this, I think we discussed this in our previous, because Argentina, basically, they were, I would say, forced to withdraw their application toward BRICS. And this, they didn’t know how to explain that in Buenos Aires. But this is what it is at the moment. So can you imagine if we have just in terms of the brand new world ahead? Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates as a member of BRICS. So we’re going to have BRICS+ directly linked to OPEC+, directly linked to major sources of energy to China, directly linked to that mechanism at the Shanghai bourse of the GCC selling oil. And if you want gold, you can have your gold as well. So can you imagine this in a matter of two or three days? We’re going to have this thing turning upside down. And then maybe this is the beginning of the new world economic order. Voila. RADHIKA DESAI: Yeah, absolutely, folks. And so, yeah, let me just wind this down by making just a couple of remarks. Number one, I think that, you know, you were talking about blunders. But if you look at the long term historical point of view, the whole project of American hegemony has been a blunder. We are just seeing the latest and ever more desperate blunders of the United States in trying to keep it going. This has been my argument for a very, very long time. And bringing the matter back to NATO, which was at least formally the subject of our thing, NATO has always, of course, been an instrument of U.S. hegemony. But if you cast your mind back a couple of decades, you will see that people, very few people really talked about NATO very much. Because U.S. hegemony was much more extensive. NATO was one part of a larger structure of U.S. hegemony. Now we’ve come to a point where the U.S.’s purchase on world events relies on NATO to such an extent that it has become the mainstay of U.S. power. And this mainstay of U.S. power was, you know – part of the reason people didn’t talk about it very much is because it was always fractious. There were always tensions between the Europeans and the Americans and so on. So there was not much to see there in terms of U.S. hegemony. And now that so-called U.S. hegemony has become reliant on reliance on this outfit is really telling, is really telling about how far, how low U.S. power has sunk. So perhaps with that, I think we should end today’s today’s show. Please look forward to more shows with us. Hopefully, Pepe, we will have you back another time, after these upcoming summits, or something like that, to assess them. PEPE ESCOBAR: Thank you so much. My pleasure. RADHIKA DESAI:  Thanks very much. And thanks again to our videographer, Paul Graham. And of course, as always, to Ben Norton for hosting our show. Goodbye, everyone. And see you next time. Bye bye.

Write an article about: CNN promotes neo-Nazi commander from Ukraine’s white-supremacist Azov regiment. 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.

Azov, CNN, media, Nazis, PBS, Russia, Ukraine

Top US media outlet CNN promoted a commander from Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov regiment, failing to mention his militia’s white-supremacist ideology. Azov then proudly shared the video on its official Twitter account. Leading US media network CNN has promoted a commander of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov regiment, without mention of his hate group’s extremist views. In 2014, a gang of Ukrainian neo-Nazis formed a militia called the Azov Battalion. These far-right extremists played a leading role in a violent US-sponsored coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government, which they had deemed too “pro-Russian.” The new pro-Western regime that was installed in Kiev after the 2014 “Maidan” coup waged a brutal war on Russian-speaking Ukrainian separatists in the east of the country. Kiev turned to fascist gangs like Azov to help strengthen its weak military forces. Azov was officially incorporated into the Ukrainian state. It became a regiment in the National Guard, while still maintaining its white-supremacist ideology and use of numerous Nazi symbols. This March 21, the neo-Nazi Azov militia posted a video on its official Twitter account of one of its commanders being promoted on CNN. CNN had republished a video clip of Azov Major Denis Prokopenko, who was helping lead the fight against Russian troops in the southeastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol. The major US media channel described the fascist extremist simply as a “Ukrainian military commander who has been defending the city from the siege.” Коментар командира полку "Азов", майора Дениса Прокопенка (друга Редіса), для CNN щодо ситуації в Маріуполі pic.twitter.com/pacZzbPaRZ — АЗОВ (@Polk_Azov) March 21, 2022 CNN subsequently quoted this neo-Nazi commander in two different print reports, which failed to disclose his far-right politics. A March 19 CNN report titled “Mariupol residents are being forced to go to Russia, city council says” quoted him simply as “Major Denis Prokopenko, from the National Guard Azov Regiment,” with no further details. Ironically, just two paragraphs before, CNN had cited the mayor of Mariupol to try to compare Russia to Nazi Germany. CNN cites the mayor of Mariupol to compare Russia to Nazi Germany, before two paragraphs later quoting a commander of the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, with no mention of its Nazi ideology. A similar CNN article from earlier that same day repeated the same quote from Prokopenko, but did mention euphemistically in passing that the “Azov Battalion is an ultra-nationalist militia that has since been integrated into the Ukrainian armed forces.” With state backing, Azov preaches a white-supremacist ideology and uses Nazi symbols like the German Wolfsangel and racist black sun. The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, neo-Nazi extremists from Azov and other far-right militias have played a leading role in the fight. NATO member states have provided Azov with weapons and training. And Ukraine’s National Guard proudly tweeted a video of an Azov Nazi greasing his bullets with pig fat to kill Russian Muslims, whom the Ukrainian state institution demonized as “orcs.” This is the official, verified Twitter account of Ukraine's National Guard publicly portraying Russian Chechen Muslims as monstrous "orcs," and praising its Nazi soldiers for threatening to kill them with lard-greased bullets: https://t.co/gs0yYu4qXohttps://t.co/PMKeTajw9e — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022 CNN is far from the only Western media outlet that has actively promoted neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Many major media outlets amplified a propaganda photo shoot that was staged by Azov before the Russian invasion. US government-sponsored network PBS even heroized notorious neo-Nazi Artem Semenikhin, the mayor of the Ukrainian city Konotop, in a softball interview in which he demonized Russians as “cockroaches.” PBS did not mention the “heil Hitler” symbol on Semenikhin’s car, or even the portrait of Ukrainian Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera that was on the wall behind the extremist in the video. US government-sponsored outlet PBS heroized a neo-Nazi mayor in Ukraine, in a softball interview in which he called Russians “cockroaches” It didn’t mention the “heil Hitler” symbol on his car or portrait of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera on his wallhttps://t.co/vqVuubMIUV — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 9, 2022

Write an article about: Britain admitted US/UK-backed Afghan Mujahideen were ‘reactionary feudalists’ driven primarily by class, not religion. 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.

Afghanistan, Britain, feudalism, Matt Kennard, Mujahideen, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, USSR

The far-right Mujahideen the US and Britain supported in Afghanistan were “stubborn reactionaries determined to maintain a system of feudal antiquity” against socialist reforms, the UK embassy wrote. The British government internally acknowledged back in 1980 that the right-wing insurgents the United States and United Kingdom supported in Afghanistan were “stubborn reactionaries determined to maintain a system of feudal antiquity.” Moreover, London conceded that these reactionary feudalists were primarily motivated to fight against Afghanistan’s revolutionary socialist government and its Soviet allies not by religion, but rather because the ruling marxists had implemented land reforms and policies to redistribute their inherited wealth. In other words, the Western-backed proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s was, like most wars, fundamentally a class war. But Britain and the US consciously decided to “play up the Islamic nature” of the feudal Mujahideen to disguise their class war on the poor as a religious conflict. And it was this strategy that fueled the fire of sectarianism and gave birth to Islamist extremist groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We now know this due to the publication of a confidential cable from the British embassy in Kabul, written in November 1980. The letter was published by British journalist Matt Kennard, one of the best reporters in the world today, who helps run the investigative outlet Declassified UK. Interesting declassified letter from UK embassy in Kabul in 1980 saying opposition to the progressive reforms of Soviet-backed govt in Afghanistan (such as land reform removing landlord control, banning dowry payments) had caused most trouble for Afghan govt, before adding… pic.twitter.com/7KnbzrMoQY — Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) August 28, 2021 As early as 1972, the CIA had supported far-right Islamist elements in Afghanistan, encouraging them in their war on Afghan leftists. Yet despite Washington’s years-long campaign against the Afghan left, communists managed in 1978 to overthrow the military dictatorship of General Mohammed Daoud Khan and institute a socialist government, in an uprising called the Saur Revolution. In response, the CIA and Britain’s equivalent, MI6, immediately began cultivating right-wing forces to fight the new revolutionary government. They did so with help from Pakistan’s spy agency ISI and the Saudi monarchy. The guerrilla army of ultra-conservative warlords these foreign powers brought together came to be known as the Mujahideen. The terrorist violence these Mujahideen carried out against Afghanistan’s revolutionary socialist government forced it to request assistance from the Soviet Union. Moscow militarily intervened in December 1979 to help its ally in Kabul fight the well-funded insurgency. While the US proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is typically associated with Republican President Ronald Reagan, who met with the Mujahideen and sang their praises as “freedom fighters,” the reality is that it started under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter’s national security advisor, key US imperial planner Zbigniew Brzezinski, later admitted in a 1998 interview that the president had signed the order officially authorizing Operation Cyclone — the CIA program to arm, train, and fund the Mujahideen — back in July 1979, nearly six months before the Soviet Union intervened. Brzezinski said that, at the time, he knew “this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” But he insisted it was an “excellent idea,” as it “had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.” “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war,” Brzezinski gloated to Carter in 1979. The United Kingdom joined the United States in waging this proxy war on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher visited a camp of Afghan Mujahideen in a PR stunt in 1981 and declared that “the hearts of the free world are with you.” While the Iron Lady’s staunchly right-wing administration publicly insisted that the Mujahideen it sponsored were fighting the socialist government in Kabul and its Soviet allies for “freedom,” and while its loyal stenographers in the press maintained that Afghan insurgents were motivated by alleged Russian human rights violations, the British embassy that was actually in the country was quietly admitting otherwise. The November 1980 UK cable revealed by Matt Kennard noted that, “in the popular imagination,” there was “the idea of a struggle between Communism and Islam.” But London conceded that this narrative was “an oversimplification.” “Opposition was originally provoked by the [Afghan] government’s early reforms, and the reform which caused the most trouble was the land reform,” wrote the embassy officer, Peter Barker. These socialist land reforms “broke down a centuries-old system” of feudalism in Afghanistan, the cable continued, and “removed the landlord from whom the peasant traditionally obtained his seed and tools.” “The opposition to the reform was therefore the outcome of practical grievance and not outraged religious sentiment,” the diplomat concluded. And it was not just land reform. “Similarly the banning of dowry payments, for example, destroyed a traditional means of accumulating and transferring wealth,” Barker acknowledged. That is to say, the leaders of the Mujahideen were feudal landlords who were angry about the socialist Afghan government’s land reforms and policies to break up wealthy families’ inherited wealth. Barker conceded that the revolutionary “government would gain far more by backpedalling on all reforms rather than by starting government functions, ministers’ speeches and television programmes with Islamic invocations.” Yet even while he recognized that the conflict was the result of an “immature government encountering stern traditionalist resistance to changes,” the British diplomat insisted that London should portray the war in Afghanistan as a religious conflict, intentionally fueling the narrative of Islamist extremists. “All the same it serves our interest to play up the Islamic nature of the opposition,” Barker wrote, because “the picture of Islamic freedom fighters is much more acceptable to world public opinion than that of stubborn reactionaries determined to maintain a system of feudal antiquity.” It was precisely this sectarian strategy that gave birth to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This British embassy cable shows how Western government officials were well aware of what they were doing in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Western imperialist powers knowingly supported ultra-conservative feudal landlords in their class war against a socialist government that was intent on implementing land reform and modernizing the country. They intentionally turned what was fundamentally a class war into a religious war, pouring sectarian fuel onto a massive, nation-wide fire. Why? Because, as London put it bluntly, “it serves our interests.” Remember this when Western capitals complain about the new Taliban-led government in Afghanistan today. If they don’t like Islamist fundamentalism, they shouldn’t have spent decades fostering it.

Write an article about: Imran Khan: Pakistan should be non-aligned in cold war, neutral over Ukraine, applauds China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Imran Khan, India, Non-Aligned Movement, nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine

Ex Prime Minister Imran Khan argued Pakistan should have been non-aligned in the first cold war and in the new one between the US and China/Russia, as well as independent in the Ukraine proxy conflict. He also praised Beijing’s historic poverty reduction program. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan was overthrown in April 2022 in a soft coup supported by the United States. Khan argued that he was targeted due to his independent foreign policy, comparing his ouster to the CIA coup in Iran in 1953. Since leaving office, Khan has held massive protests across the country, blasting the unelected coup regime for surrendering its sovereignty to Washington. “The US has made Pakistan a slave without having to invade it,” Khan fumed. “The people of Pakistan will never accept the imported government.” Khan has also become a leading voice on the international stage calling for the rebirth of the Non-Aligned Movement. He argues that Pakistan should have been non-aligned in the first cold war. And he insists his country must be independent today in the new, second cold war between the US on one side and China and Russia on the other. “Pakistan should not take any sides,” Khan said. “Why do we have to take sides? Pakistan should have a good relationship with both China and with the United States. Similarly, I feel with Russia and the United States.” “For instance, that’s the policy of India,” he added. “I must say that I have always admired the way India remained non-aligned during the [first] cold war. I thought it was a sensible thing to do.” The Non-Aligned Movement is coming back, bigger than before: Pakistan's ex Prime Minister Imran Khan said it was a mistake to ally with the US in the first cold war. He called for non-alignment in the new cold war and neutrality over Ukraine. More here: https://t.co/meidLn0wBg pic.twitter.com/bnbhZejSjH — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 31, 2022 Just weeks before he was overthrown, the US government demanded that Khan denounce Russia over its war in Ukraine. Khan rebuked the pressure campaign, declaring that he refused to be a “slave.” “When we are told to take sides in a conflict like Ukraine, why should we?” Khan asked. “When things that are important to us, the Western countries don’t take a stand or moral stand on it. And so I feel that, I think we should be nonaligned in this. We should be neutral.” Khan also praised Beijing’s massive poverty reduction program, pointing to the “friend in need” in China as a model for Pakistan, where tens of millions of people struggle in economic hardship. “There is no precedent in human history of what China has achieved,” Khan stressed. “They have lifted 700 million people out of poverty in the last 35, 40 years. It’s never been done in human history. And when you go to China, the rate of their development is phenomenal.” Pakistan’s ex PM Imran Khan (overthrown in a US-backed soft coup in April), praised Beijing’s poverty reduction campaign: “There is no precedent in human history for what China has achieved. They have lifted 700 million people out of poverty.” More here: https://t.co/XhDHCWxU2w pic.twitter.com/gu84rdi1fH — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 31, 2022 Khan issued this call for Pakistan to be be non-aligned in a December 28 interview with the Istanbul, Türkiye-based think tank the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His proposal marks a radical shift in the foreign-policy history of the South Asian giant, the fifth-most populous country on Earth. During the first cold war, Pakistan had been a key ally of the United States. It did have good relations with China, but it took a hard line against the Soviet Union. 1982: ?? President Ronald Reagan and ?? President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq at the @WhiteHouse #USPak70 #70SaalMubarak Photo: @AP_Images pic.twitter.com/Pu6KiHapBv — U.S. Embassy Islamabad (@usembislamabad) August 15, 2017 In the 1980s, Pakistan’s notorious spy agency the ISI even helped the CIA and Saudi Arabia support extremist Mujahideen militants in Afghanistan, assisting the US in its proxy war against the USSR. Khan represents a new generation of Pakistani nationalists who think Islamabad’s historic alliance with Washington was a mistake. He wants his country to be independent and to act in the interests of its own people, not those of another nation. When Imran Khan arrived to Moscow, he had no idea that he was about to find himself in the middle of a massive global conflict. The fateful trip had been planned long in advance, and Khan sat down with President Vladimir Putin on February 24, 2022 – the same day that Russia sent its troops into Ukraine. Clearly, Khan did not know what had been planned. Western governments pressured Khan to denounce Putin, right there on the spot. But he maintained a diplomatic position. #Kremlin: Vladimir Putin met with Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan, who is in Russia on a working visit https://t.co/jrvKVN0fzX pic.twitter.com/WF7aupsZau — President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) February 24, 2022 Several days later, 22 Western countries sent Khan a letter demanding that Pakistan vote against Russia on the international stage. “What do you think of us? Are we your slaves?” Khan shot back defiantly. He asked if they thought “that whatever you say, we will do?” “We are friends with Russia, and we are also friends with America,” Khan explained at the time. “We are friends with China and with Europe; we are not in any camp.” Khan’s steadfastness set geopolitical shockwaves across the West. During the first cold war, Pakistan had a very antagonistic relationship with Russia. Now Khan had reversed this longtime policy. Until he was overthrown in April, Khan made sure that Pakistan was neutral over the Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine. But immediately after the coup, Islamabad’s unelected US-backed regime did a 180 and promptly criticized Moscow. There have even been reports that the coup regime has sent weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. English version: showing Pakistan army chief at Sandhurst and dates on shells with type of fuze. pic.twitter.com/bKpzsbODpH — ST (@aviation07101) September 2, 2022 In his December 28 interview, Khan reiterated his call for Pakistan to be neutral and non-aligned: I happened to be visiting Moscow on the day when Russia decided to go into Ukraine [February 24, 2022]. You know, I had a meeting that same day with President Putin. So I know the Russian point of view. And the Russian point of view is that we had repeatedly indicated to the Western countries that we would not allow NATO to come right on our doorsteps. And their argument is that, just like the United States would not want Russia to come in, say, in Mexico, with all their weaponry. So the conflict, from the Russian point of view, has been triggered out of fear that if there are moves in Ukraine, which they felt should have been demilitarized or should have been neutral, they felt that, then the security of Russia was at stake. And the other thing that President Putin kept saying was that, in the past, Western leaders, American leaders had all told him that, look, this will not happen. And they had given him assurances. And so, unfortunately, he said that these assurances are broken, and hence the conflict. The Western point of view is very straightforward, that this is Russian aggression; it’s invasion; they invaded a country, and they’re blaming Russia for all the destruction that is taking place due to war. So now my point of view, I basically feel that countries like Pakistan, we should not become partisan in this. We should not pass value judgments on this, or moral judgments on this. The reason: I don’t feel that our countries should get involved in conflicts that don’t affect us. And I’m talking about the developing world, countries like Pakistan, which have 100 million people vulnerable, almost 50 million people below the poverty line, 50 million people above the poverty line. And so when we make moral judgments in conflicts, it comes at a cost for countries like us. So, for instance, we would have wanted cheap oil from Russia. We would have wanted wheat, 2 million tons of wheat from Russia. A gas pipeline was arranged with a Russian company. So all that gets affected the moment you take sides. And you know, our neighbor India, which is a part of the Quad, which is a strategic economic-military alliance with the United States, India abstained on this, because they do feel that they needed cheap oil from Russia. And what this conflict has done, post the Covid situation, where already there was a commodity supercycle, and this conflict has raised energy prices to the level which is causing a lot of problems in Europe. We all know that in Europe they are suffering from gas shortages and an energy prices spike. But in the developing world, it has caused massive problems in our balance of payments. Because the oil prices going up – I know they’re coming down now – but that caused an enormous problem for countries like us. So therefore, my take on this, there are two points of view, we would like to abstain, my country, we would like to abstain on this. But I do feel that this conflict has caused massive problems all over the world. Khan’s push for neutrality also applied to the US government’s so-called “war on terror.” He stated: So when came 9/11, Afghanistan gets invaded by the Americans, now the Pakistan government took the stand – which I opposed, we should have stayed neutral – they started supporting the US war on terror. In the interview, Khan argued that Western countries are hypocritical because they pressure developing countries like Pakistan to take their side, but then the West abandons Pakistan in issues that are important to it. He explained: When we are weak countries, we developing countries, are pushed to take sides. And I feel that Pakistan should not take any sides. I’m talking about our country. Because, you know, why? Why do we have to take sides? Pakistan should have a good relationship with both China and with the United States. Similarly, I feel with Russia and the United States. For instance, that’s the policy of India. I must say that I have always admired the way India remained non-aligned during the [First] Cold War. I thought it was a sensible thing to do. I mean, when you become part of a bloc, that means that the whole other bloc is excluded from you. And of course, great powers do put enormous pressure on you to take sides. So let me first say that the China-Pakistan relationship goes back a long time, 60 years. And China has been what we call always a friend in need. China has stood by Pakistan, you know, whether it is on international forums, on politics. For instance, Kashmir is an issue, a United Nations resolution on Kashmir stating that there should have been a plebiscite in Kashmir, for the people of Kashmir to decide whether they wanted to be with India or Pakistan. And that right was not given to them. But hardly any other country stands with us. China has always stood with us. And I must say Turkey has stood with us. But, you know, other even Muslim countries, despite knowing the injustice going on in Kashmir, just like in Palestine, they do not stand with us. Which is, by the way, one of the reasons I feel that when we are told to take sides in a conflict like Ukraine, why should we? When things that are important to us, the Western countries don’t take a stand or moral stand on it. And so I feel that, I think we should be nonaligned in this. We should be neutral. We should be friendly with both. Applauding China’s anti-poverty program, Khan continued: What about China? I have seen the development of China in the last 30 years, and I must say what they have achieved is, there is no precedent in human history of what China has achieved. They have lifted 700 million people out of poverty in the last 35, 40 years. It’s never been done in human history. And when you go to China, the rate of their development is phenomenal. And I just do not think that Western countries will be able to compete with them. Because, you know, electoral politics, it has its limitations. I mean, the amount of maneuvering a democratic government which comes about through electoral politics, you have a lot of limitations. In China, what is considered national interest? The people stand with the government. And what they have managed to do, like, for instance, shifting populations – I don’t think that happened in Western countries. So I just don’t think that the other countries will be able to stop the growth of China. They’re a system of meritocracy. I visited China, and I saw the way they bring up all the talent. And then the single focus, long-term planning, I haven’t seen such long-term planning in most countries. Certainly countries like us, which every five years are supposed to have elections. So very rarely governments plan beyond five years. But in China, they have just planned so far ahead. And then they single-handedly pursue their goals. And I feel that, you know, China is going to be the [leader]; I think it will leave everyone behind. When asked about Western government allegations that China is guilty of egregious human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims, Khan refused to take the bait, responding diplomatically: Well, let me say that the Pakistan-China relationship was such that, whatever the issues of Uyghurs, the Chinese have always preferred to speak behind closed doors. Their system is such that they hate talking about sensitive issues like the Uyghurs in public. So we have had discussions with them, and they gave us a different side of the story. And there are always two sides of the story. And so the conversations I’ve had with the Chinese government on the Uyghurs, we have always, knowing the sensitivity they feel, we have kept that behind closed doors. Khan also used the December 28 interview as an opportunity to warn that nuclear weapons should never be used, because it would mean “the end of the world.” He said Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program is strictly defensive: First of all, let me tell you, I am not a great fan of nuclear weapons, because I do believe in settling your issues. I’m not also a great fan of military solutions. For instance, I would never try and solve issues militarily. But for me, it is basically for defense. I mean, if someone is going to take away your freedom, then that’s when you fight for it and you use the military. So the Pakistan military, the nuclear program, has always been a defensive one. Because India is seven times the size of Pakistan. It has huge resources now, and the people in Pakistan have always been threatened by the idea that a bigger neighbor would just overwhelm the country. Remember that we’ve had three conflicts with India, and this was from ‘48, 1965, and then 1971. And so ever since Pakistan has had the nuclear program, we actually have had no conflict. So it gives the country of a 220 million people security, when you are facing a neighbor, which is 1.3 billion people. And hence, the nuclear program for Pakistan is essentially defensive. … The idea of a nuclear war, the idea that you will actually be face to face with another country with nuclear weapons, is beyond my imagination. And I say this simply because, you know, nuclear war is the end of the world. You must remember, it’s a suicide attack on the world, because I don’t think the world will be able to sustain or survive a nuclear holocaust.

Write an article about: Arabia Saudita usa bomba de EEUU para matar a 91 y herir a 236 detenidos en Yemen. 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.

Arabia Saudita, Joe Biden, Raytheon, Saada, Yemen

Arabia Saudita atacó un centro de detención en la ciudad de Saada en Yemen con una bomba fabricada por la empresa estadounidense Raytheon, matando a 91 personas e hiriendo a 236 más. El presidente Joe Biden afirmó que terminaría el apoyo de Estados Unidos a esta guerra, pero no lo hizo. (You can read this article in English here.) Las fuerzas militares saudíes, respaldadas por Estados Unidos, bombardearon un centro de detención en Yemen tres veces el 21 de enero, matando al menos a 91 personas e hiriendo a 236 más. Esta atrocidad masiva en la gobernación de Saada, en el noroeste de Yemen, se llevó a cabo utilizando armas fabricadas en EEUU, incluyendo una bomba guiada por láser fabricada por el principal contratista del Pentágono, Raytheon. La complicidad de Washington fue confirmada por Amnistía Internacional, cuyos expertos analizaron fotos que mostraban los remanentes de una bomba Raytheon GBU-12, de 500 libras. Arabia Saudita, uno de los países más ricos del mundo per cápita, ha estado bombardeando a Yemen, la nación más pobre de Asia Occidental, desde marzo de 2015, con el firme apoyo de Estados Unidos y Reino Unido. La guerra en Yemen ha creado la peor crisis humanitaria del mundo, provocando la muerte de cientos de miles de yemeníes. La ayuda estadounidense a la monarquía saudita en esta guerra ha continuado bajo las administraciones de Barack Obama, Donald Trump y ahora Joe Biden. Hasta Amnistía Internacional, que es infame por su parcialidad pro occidental, reconoció que esta masacre en Yemen es “la pieza más reciente de una red más amplia de indicios sobre el uso de armas de fabricación estadounidense en incidentes que podrían constituir crímenes de guerra.”. La organización escribió: Desde marzo de 2015, el personal de Amnistía Internacional ha investigado decenas de ataques aéreos y ha encontrado e identificado repetidamente restos de municiones de fabricación estadounidense. Amnistía Internacional había identificado anteriormente el uso de esas mismas bombas fabricadas por Raytheon en un ataque aéreo encabezado por Arabia Saudí lanzado el 28 de junio de 2019 contra un edificio residencial de la gobernación de Taiz, Yemen, que mató a seis civiles, tres de ellos menores de edad. La Organización de las Naciones Unidas informó que el centro de detención de Saada estaba lleno con unas 2.000 personas, incluyendo 700 migrantes, en el momento en que fue bombardeado “por tres ataques aéreos en rápida sucesión”. El portavoz de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos (ACNUDH), Rupert Colville, dejó en claro que era un objetivo civil, y afirmó, “Durante la reciente visita de nuestro equipo esta semana, no vimos señales que indicaran que este sitio, antes un cuartel, sigue teniendo una función militar.” El mismo día de este ataque, las fuerzas saudíes y emiratíes apoyadas por EEUU y Reino Unido también bombardearon la red de telecomunicaciones de Yemen, cortando el acceso a internet de todo el país. El ACNUDH informó que, en los primeros 28 días del año 2022, las fuerzas saudíes respaldadas por EEUU lanzaron 1.403 ataques aéreos en Yemen. El presidente Joe Biden prometió durante su campaña presidencial de 2020 que terminaría el apoyo de Estados Unidos a la guerra contra Yemen. En febrero de 2021, solo unas semanas después de asumir el cargo, Biden afirmó que estaba “poniendo fin a todo el apoyo estadounidense a las operaciones ofensivas en la guerra en Yemen, incluidas las ventas de armas relevantes”. Esto era demostrablemente falso. La administración Biden ha mantenido el apoyo a Arabia Saudita y la venta de armas a la monarquía, mientras bombardea regularmente a civiles en Yemen. Amnistía Internacional informó: Desde noviembre de 2021, el gobierno de Biden ha aprobado la venta —y ha asignado contratos a empresas estadounidenses— de misiles, aviones y sistemas de defensa antibalística a Arabia Saudí, incluido un acuerdo de 28 millones de dólares firmado a mediados de enero para el mantenimiento, por parte de Estados Unidos, de aviones saudíes. Entre estos acuerdos estaba la venta aprobada a Arabia Saudí de 650 millones de dólares en misiles, también de Raytheon, a la que el Congreso dio luz verde a pesar de las mociones para bloquearla. En diciembre, el gobierno declaró que mantenía su compromiso respecto a las ventas propuestas, por valor de 23.000 millones de dólares, de aviones F-35, MQ-9B y municiones a Emiratos Árabes Unidos, a pesar de los serios motivos de preocupación en materia de derechos humanos. El seguir armando a la coalición encabezada por Arabia Saudí no sólo incumple las obligaciones contraídas por Estados Unidos en virtud del derecho internacional, sino que viola también la legislación estadounidense. Tanto la Ley de Ayuda Exterior como las Leyes Leahy prohíben las ventas de armas y ayuda militar estadounidenses a quienes hayan cometido violaciones graves de derechos humanos. La ONU ha pedido que se investigue el ataque. Amid ??#Yemen’s escalating conflict, which saw deadly airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition on 21 January, we call for a transparent, independent and impartial investigation to ensure accountability for any breaches of international humanitarian law.https://t.co/pt3cg0urY5 pic.twitter.com/ZNtCEqXY8A — UN Human Rights (@UNHumanRights) January 28, 2022

Write an article about: Canada: Complaining about gas prices only helps Putin and China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Canada, China, Chrystia Freeland, Covid, inflation, Justin Trudeau, Russia, Vladimir Putin

Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland claimed in Parliament that complaining about high gas prices is “doing Vladimir Putin’s work for him.” She blamed inflation on Russia and “China’s zero Covid policy.” Canada’s deputy prime minister and finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, insisted on the floor of Parliament that her nation’s citizens should not complain about high gas prices, or they are helping Russian President Vladimir Putin and China. Freeland, the second-most-powerful Canadian official, argued that blaming her government for skyrocketing inflation is equivalent to “doing Vladimir Putin’s work for him.” In a question period in the House of Commons on May 16, a Conservative lawmaker complained that “gas prices are at record highs, and Canadians are suffering.” He accused Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of wanting high gas prices in order to reduce fuel use, to better protect the environment. Freeland replied, “I think everyone in this House needs to be mindful of the fact that none of us should be doing Vladimir Putin’s work for him.” “And that means we all need to recognize the reality, and be honest with Canadians about the reality, that inflation, including the higher price of fuel, is a global phenomenon,” she continued. “It is being driven by Vladimir Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. It is being driven by China’s zero Covid policy,” Freeland claimed. Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland claimed that complaining about gas prices is “doing Vladimir Putin’s work for him.”@CAFreeland blamed inflation on Russia and “China’s zero Covid policy.” (She didn't mention Western sanctions) More here: https://t.co/S5GZl1gK1O pic.twitter.com/viNfy5Wav2 — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 17, 2022 Freeland did not mention the extensive Western economic sanctions on Russia, which have significantly contributed to the inflation crisis. Even the Washington Post, which takes an extremely anti-Russian editorial line and strongly supports the Western sanctions on Moscow, has admitted that these economic coercive measures “are also exacerbating a political headache for Biden at home: inflation and worries about an economic downturn.” The Post acknowledged that “sanctions — especially as they get more extreme — could contribute to higher prices in a variety of areas, such as energy and food products that use wheat.” It also conceded that there “are several factors driving prices upward, and many of them were at work long before Russia invaded Ukraine.” Chrystia Freeland is a hard-line anti-Russia hawk. Before being promoted to deputy prime minister and finance minister, she made her name as Canada’s stridently pro-interventionist foreign minister. As the top Canadian diplomat, Freeland strongly supported the Donald Trump administration’s coup attempt in Venezuela, recognizing unelected US-appointed putsch leader Juan Guaidó as supposed “president.” When Trudeau chose Freeland as his foreign minister in 2017, the US embassy in Ottawa boasted in an internal memo, “Canada Adopts ‘America First’ Foreign Policy.” Praising “her strong U.S. contacts,” the embassy noted that Freeland’s “number one priority” was collaborating with Washington. Canada's hawkish FM @CAFreeland — who was celebrated in a declassified US State Department memo for bringing Canada an "American first" foreign policy — is the granddaughter of a Ukrainian Nazi propagandist. She knew this, but called it "Russian disinfo"https://t.co/B8w8uXEdf5 — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 6, 2019 Freeland’s work in US regime-change operations goes back to the days of the Soviet Union. In the 1980s, she traveled to Ukraine to support the right-wing anti-communist opposition. In collaboration with the Canadian embassy, Freeland covertly provided money, recording equipment, and computers to anti-Soviet dissidents, while also helping to organize protests. Chrystia Freeland is also the granddaughter of an infamous Ukrainian Nazi collaborator, Michael Chomiak. Chomiak edited an explicitly anti-Semitic, pro-fascist propaganda newspaper, using a printing press stolen from a Jewish publisher who was later killed in a Nazi extermination camp. Freeland knew for decades that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator, but lied about this fact and continued to praise him. She event went so far as to claim that journalists and researchers who correctly reported on her grandfather’s work with Nazi Germany were engaged in a supposed “Russian disinformation” campaign. Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper https://t.co/Fhri8a76yk @GlobePolitics #cdnpoli — The Globe and Mail (@globeandmail) March 8, 2017 Freeland’s links to far-right Ukrainian groups are extensive. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February, Freeland attended a rally in which she was photographed posing with a fascist symbol. Freeland tweeted an image of her with the red-and-black flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), an extreme-right paramilitary group that collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. Faced with backlash, Freeland later deleted this tweet, and posted a new photo without the far-right extremist symbol. She did however keep the fascist-created slogan “Slava Ukraini.” Canada's deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, deleted her tweet with a photo holding a Ukrainian fascist banner, and instead posted a different photo without the banner. But she still left the same text, including the fascist slogan "Slava Ukraїni"https://t.co/fT4waUI7wN pic.twitter.com/0X0Thov3xd — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 28, 2022

Write an article about: CIA and Western special ops commandos are in Ukraine, directing proxy war on Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Britain, Canada, CIA, France, New York Times, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

The CIA and special operations forces from Britain, France, and Canada are physically in Ukraine, helping direct the proxy war on Russia, overseeing weapons, training, and intelligence. Some Ukrainian fighters have US flag patches. The CIA and special operations forces from NATO members Britain, France, Canada, and Lithuania are physically in Ukraine, helping direct the proxy war on Russia, according to a report in The New York Times. These Western forces are on the ground training and advising Ukrainian fighters, overseeing weapons shipments, and managing intelligence. At least 20 countries are part of a US Army-led coalition, guiding Ukraine in its fight against Russian troops. Some Ukrainian combatants are even using US flag patches on their equipment. This is all according to a June 25 report in The New York Times, titled “Commando Network Coordinates Flow of Weapons in Ukraine, Officials Say.” The Times is a de facto organ of the US government. Although technically private, the paper closely follows the line of the CIA and Pentagon. Its report is based on statements by top US officials. This is the strongest evidence yet that the conflict in Ukraine is not just a battle between neighbors, but rather a Western proxy war on Russia, with the direct involvement of NATO forces from several nations. The Times acknowledged that Ukraine “depends more than ever on help from the United States and its allies — including a stealthy network of commandos and spies rushing to provide weapons, intelligence and training.” A stealthy network of allied commandos and CIA agents is coordinating weapons and information on the ground in Ukraine, hinting at the scale of covert support efforts. https://t.co/24xlFpYQE0 — The New York Times (@nytimes) June 26, 2022 The chief of US Army Special Operations Command, Lieutenant General Jonathan P. Braga, boasted of an “international partnership with the special operations forces of a multitude of different countries” that “have absolutely banded together in a much outsized impact” to help wage the proxy war on Russia. The Times noted that, “even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces.” The US Army has a “coalition planning cell in Germany to coordinate military assistance to Ukrainian commandos and other Ukrainian troops,” the newspaper reported. At least 20 countries are part of this US-led cell providing military assistance to Ukraine, “which was modeled after a structure used in Afghanistan,” the newspaper added. And the 20-nation coalition “is part of a broader set of operational and intelligence coordination cells run by the Pentagon’s European Command to speed allied assistance to Ukrainian troops.” In a battle in the eastern Donbas region, “a group of Ukrainian special operations forces had American flag patches on their gear and were equipped with new portable surface-to-air missiles as well as Belgian and American assault rifles,” the Times noted. This is one of many reports proving CIA support for anti-Russian forces in Ukraine. Ever since the United States sponsored a violent coup d’etat that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014, CIA agents have been active in the country, training fighters to kill Russian-speaking independence supporters in the east. Yahoo News published an investigation in March, titled “Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion,” which revealed that “CIA paramilitaries” began traveling to Ukraine in 2014, and a “covert CIA training program run from Ukraine’s eastern frontlines” was teaching Ukrainians “irregular warfare” tactics. CIA paramilitaries have been active in Ukraine training elite special operations forces to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainian separatists since soon after the 2014 US-sponsored coup. The US spy agency boasted that its influence "cannot be overestimated."https://t.co/45T1mNiLNU — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 18, 2022 Another report released in Yahoo News in January, a month before Russia invaded Ukraine, admitted that the CIA had since 2015 been “overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel.” A former CIA official stated openly, before Russia sent its troops in, “The United States is training an insurgency,” in order “to kill Russians.”

Write an article about: Ukrainian TV host calls for genocide of Russians, quoting Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. 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.

Adolf Eichmann, Fakhrudin Sharafmal, fascism, Nazis, Russia, Ukraine

Live on TV, a presenter for Ukraine’s Channel 24 quoted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, an architect of the Holocaust, calling for “exterminating” Russian children to bring about genocide of the people of Russia. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) A presenter on a major TV channel in Ukraine cited infamous Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann live on air and called for “exterminating” Russian children to bring about genocide of the people of Russia. Eichmann was a leader of the Third Reich’s SS death squads and a key architect of the Nazi Holocaust. The Ukrainian government and its Western backers insist the country does not have a problem with Nazism and far-right extremism, but neo-fascists have significant influence in the Ukrainian state, particularly in the security apparatus. And major media outlets have frequently helped to amplify Ukrainian neo-Nazi propaganda. This shocking call for genocide against Russians was made live on TV on Ukraine’s Channel 24, by host Fakhrudin Sharafmal. “Since you call me a Nazi, I adhere to the doctrine of Adolf Eichmann, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that you and your children never live on this earth,” Sharafmal said. “You have to understand that this is not about peace; it is about the victory of the Ukrainian people,” he continued. “We need victory. And if we have to massacre all your families to do it, I’ll be one of the first to do it.” Channel 24 is owned by a wealthy Ukrainian businesswoman, Kateryna Kit-Sadova, who is the wife of the right-wing mayor of Lviv, Andriy Sadovyi. Lviv is a city in western Ukraine that is a hotbed for ultra-nationalist extremists. Ukrainian Nazi collaborators carried out large pogroms against Jews there during World War II. On March 15, Channel 24 published a tepid apology on its official website, saying that Sharafmal had been angry because a friend of his was killed by Russian soldiers, after Moscow invaded Ukraine on February 24. The presenter also apologized on air, in a video posted to the official Channel 24 YouTube channel. But behind him on the screen was Ukrainian text reading, “Russian warship, go f*ck yourself!” (This has become a nationalist slogan in the war.) A subtitled video of Sharafmal’s bloodthirsty rant is embedded below, followed by a full transcript. Multipolarista reviewed this translation with a native Ukrainian speaker to make sure it is accurate. Since we are called Nazis and fascists in Russia, I might as well quote Adolf Eichmann, who said that in order to destroy a nation, you must first exterminate its children. Because if you kill their parents, the children will grow up and take revenge. But if you kill the children first, they will never grow up, and the nation will disappear. The Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot exterminate Russian children because it is forbidden by the rules of war, and it is prohibited by various conventions, including the Geneva Conventions. However, I am not from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And when I get the chance to take out the Russians, I will not hesitate. Since you call me a Nazi, I adhere to the doctrine of Adolf Eichmann, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that you and your children never live on this earth. So that you can feel what it is like when innocent civilians die, so that you can feel all the pain and suffering. When you say, ‘We didn’t start the war, it was Putin, we didn’t want this war’ – we didn’t want it either. But you have to understand that this is not about peace; it is about the victory of the Ukrainian people. We need victory. And if we have to massacre all your families to do it, I’ll be one of the first to do it. Glory to the Ukrainian nation! Let’s hope that there will never be a nation like Russia and the Russians on this earth again. They are just scum who are destroying this land. If the Ukrainians have the opportunity, which they are basically doing right now, to destroy, to slaughter, to kill, to strangle the Muscovites – I hope that everyone does their part and kills at least one Moskal (a slur referring to Russians).

Write an article about: Spain’s spy agency backed 2017 ‘ISIS’ attacks to ‘scare’ Catalonia before independence referendum. 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.

Catalan independence, Catalonia, CNI, FBI, ISIS, Islamist extremism, José Manuel Villarejo, National Intelligence Center, Spain, terrorism

Spain’s ex police chief said the National Intelligence Center (CNI) facilitated 2017 “ISIS” attacks to “scare” Catalonia before an independence vote. The leader of the terror cell was a CNI informant. A blockbuster story is rocking Spanish politics: The former commissioner of Spain’s national police has testified in court that the country’s top spy agency facilitated 2017 terror attacks claimed by ISIS, in order to “scare” the region of Catalonia mere days before an independence referendum. 16 civilians were killed in the attacks, and more than 150 were injured. The leader of the Salafi-jihadist terror cell that carried out the attacks was a longtime informant for Spain’s National Intelligence Center (CNI), and his activities were closely monitored by the spy agency. There is debate about whether or not the CNI directly helped to orchestrate the terror plot, but at the very least the intelligence agency facilitated and allowed the attacks to be carried out, “to give the appearance of risk so that Catalonia would feel the need for the state’s protection,” the ex police commissioner told a Spanish court. Villarejo dice que los atentados del 17-A fueron un "error" del CNI que quería dar "un pequeño susto en Cataluña" https://t.co/QFvzHekfYX — 20minutos.es (@20m) January 11, 2022 These close links between Spanish spies and terror attacks claimed by the so-called “Islamic State” in Catalonia are eerily reminiscent of the well-established ties between US police agencies and supposed “ISIS” attacks in the United States, which were often carried out by FBI informants. An undercover FBI agent encouraged a shooter in Garland, Texas to “tear up Texas,” and was physically present at the site of the 2015 shooting that was declared the first alleged “ISIS attack” on US soil. Did you know the first alleged "ISIS attack" in the US was instigated by the FBI? An undercover FBI agent encouraged an extremist in Garland to “tear up Texas,” and was even present at the attack, mere feet away from the shooters. (From our 2017 archive)https://t.co/P7qphtabqv — The Grayzone (@TheGrayzoneNews) June 28, 2020 On August 17, 2017, a group of Salafi-jihadist extremists launched coordinated terror attacks in Catalonia — an autonomous region of Spain which has a unique cultural identity, a distinct language, and a powerful independence movement. The 2017 terror plot consisted of car-ramming attacks, stabbings, and an explosion, and ultimately killed 16 civilians and wounded more than 150, many of whom were foreign nationals. The first car-ramming attack took place in the busy city of Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia, on the bustling street of La Rambla, a popular tourist attraction. It was then followed by a car-ramming attack in the Catalan town of Cambrils. The terror attacks fueled an authoritarian turn in Spanish domestic politics, and are so infamous they are known in popular culture by the shorthand 17-A (el 17 de agosto, or the 17th of August in Spanish) — much as 9/11 is synonymous with terrorism in the United States. Just two weeks after the horrific violence, supporters of Catalan independence won a landslide victory in the referendum held on October 1 (1-O, as it is known in Spanish). According to a former Spanish police chief, the 17-A attacks had been intended to turn the public against Catalan independence. It is not clear if this strategy worked, because Catalans voted 92% to become an independent state — although there was only 43% turnout. Polls in the years and months leading up to 1-O had showed Catalans to be pretty evenly split between supporters and opponents of independence. In September 2017, the Spanish government decided the Catalan people didn’t have the right to decide their future, and declared the referendum to be unconstitutional, voiding it before it even took place. Spain’s former police commissioner José Manuel Villarejo testifying in court This January 11, the ex commissioner of Spain’s national police, José Manuel Villarejo, officially testified in court that the 17-A terror plot had been facilitated by the National Intelligence Center (CNI), the nation’s top spy agency. Villarejo said it was a “grave error” committed by the CNI’s director, Félix Sanz Roldán, who “badly calculated the consequences to give a little scare to Catalonia” in the lead-up to the 1-O independence referendum. After the attacks, Villarejo recalled that CNI asked the national police to help it “try to fix the mess.” The leader of the terror cell accused of organizing the Catalonia attacks was Abdelbaki es-Satty, known as “the Imam of Ripoll.” Villarejo said the CNI had been given solid intelligence warning of an impending terror attack being plotted in Barcelona, but the CNI ignored it, claiming it was “not reliable” because the Morroco-born es-Satty “had worked for them, but in reality was a Moroccan spy.” Villarejo’s testimony is not the only evidence linking the terror cell leader to the CNI. The influential newspaper Público published an investigation in 2019 that shocked the Spanish public, titled “The mastermind of the Las Ramblas massacre was a CNI informant until the day of the attack.” The Público report thoroughly documented how the Imam of Ripoll had been a CNI asset, further bolstering the claims by former police commissioner Villarejo that the spy agency was central in the 17-A attacks. EXCLUSIVA | El cerebro de la masacre de Las Ramblas fue confidente del CNI hasta el día del atentado Por @tableroglobalhttps://t.co/sSzaNPtSXU — Público (@publico_es) July 15, 2019 The court testimony by José Manuel Villarejo unleashed a political explosion in Spain. So the next day, he tried to tame the controversy by slightly qualifying his remarks. The CNI had not necessarily wanted the attacks to be carried out, Villarejo explained, but it did want “to give the appearance of risk so that Catalonia would feel the need for the state’s protection.” When the leader of the terror cell, es-Satty, was accidentally killed in the explosion in the town of Alcanar the night before 17-A, however, “it was out of the hands” of the CNI, Villarejo said, and the terror plot went forward. In 2017, Villarejo was arrested and accused of being part of a major corruption ring involving top Spanish politicians, state security forces, and economic elites. To save his own skin, Villarejo has willingly played ball, exposing the dirty operations happening inside the Spanish government. It is worth mentioning that Villarejo has had a quarrel in particular with Félix Sanz Roldán, the former director of CNI, and it is clear that there is an institutional rivalry between the national police and the spy agency. Unlike the US government’s CIA, which focuses on foreign operations (although operates domestically as well), and FBI, which is dedicated to domestic operations, Spain’s CNI is both a foreign and domestic intelligence agency. Catalan independence supporters have expressed outrage over this scandal, and there are widespread calls for an investigation. Spanish former police chief admits that the Spanish secret services (CNI) were behind the jihadist attacks in Barcelona, August 2017. Their intention was ‘to scare Catalonia just before the independence referendum.’16 people from various nationalities were killed. pic.twitter.com/KfQvjyP6Bn — Josep Lluís Alay (@josepalay) January 11, 2022 The former police commissioner’s scandalous remarks were widely covered in the Catalan press, and were reported in mainstream media outlets in Spain, including 20 Minutos, ABC, La Vanguardia, and El Periódico. Some of these outlets have since tried to smear and discredit Villarejo by regurgitating claims leaked to them by officials in Spanish state security services, whose reputation has been hurt by Villarejo’s testimony. Yet although this story is a national scandal in Spain, it has gotten very little coverage in the English-language press. The Scottish pro-independence newspaper The National published an article summarizing the scandal, and the Irish Times printed a somewhat skeptical piece. Otherwise there has been very little foreign attention to this important scandal, which says a lot about how Western spy agencies are willing to use dirty tactics to manipulate domestic politics.

Write an article about: Ukraine’s Zelensky admits he sabotaged Minsk peace deal with Russia, West blocked negotiations. 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.

Angela Merkel, France, Francois Hollande, Germany, Minsk, Russia, Volodymyr Zelensky

Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky admitted to the newspaper Der Spiegel that he refused to implement the 2015 Minsk II peace deal with Russia. Germany and France said Kiev used the agreement to “buy time” to prepare for war. Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky admitted to a major German newspaper that he refused to implement the Minsk peace deal with Russia. The Minsk accords were two agreements, negotiated in Belarus; signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); and overseen by Germany and France, in the so-called Normandy Format. The accords aimed to stop the conflict in Ukraine that broke out following a violent US-backed coup in 2014, which set off a civil war between Kiev’s pro-Western, post-coup government and pro-Russian separatists in the east. The first deal, known as Minsk I, was reached in 2014, but failed. This led to Minsk II in 2015. This agreement was ostensibly more stable, but Ukraine’s previous President Petro Poroshenko never truly implemented it. When Zelensky ran for president, he had differentiated himself from Poroshenko by pledging to “reboot” peace negotiations with the Russian-speaking separatists in the east and “continue in the direction of the Minsk talks and head towards concluding a ceasefire”. But soon after coming to power in 2019, Zelensky did a 180. In an interview with the German daily Der Spiegel, published on February 9, 2023, Zelensky made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk. The Ukrainian leader complained that the Minsk agreements were an unacceptable “concession”. Zelensky recalled telling French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that “we cannot implement it”. “Procrastination is perfectly fine in diplomacy”, Zelensky said, explaining that he only “jumped on the train” and pretended to support Minsk in order to negotiate a prisoner swap with Russia – and give his country more time to prepare for war. Der ukrainische Präsident Wolodymyr #Selenskyj im SPIEGEL-Gespräch. https://t.co/SFwOIfhBDV pic.twitter.com/XZEFOh1Aqv — DER SPIEGEL (@derspiegel) February 9, 2023 Merkel herself confirmed this in December 2022, in an interview with the newspaper Die Zeit. The former German leader stated that the “2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger”. Former French President François Hollande later commented, “Angela Merkel is right on this point”. Hollande added: “Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity”. Minsk II stipulated that Ukraine had to reform its constitution, decentralize state authority, and provide autonomy for the Russian-speaking eastern provinces, with “special status” and “self-governance” for the regions Donetsk and Lugansk. Kiev refused to do so, under both Ukrainian governments of President Poroshenko, who signed the Minsk accords, and his successor Zelensky, who took office in 2019. Points 11 and 12 of Minsk II mandated (emphasis added): 11. Implementation of constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the new constitution to come into effect by the end of 2015, the key element of which is decentralization (taking into account peculiarities of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, agreed with representatives of these districts), and also approval of permanent legislation on special status of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, in accordance with the measures spelt out in the footnotes, by the end of 2015. 12. Based on the Ukrainian law, “on the temporary order of self-governance in the particular districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts,” questions dealing with local elections will be discussed and agreed upon by representatives of the areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts within the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group. Elections will be held in accordance with the relevant OSCE standards and monitored by OSCE/ODIHR. The Ukrainian government did not implement these measures. Zelensky has dispelled any doubt as to why: It was an intentional choice. German Chancellor Merkel clarified what Ukraine chose to do instead: Pretend that it was going to implement Minsk II while using the time to stock up on Western weapons and train its military to prepare for war with Russia. Zelensky’s admission that he sabotaged a peace deal with Russia came just after Israel’s former leader disclosed that the West did the same. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed in an interview that the US and Europe “blocked” his attempt to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. In a video he published on his YouTube channel, Bennett said “there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin”, to escalate the war, instead of seeking peace. “So they blocked it?” the interviewer asked, referring to Bennett’s attempt to broker peace. And the former Israeli leader responded, “Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they’re wrong”. This was not the only time the West blocked peace. In December 2021, Moscow demanded from the West written security guarantees, including the promise that Ukraine would not join NATO and that the US-led military alliance would not carry out activities in Eastern Europe, on Russia’s borders. Moscow published two draft treaties for peace. But Washington and Brussels rejected them. The US and NATO insisted that they have the right to continue expanding their aggressive military alliance onto Russia’s borders. This blatantly violated the agreement that the US, Britain, and France made with Moscow in 1990, in which the former Soviet Union allowed German reunification on the condition that NATO must not expand “one inch east”. Instead, NATO added 14 new members, all in Central and Eastern Europe – some on Russia’s borders. Having exhausted all attempts at a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Just a few weeks into this new phase of the war, in March, Türkiye held negotiations in Istanbul between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides came to an agreement to end the war, according to the anti-Russian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda and a former top US government official. But British Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev to kill the peace deal, and the West instead escalated the proxy war, seeking to destabilize and overthrow the Russian government. Russia and Ukraine agreed to a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in April But British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened to stop the peace deal The US and EU then escalated the proxy war to try to weaken Moscow, flooding Ukraine with weapons https://t.co/cPwlctixyl — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 18, 2022

Write an article about: UN expert: ‘Outrageous’ Western sanctions are ‘suffocating’ Syria, may be crimes against humanity. 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.

Alena Douhan, sanctions, Syria, UN, United Nations

The United Nations special rapporteur said “outrageous” Western sanctions on Syria are “suffocating” millions of civilians and “may amount to crimes against humanity.” Proxy war caused the country’s economy to shrink by 90%. Nine in 10 Syrians live in poverty. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) The United Nations’ top expert on sanctions said the unilateral coercive measures that the United States and Europe have illegally imposed on Syria are “outrageous,” and she warned that they are “suffocating” millions of innocent civilians. “The whole [Syrian] population stays in life-threatening conditions with severe shortages of drinking water,” electricity, fuel, and food, reported the UN special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, Alena Douhan. She wrote of the “huge negative effect of unilateral sanctions,” which have “a devastating effect on the whole population” and “a devastating effect on nearly all categories of human rights.” “Maintaining unilateral sanctions amid the current catastrophic and still-deteriorating situation in Syria may amount to crimes against humanity against all Syrian people,” the UN expert said. Douhan, a widely respected professor of international law, visited Syria for 12 days in October and November in order to investigate the impact of sanctions on the country. On November 10, she published a preliminary report that “calls for lifting of long-lasting unilateral sanctions ‘suffocating’ Syrian people.” The UN special rapporteur described a medieval-style blockade, in which sanctions have “eroded to the level of total extinction the purchasing power of households, which find themselves in a prolonged state of survival mode.” “The imposed sanctions have shattered the State’s capability to respond to the needs of the population, particularly the most vulnerable, and 90% of the people now live below the poverty line,” Douhan wrote. Prices have increased more than 800% since 2019, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, and the sanctions block the import of “food, medicine, spare parts, raw materials, and items necessary for the country’s needs and economic recovery,” she said. I have just finished my country visit to Syria. Impact of sanctions there is outrageous https://t.co/uIkF746nE1 — Alena Douhan (@AlenaDouhan) November 10, 2022 While Western governments claim to have humanitarian exceptions in their sanctions regimes, the UN expert emphasized that “secondary sanctions and over-compliance” by international financial institutions prevent Syria from importing necessary goods, and have even made it very difficult for UN institutions and international humanitarian organizations to operate in the country. Today, more than half of Syrians are suffering from food insecurity. Moreover, 24% of Syrians are disabled, and 14.6% suffer from diseases. The sanctions have also prevented the government from rebuilding damaged infrastructure and caused “shortages of electricity and drinking water,” leading to daily energy blackouts, including in hospitals, as well as contaminated water, and even a cholera outbreak. Because of the occupation of Syria’s oil-rich regions by the US military and its Kurdish proxies, the government’s oil production is at only 10% of its pre-2010 levels, and with Western sanctions making the import of crude nearly impossible, the Syrian people face a chronic shortage of gasoline and fuel. Douhan called for the unilateral sanctions that the United States and Europe have imposed on Syria to be lifted immediately, stressing that they are illegal under international law. The UN expert also previously took a trip to Venezuela, and she reported that illegal Western sanctions had similarly devastating effects on the civilian population there, while starving the government of 99% of its revenue. ??#Syria: UN expert @AlenaDouhan calls for the immediate lifting of unilateral sanctions that are perpetuating & exacerbating the trauma suffered by the Syrian people since 2011. ?https://t.co/sgutKnEEeU pic.twitter.com/leyOY0kL9p — UN Special Procedures (@UN_SPExperts) November 10, 2022 Most of the sanctions imposed on Syria came after the West launched a proxy war against the country in 2011. But the UN expert noted that Washington has had sanctions on Damascus going back to 2004. The aggressive US sanctions levelled against Syria and 2011 and 2012 expanded into a de facto blockade in 2019, with the approval of the Caesar Act, which Douhan noted “authorized secondary sanctions against non-U.S. persons anywhere in the world who provide financial, material or technological support to the Syrian Government or engage in transactions with it.” The European Union, Britain, Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have all imposed similar sanctions, along with the Persian Gulf monarchy-dominated Arab League. As part of her trip, Douhan met with representatives not only from the Syrian government but also from civil society organizations, health clinics, financial institutions, humanitarian groups, businesses, universities, and religious bodies, as well as with other UN entities operating in the country. Syria had very healthy growth rates before 2011, but the Western proxy war led the country’s economy to shrink by more than 90%. The UN expert reported: From 2000 to 2010, Syria’s economic growth averaged more than 5% per year. The subsequent conflict had catastrophic effects on the economy, with significant damage and destruction of its productive capacity, assets and infrastructure, as well as massive displacements and refugee flows. This damage was exacerbated by the imposed comprehensive unilateral sanctions, leading to a protracted slowdown in economic activity with the GDP contracting by more than 90%. By 2018, the Syrian government and its allies had largely won the military aspect of the war, so the West intensified its economic attacks on the country, pushing it into deep crisis. Douhan wrote: After 2018, the Syrian economy showed some improvement with positive growth rates and rising macroeconomic indicators, but the intensification of unilateral sanctions and trade restrictions, over-compliance and de-risking by foreign companies and financial institutions, as well as the state’s inability to exploit many of its strategic national assets, natural and other economic resources, have eliminated all remaining avenues for economic recovery. According to data and reports I received during my visit, the economy is hostage to a protracted economic crisis with growing inflation and frequent devaluations of the national currency, all of which have eroded to the level of total extinction the purchasing power of households, which find themselves in a prolonged state of survival mode. She continued: The imposed sanctions have shattered the State’s capability to respond to the needs of the population, particularly the most vulnerable, and 90% of the people now live below the poverty line. Since 2019, prices increased more than 800%, hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost due to destruction of industries, loss of the external trade and also to the COVID-19 pandemic. The crisis is exacerbated by the country’s financial isolation, with the sanctions’ designation of the Central Bank and all public financial institutions, thus completely blocking transactions for imports and exports, including of food, medicine, spare parts, raw materials, and items necessary for the country’s needs and economic recovery, and restraining foreign currency inflows. The UN special rapporteur went on: Unilateral sanctions have also prevented the Government from having resources to maintain and improve key infrastructure and for rebuilding and developing projects vital to the population’s needs, especially in remote and rural areas. Almost all interlocutors highlighted shortages of electricity and drinking water due to the destruction of plants and distribution infrastructure and also due to the unavailability of diesel fuel and gas needed for thermic power plants and water pumps. Power outages are frequent, including in Damascus. Some Governorates distribute electricity for only 2–4 hours daily, while the Government tries to supply hospitals with 10–11 hours daily. The impact of unilateral sanctions prevents the procurement of spare parts for power plants and distribution networks, with foreign companies reluctant to engage with Syrian entities and international payments impossible to make. Syria’s water system has likewise been devastated by Western sanctions, Douhan reported: Similar challenges occur with the distribution of water for drinking and irrigation, which has seriously declined due to the number of damaged facilities, the direct effects of unilateral sanctions and the development of hydroelectric projects in neighbouring Turkey that restrict the water flow of the Euphrates River to Syrian agricultural lands. Sanctions-induced trade restrictions and foreign businesses’ over-compliance prevent the procurement of equipment and spare parts needed to repair, maintain and develop water supply networks, sometimes resulting in contaminated water; this led to a recent cholera outbreak with more than 20,000 suspected cases. Drinking water reaches many households during only 1 or 2 hours every few days as per capita drinking water supplies have plunged. Currently only 20% of Syria’s agricultural land can be irrigated. I was also informed The US military occupation of Syria’s oil fields, along with Western sanctions, has caused chronic shortages of fuel in the country, the Un expert said: Syria’s crude oil and oil derivatives production is less than 10% of pre-2010 levels, with the main oil fields located outside Government-controlled areas. As oil products are under sanctions, Syria cannot import them, resulting in shortages for heating, transport and industry. Western sanctions have also devastated Syria’s public transportation sector, because the government is unable to import parts needed to maintain and repair its vehicles. Even if Damascus were not blocked from importing technology, it would be unable to pay for it because the Syrian central bank’s foreign exchange reserves were frozen – and thus effectively stolen – by Western governments. The Western sanctions have also devastated Syria’s health sector. Douhan wrote: I also received accounts showing how unilateral sanctions impact the capabilities of Syria’s healthcare system. Although the Government prioritises electricity supplies for hospitals and health centers, they still receive insufficient power and the rest is provided by diesel stations and generators. Disruptions are frequent, impacting medical operations and the functioning of medical equipment, with serious consequences for patients. In some cases, the irregularity of electric power has led to overloads with destructive effects on sensitive and expensive medical equipment, for which spare parts cannot be procured due to trade and financial restrictions, as well as the reported reluctance of European and US companies to deliver them. With 14.6% of the Syrian population suffering from chronic and rare diseases, and estimated 24% being disabled, I note with concern the challenges and obstacles in the procurement and delivery of life-saving medicines, such as for cancer treatment, kidney dialysis, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, as well as anaesthetics, diagnosis for all types of cancer and others, due to the withdrawal from Syria of foreign pharmaceutical producers and the inability to import raw materials and laboratory reagents for local pharmaceutical production due to companies’ over-compliance and/or banks’ de-risking policies. Although medicines and medical devices are technically not subject to sanctions, the vagueness and complexity of the licensing processes, the persistent fear among producers and suppliers, the restrictions in the processing of payments, and the obstacles to shipping these goods have made them inaccessible to the Syrian public. Western sanctions have also seriously damaged Syria’s education system. An estimated 22% of children are not in school. Due to the fuel shortage caused by sanctions, just 4% to 7% of Syrian schools have electricity and heating in winter, and less than 40% have water. Douhan concluded: Primary unilateral sanctions, secondary sanctions, threats of sanctions, de-risking policies and over-compliance with sanctions have been exacerbating Syria’s humanitarian crisis, which is already affected by 12 years of conflict and terrorist activity, destruction of infrastructure, COVID-19, a growing economic crisis in the region, and millions of IDPs and refugees. The UN special rapporteur added: They [unilateral sanctions] have a devastating effect on nearly all categories of human rights including economic, social and cultural rights, the rights to health, to food, to adequate housing, to an adequate standard of living, to clean water and sanitation, to a favorable environment, to access the Internet and to life. The whole population stays in life-threatening conditions with severe shortages of drinking water, water for irrigation, sewage facilities, electricity, fuel for cooking, heating, transportation and agriculture, food (including baby formula), health facilities, medical equipment and medicine, work and education facilities, making the country extremely vulnerable and dependent on humanitarian assistance. Douhan is due to file the final version of her report with the UN Human Rights Council in September 2023.

Write an article about: BRICS expanding into economic powerhouse: Petrodollar under threat. 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.

Argentina, Bandung Conference, Brazil, BRICS, China, Cuba, Cyril Ramaphosa, Javier Milei, Lula da Silva, Patricia Bullrich, South Africa, Xi Jinping

In its South Africa summit, BRICS invited six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The bloc now represents 37% of global GDP (PPP), 40% of global oil production, and roughly 1/3rd of global gas production, challenging the US petrodollar system. In its summit in Johannesburg, South Africa this August, BRICS invited six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The bloc now represents 37% of global GDP (measured at purchasing power parity, or PPP), as well as 40% of global oil production and roughly 1/3rd of global gas production. The inclusion of top oil producers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have long priced their crude in dollars, is a direct challenge to the US petrodollar system. All of the invited nations have indicated that they will officially join the extended BRICS+ bloc on 1 January 2024. Four of Earth’s top 10 gas producers are now de facto BRICS+ members, making up 32% of global production. Seven of the world’s 10 largest oil producers are now de facto BRICS+ members. According to 2022 data from the US Energy Information Administration, these include the: In this video I discuss the importance of the expansion of BRICS The BRICS+ bloc now represents:-37% of global GDP (PPP)-40% of global oil production-1/3rd of global gas production It can challenge the petrodollar system that undergirds US economic hegemony Full video below pic.twitter.com/SDQm1ymacV — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 25, 2023 A key topic at the Johannesburg BRICS summit from 22 to 24 August was de-dollarization – the international movement of countries seeking alternatives to the hegemonic US currency. The Russian government has confirmed that some BRICS members are slowly making plans for a new global currency for international trade, to settle balance of payments, and to hold in central bank foreign-exchange reserves. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, an original co-founder of the BRICS, used the meeting in South Africa as a platform to call for creating a new international reserve currency, to challenge the dollar. BRICS has a working group dedicated to developing concrete proposals for this new reserve currency. Lula emphasized that it would be “a unit of account for trade, which will not replace our national currencies”. These comments made it clear that BRICS model is not the euro; it is rather something like the bancor, the international unit of account proposed by economist John Maynard Keynes at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference (which ended up adopting the dollar as the global reserve currency, under US pressure). Discussions of a new international unit of account are still in the early stages, however, and the currency is only on the horizon in the medium-to-long term. In the short term, BRICS members voted to increase their use of national currencies in bilateral trade. The BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), now under the leadership of Brazil’s former President Dilma Rousseff, has promised to gradually de-dollarize the bank’s lending, instead providing financing for projects in the national currencies of members. In an August article published before the BRICS bloc announced its expansion, economic geographer Mick Dunford explained: In 2022, the combined economic output of the five BRICS members, measured in purchasing power parity, exceeded for the first time that of the US-led G7. At market exchange rates in 2021, the BRICS accounted for 26.1 percent of global GDP and 53.1 percent of world population, compared with 43.5 percent and 9.8 percent for the G7. However, GDP is misleading. If one examines the production of manufactures, energy and raw materials and food, the BRICS countries account for 36.6 percent, 28.3 percent and 53.1 percent of world output, respectively (compared with 35.5 percent, 28.1 percent and 14.1 percent in the case of the G7). This contribution to the production of real goods vital for human survival significantly exceeds the BRICS’ share of GDP (without correcting for purchasing power differences which significantly raise its shares) while those of the G7 are much smaller than its GDP share. The bloc has become a massive economic powerhouse – and is only growing in influence. President Xi Jinping stressed in his speech at the BRICS summit that China does not want a “new cold war”. Xi called for “win-win cooperation”, guided by the goal of “common prosperity” for all. At the same time, the Chinese leader warned of the “hegemonic and bullying acts” of “some country” – obviously a reference to the United States. Xi stated: We need to promote development and prosperity for all. Many emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) have come to what they are today after shaking off the yoke of colonialism. With perseverance, hard work and huge sacrifices, we succeeded in gaining independence and have been exploring development paths suited to our national conditions. Everything we do is to deliver better lives to our people. But some country, obsessed with maintaining its hegemony, has gone out of its way to cripple the EMDCs. Whoever is developing fast becomes its target of containment; whoever is catching up becomes its target of obstruction. But this is futile, as I have said more than once that blowing out others’ lamp will not bring light to oneself. China's President Xi at the BRICS summit: "some country [hint: the USA], obsessed with maintaining its hegemony, has gone out of its way to cripple the EMDCs (emerging markets and developing countries). Whoever is developing fast becomes its target of containment; whoever is… https://t.co/mjXvydA5yz pic.twitter.com/XNHc0aYsPT — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 23, 2023 On the sidelines of the summit, Xi also met with Cuba’s President Díaz-Canel. State media reported that Xi pledged that “China will continue to firmly support Cuba in defending national sovereignty and opposing external interference and blockade”. In a similar vein, Brazil’s President Lula condemned the unjust, Western-dominated international financial system and insisted that countries need “a fairer, more predictable, and equitable global trade”. “We cannot accept a green neocolonialism that imposes trade barriers and discriminatory measures under the pretext of protecting the environment”, he added. In his speech at the BRICS summit, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa compared the bloc to the 1955 Bandung Conference, which was organized to oppose colonialism. “When reflecting on the purpose and role of BRICS in the world today, we recall the Bandung Conference of 1955, where Asian and African nations demanded a greater voice for developing countries in world affairs”, he said. “We still share that common vision”, Ramaphosa added. “Through the 15th BRICS Summit and this Dialogue we should strive to advance the Bandung spirit of unity, friendship and cooperation”. Among the six countries invited to join BRICS+, a question mark is hanging over the head of one. Argentina’s current, centrist government, led by President Alberto Fernández, has vowed to join BRICS+. However, whether or not the South American country actually does depends on the results of the elections approaching in October. Two of the three main presidential candidates have publicly stated that they will not join BRICS+: the right-wing candidate Patricia Bullrich and the far-right extremist candidate Javier Milei. Milei wants to abolish Argentina’s central bank, abandon monetary sovereignty, and adopt the US dollar as the official national currency (while also implementing mass privatizations of state institutions, building private for-profit prisons, and heavily militarizing the country). When asked if he would consider joining BRICS+ if he won the election, the far-right extremist Milei declared: “Our geopolitical alignment is with the U.S. and Israel. We are not going to align with communists”.

Write an article about: Biden’s Saudi ‘reset’ is about China & Russia, and CIA fallout with MBS. 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.

China, Jamal Khashoggi, Joe Biden, MBS, Mohammed bin Salman, podcast, Russia, Saudi Arabia

US President Joe Biden visited Saudi Arabia to pressure Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to cut ties with China and Russia, after he killed CIA ally Jamal Khashoggi and purged rivals in the royal family most loyal to Washington. US President Joe Biden visited Saudi Arabia not only to discuss oil but also to pressure Riyadh to cut ties with China and Russia. This comes after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) killed key CIA ally Jamal Khashoggi and purged rivals in the royal family who were most loyal to Washington. Below are links to all the sources cited in this report, in chronological order: The loyal "spooner" in the Saudi court is the perfect metaphor for Jamal Khashoggi. He was not so much a "dissident" as he was a propagandist for another faction of the royal family — a faction that lost power with MBS' rise.https://t.co/j06L2ThBbs — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 24, 2018 Khashoggi joined the US/Saudi-backed Mujahideen fascists in Afghanistan, and published an article with a photo of him holding a rocket launcher with them. Khashoggi was also a longtime close friend of Osama bin Laden. The CIA loves reactionaries like himhttps://t.co/KShkmDqwCX pic.twitter.com/Bk0g6CQilC — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 24, 2018 While Saudi monarchy-supporting non-dissident Khashoggi—who barely spoke English—was publishing English-language columns in Bezos' Washington Post, the Qatar Foundation's director was overseeing his pieces WashPost editors didn't know about this or his request for Saudi funding pic.twitter.com/AH0hcjuiyg — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 23, 2018 Interesting detail in this interview with Robert Fisk, who wrote the infamous 1993 whitewash of Osama bin Laden: Fisk was originally hooked up with OBL by none other than Jamal Khashoggi. https://t.co/fLnv8wGvI9 pic.twitter.com/5mQ4EMZAEB — ????? (@gumby4christ) October 1, 2020 In 1995, Jamal Khashoggi was tasked by Saudi prince Abdullah with a PR op: to whitewash the image of Khashoggi's friend Osama bin Laden and thereby secure safe harbor for OBL in Saudi Arabia. (Lawrence Wright, "The Looming Tower") pic.twitter.com/mTfh0gFeAn — ????? (@gumby4christ) October 19, 2018

Write an article about: Beijing Winter Olympics: Front line in new cold war on China – with Carl Zha. 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.

China, Cold War Two, Eileen Gu, new cold war, Olympics, Russia, Zhu Yi

With a diplomatic boycott by Western governments, corporate media propaganda has demonized the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. China expert Carl Zha discusses the new cold war. With a diplomatic boycott by Western governments, corporate media propaganda has demonized China over the 2022 Winter Olympics. Britain’s major newspaper the Financial Times openly declared, “Beijing Winter Olympics: the new front line in the US-China cold war.” China expert Carl Zha joins Multipolarista to pick apart the propaganda and explain what’s really happening. Zha discusses the accusations that China is supposedly committing “genocide” against the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang – an allegation that even the US State Department’s own lawyers admit is not true. And he addresses the controversy around US-born Chinese Olympic team athletes Eileen Gu and Zhu Yi, who were accused of betraying the United States by xenophobic North American nationalists. You can watch or listen to the interview below:

Write an article about: UN experts: US sanctions violate Iranians’ human rights. 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.

Alena Douhan, Iran, sanctions, United Nations

Top United Nations experts wrote a letter to the United States government, emphasizing that its illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran violate the human rights of the Iranian people, calling for them to “be eased or lifted completely.” Top United Nations experts have criticized US government sanctions for violating the human rights of Iranians. They made it clear that the unilateral coercive measures that the United States has imposed on Iran violate international law. A group of UN special rapporteurs stressed that these sanctions have a “negative impact” on “the enjoyment of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the right to health and the right to life.” Violating Iranians’ right to life is a roundabout diplomatic way of saying that US sanctions are killing them. The UN experts sent a formal letter to the United States condemning its sanctions and requesting that it investigate and remove them. The special rapporteurs expressed their “serious concerns about the U.S. sanctions as a significant contributing factor in Iran’s environmental degradation, which negatively affects Iranian people’s rights to a healthy and sustainable environment, to health, to life, and to an adequate standard of living.” They added that “U.S. sanctions impede the enjoyment of the right to education” in Iran. Washington constantly accuses Tehran of violating its people’s rights. The US government also publicly claims to support the struggle against climate change and pollution, and on paper it recognizes that people have the right to a clean environment. But Washington’s “sanctions against Iran contradict what seems to be a clear US position on this matter,” the UN experts said. “It is time for sanctions that impede Iran’s ability to improve the environment and reduce the ill effects on health and life, to be eased or lifted completely so that Iranians can access their right to a clean environment, the right to health and to life, and other rights associated with favourable environmental conditions,” they insisted. #US sanctions contribute to environmental harm and prevent all people in #Iran, including migrants and Afghan refugees, from fully enjoying their rights to health and life and a clean environment – UN experts ? https://t.co/OtChnuqRWW pic.twitter.com/WPSsSAdgGv — UN Special Procedures (@UN_SPExperts) December 20, 2022 The UN special rapporteurs noted: Since 1979, the United States of America has imposed a broad and complex network of stringent financial, economic, and trade sanctions against Iran, including a comprehensive trade ban, significant measures to isolate Iran from the international financial and commercial system, as well as secondary sanctions against non-U.S. parties that engage in dealings with Iran. Some (but not all) of these sanctions were removed or eased in 2015, when US President Barack Obama signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran that was also joined by the other permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, France, China, and Russia), Germany, and the European Union. In 2018, US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, in violation of a UN Security Council resolution, and subsequently imposed more sanctions on Iran, in clear contravention of international law. The UN experts noted that the Trump administration not only re-imposed “sanctions that had been lifted or eased under the JCPOA”; it also “introduced additional measures. These sanctions targeted Iran’s energy, shipbuilding, shipping and financial sectors, and included the listing of more than 700 individuals, entities, aircraft and vessels.” Unilateral sanctions violate a broad scope of human rights including the right to favorable environment negatively affecting right to health and right to life of all people in the country https://t.co/WJK4toNXZy — Alena Douhan (@AlenaDouhan) December 20, 2022 US threats of secondary sanctions on foreign countries and firms that do business with Iran, as well as overcompliance, make the unilateral coercive measures even more punishing, the UN special rapporteurs wrote: The full impact of the U.S. sanctions in Iran is magnified by considerable overcompliance on a global scale resulting from complex, time-consuming and/or costly compliance procedures; extraterritorial enforcement and fears of penalties for inadvertent breaches; and sanctions-related obstacles to financial transactions for goods and services that the sanctions do not prohibit. The primary author of this letter, the top UN expert on sanctions, Alena Douhan, has previously released reports detailing the catastrophic impact that illegal US sanctions have had on civilians in Venezuela and Syria. She said these “outrageous” US sanctions are “suffocating” millions of civilians and “may amount to crimes against humanity.” The UN's top expert said “outrageous” Western sanctions on Syria are “suffocating” millions of civilians, and “may amount to crimes against humanity.” The US-EU-Israel-Gulf proxy war on Syria made its economy shrink by 90%. 90% of Syrians live in poverty https://t.co/XtHCuCHhYP — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 12, 2022 The letter concerning US sanctions on Iran was signed by the following UN human rights experts:

Write an article about: PBS gives Ukrainian Nazi platform to dehumanize Russians as ‘cockroaches’. 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.

Artem Semenikhin, Azov, Getty Images, Konotop, media, Nick Schifrin, PBS, Stepan Bandera, Ukraine

US government-sponsored outlet PBS heroized neo-Nazi extremist Artem Semenikhin, the mayor of Ukraine’s city Konotop, in a softball interview in which he called Russians “cockroaches.” It didn’t mention the “heil Hitler” symbol on his car or his portrait of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. US government-sponsored media outlet PBS gave a massive platform to a notorious Ukrainian neo-Nazi, portraying him as a freedom fighter as he dehumanized Russians as “cockroaches” and praised Washington for sending weapons to him and fellow far-right extremist fighters. This neo-Nazi Ukrainian politician was also eagerly promoted by the New York Times, The Guardian, CIA-linked Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, and other prominent Western media outlets. This March, PBS NewsHour sat down for a softball interview with Artem Semenikhin, the mayor of Ukraine’s northern city of Konotop. The US state-backed broadcaster did not mention that Semenikhin is part of a neo-fascist political party and drives a car with the neo-Nazi symbol 14/88, which combines the white-supremacist “14 words” slogan with code for “Heil Hitler.” In fact, on the wall behind him in the PBS interview, Semenikhin had a portrait of Ukraine’s infamous fascist leader Stepan Bandera, who collaborated with Nazi Germany and led the extreme-right Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which helped Adolf Hitler carry out the Holocaust by massacring Jews, Poles, and communists. Yet the portrait of Bandera was curiously blurred out in the PBS video. When Russian troops came into the office of the mayor of Konotop, Ukraine, he escorted them out and made sure they drove away. "We are ready to fight till the end — till the victorious end — to defeat these Russian cockroaches," he tells @nickschifrin. https://t.co/KS5DIvofpZ pic.twitter.com/BqoU7NLL0c — PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) March 3, 2022 In a report published on March 3, PBS’ foreign affairs and defense correspondent, Nick Schifrin, interviewed Semenikhin. Schifrin depicted the Ukrainian neo-Nazi mayor as a hero for resisting Russian soldiers and kicking them out of his city. “Do you fear they will come back and either occupy or try and destroy the city?” Schifrin asked in the softball interview. Semenikhin replied, “We are not afraid. We are ready to fight until the end, until the victorious end, to defeat these Russian cockroaches.” Instead of commenting on his dehumanizing, Nazi-esque rhetoric toward Russians, the PBS correspondent applauded Semenikhin for “rall[ying] his troops, civilians, ready to resist.” The Ukrainian neo-Nazi mayor concluded the segment holding up an assault rifle and stating, “Thanks to the United States of America for supporting Ukraine with weapons. My weapon is American. And I think the occupiers will be pleased that we’re killing them with American weapons.” Neo-Nazi extremist Artem Semenikhin, mayor of Ukraine’s city of Konotop, thanks the US for sending him and his fascist fighters weapons, in a PBS interview The PBS NewsHour report did not provide any information about Artem Semenikhin and his political background. Semenikhin is a member of the neo-fascist Svoboda party, which played a key role in the violent US-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, which overthrew the country’s democratically elected government for not being sufficiently anti-Russian. The fact that Semenikhin is a Nazi is well known, and has been acknowledged by mainstream media outlets. The Jerusalem Post published an article back in December 2015 titled “Local Jews in shock after Ukrainian city of Konotop elects neo-Nazi mayor.” The newspaper noted that Konotop residents were “expressing shock and dismay over the behavior of newly chosen Mayor Artem Semenikhin of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party.” The Jerusalem Post reported: Semenikhin drives around in a car bearing the number 14/88, a numerological reference to the phrases “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” and “Heil Hitler”; replaced the picture of President Petro Poroshenko in his office with a portrait of Ukrainian national leader and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera; and refused to fly the city’s official flag at the opening meeting of the city council because he objected to the star of David emblazoned on it. The flag also features a Muslim crescent and a cross. Svoboda, known as the Social-National Party of Ukraine until 2004, has been accused of being a neo-Nazi party by Ukrainian Jews and while party leaders have a history of making anti-Semitic remarks, their rhetoric has toned down considerably over the past years as they attempted to go mainstream. In a follow-up article in 2019, the Times of Israel noted that Semenikhin is “known for his neo-Nazi views.” In 2019, Semenikhin posted a photo on his personal Instagram account of himself in a military uniform, doing the three-finger salute of the fascist Svoboda party. He was photographed next to Ukrainian neo-Nazi Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of Svoboda, who is infamous for doing Hitler salutes and declaring that the country is run by a so-called “Moscow-Jewish mafia” that must be purged. In 2018, Semenikhin published another photo on Instagram of himself holding a rifle and fighting on the frontlines against Russian-speaking Ukrainians in 2014. Again he can be seen doing the three-finger salute of Svoboda. There are many similar photos of Semenikhin on his Instagram account. He makes no secret of his close ties with neo-fascist parties in Ukraine. Yet many Western media outlets joined PBS in promoting Semenikhin and amplifying the neo-Nazi’s call for Ukrainian civilians to take up arms against Russia. US government-funded propaganda outlet Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which was founded by the CIA to disseminate disinformation against the former Soviet Union, portrayed Semenikhin as a hero. "If you are for it, we'll fight." The mayor of Konotop, Ukraine asks residents if they want to defend their town after being given an ultimatum by Russian forces to surrender or face being wiped out by artillery. ? https://t.co/jdiNVf3g7S — RFE/RL Pressroom (@RFERLPress) March 3, 2022 Top US newspaper the New York Times glorified Semenikhin as well. Like PBS, it did not mention his blatant Nazi views. In response, the mayor, Artem Semenikhin, asked the crowd whether they wanted to surrender or fight. The response was overwhelmingly in favor of fighting. “I am too,” the mayor said. “But the decision has to be unanimous because their artillery is already trained on us.” — Christiaan Triebert (@trbrtc) March 3, 2022 The Ukrainian Nazi was also promoted by The Guardian, Sky News, the Daily Mail, and more. Artem Semenikhin, the mayor of Konotop in the northeastern Sumy region of Ukraine, has urged civilians to fight as Russian troops surround the city. Live updates: https://t.co/cz5NTchyMw pic.twitter.com/MhypAxPXWP — Sky News (@SkyNews) March 2, 2022 This was far from the only time that Western media outlets actively promoted neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Numerous major news publications helped spread propaganda staged by Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov militia. On March 6, the news service of the photo licensing website Getty Images also boosted fascist Ukrainian propaganda. On Twitter, Getty Images News shared a photo of a Ukrainian far-right militant evacuating civilians. Getty Images News referred to the man simply as a “Ukrainian servicemember.” It did not mention that he had a neo-Nazi patch on his uniform: a black sun, known in German as the Sonnenrad, a symbol used by Nazis and white supremacists, including Azov itself. This is literal Nazi propaganda. The Ukrainian soldier in this photo is a fascist with a neo-Nazi black sun patch. The Western-backed Ukrainian military and national guard are full of these neo-Nazis https://t.co/p01jqHfSoC pic.twitter.com/VAMEnja512 — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 7, 2022

Write an article about: Bombardeos de EEUU en Irak y Siria son una agresión ilegal: los ocupantes no tienen derecho a la ‘autodefensa’. 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.

Asia Occidental, Donald Trump, Irak, Israel, Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden, Oriente Medio, Palestina, Siria, Yemen

Ocupar militarmente Iraq y Siria es una política totalmente bipartidista en Estados Unidos. Y bombardear Asia Occidental se ha convertido en un pasatiempo favorito que une a presidentes demócratas y republicanos. (You can read this article in English here.) Estados Unidos cree que tiene derecho a bombardear, ocupar militarmente y estrangular económicamente a cualquier país, en cualquier lugar, sin consecuencias. Pero los pueblos del mundo se enfrentan cada vez más a la dictadura global de la hegemonía estadounidense. El 27 de junio, Washington lanzó ataques aéreos contra las fuerzas de Iraq y Siria, dos países soberanos ocupados ilegalmente por el ejército estadounidense, que han pedido repetidamente la salida de las tropas estadounidenses. El ataque de Estados Unidos resultó ser un regalo para los extremistas genocidas del Daesh: ayudó a proporcionar cobertura cuando los remanentes de Daesh lanzaron un ataque terrorista contra una red eléctrica en el norte de Iraq. Del mismo modo, el bombardeo estadounidense mató a varios miembros de las unidades respaldadas por el gobierno iraquí que habían estado protegiendo a su nación de Daesh y Al-Qaeda. No es ni mucho menos la primera vez que Washington se pone claramente del mismo lado que los fanáticos takfiríes de extrema derecha. Por ejemplo, el actual asesor de seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos, Jake Sullivan, admitió en un correo electrónico a la entonces secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton en 2012 que “AQ está de nuestro lado en Siria.” Y el gobierno estadounidense apoyó a los extremistas de Al Qaeda en sus guerras contra Yemen y Libia. Además de ayudar a grupos terroristas notorios, estos ataques estadounidenses en Iraq y Siria fueron manifiestamente ilegales según el derecho internacional. Además, constituyen un claro acto de agresión contra los pueblos de Medio Oriente, que durante décadas han luchado por la autodeterminación y el control de sus propios y abundantes recursos naturales, recursos que el gobierno estadounidense y sus todopoderosas corporaciones pretenden controlar y explotar. El Pentágono intentó justificar su ataque alegando que era un acto de “autodefensa“. Absurdamente, el Departamento de Defensa de Estados Unidos -el campeón mundial en la violación del derecho internacional- incluso citó el derecho internacional para tratar de legitimar los ataques aéreos. En realidad, la presencia del ejército estadounidense en Iraq y Siria es ilegal. Y según el derecho internacional, una potencia militar que está ocupando ilegalmente un territorio no tiene derecho a la autodefensa. Esto es tan cierto para el régimen de apartheid de Israel en su agresión colonial de colonos contra Palestina como para Estados Unidos en sus guerras imperiales contra los pueblos de Iraq y Siria. El primer ministro iraquí, Mustafa al-Kazemi, lo dejó claro. Condenó los ataques estadounidenses como una “violación flagrante e inaceptable de la soberanía iraquí y de la seguridad nacional iraquí.” En enero de 2020, en respuesta al asesinato por parte de Washington del alto general iraní Qasem Suleimani y del comandante iraquí Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis -un acto de guerra criminal tanto contra Iraq como contra Irán-, el parlamento democráticamente elegido en Bagdad votó 170 a 0 para expulsar a los miles de tropas estadounidenses que ocupaban Iraq. Washington se limitó a ignorar la votación, silenciando las voces del pueblo iraquí, mientras amenazaba con más sanciones económicas a su gobierno. Además, el Pentágono subrayó que la votación no era vinculante. Aun así, incluso la Corporación RAND, respaldada por el gobierno estadounidense, reconoció que “no existe ningún tratado ni acuerdo sobre el estatus de las fuerzas (SOFA) que autorice la presencia de las tropas estadounidenses en Iraq”. Del mismo modo, Estados Unidos está ocupando ilegalmente un tercio del territorio soberano de Siria. El gobierno de Damasco, reconocido internacionalmente, ha pedido en repetidas ocasiones a los ocupantes militares estadounidenses que se vayan, pero estos se han negado, en una flagrante violación de la soberanía siria. “La presencia de los estadounidenses en Siria es un signo de ocupación, y creemos que todas las naciones y gobiernos deben enfrentarse a su presencia ilegal en la región”, declaró el primer ministro sirio, Imad Khamis, en 2020, tras los asesinatos por parte de Estados Unidos de los máximos responsables militares iraquíes e iraníes. Mientras que el expresidente republicano Donald Trump irradiaba una especie de arrogancia neocolonial, jactándose de que las tropas estadounidenses permanecerían ilegalmente en Siria porque “queremos quedarnos con el petróleo”, la administración demócrata de Joe Biden no ha actuado de manera muy diferente. El presidente Biden nombró a la operativa neoconservadora de línea dura Dana Stroul como máxima responsable del Pentágono para la política de Medio Oriente. En 2019, Stroul se jactó de que Washington “era dueño” de un tercio del territorio sirio, incluyendo su “centro económico”, que incluye la gran mayoría de sus reservas de petróleo y trigo. La promoción de Stroul fue una señal inequívoca de que los demócratas están respaldando la misma estrategia sádica de Trump, para ocupar militarmente Siria, robar sus recursos naturales, privar a su gobierno de ingresos, negar a su pueblo el pan y la gasolina, e impedir la reconstrucción de lo que Stroul llamó sarcásticamente los “escombros” generalizados. La realidad es que ocupar militarmente Iraq y Siria es una política totalmente bipartidista en Estados Unidos. Y bombardear Medio Oriente se ha convertido en un pasatiempo favorito que une a presidentes demócratas y republicanos. Trump lanzó ataques aéreos contra Siria en abril de 2018 con acusaciones totalmente infundadas de que Damasco había llevado a cabo “ataques con gas”, afirmaciones que desde entonces han sido demostradas como falsas por múltiples denunciantes de la Organización para la Prohibición de las Armas Químicas (OPAQ). Luego, en diciembre de 2019, la administración Trump bombardeó a las milicias anti-ISIS tanto en Siria como en Iraq. Biden llevó a cabo un ataque similar e ilegal contra estos mismos combatientes en el este de Siria en febrero de 2021. Otro ejemplo de que Washington sirve como fuerza aérea de facto para los remanentes de Daesh”. Los ataques aéreos estadounidenses de diciembre de 2019, febrero de 2021 y junio de 2021 tuvieron como objetivo las Fuerzas de Movilización Popular (FMP) respaldadas por el gobierno iraquí, conocidas en árabe como al-Hashd al-Sha’abi. En su declaración oficial sobre el bombardeo de junio, el Pentágono afirmó inequívocamente que estaba atacando a Kata’ib Hezbollah y Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, dos destacados grupos armados iraquíes del Hashd. El Departamento de Defensa se refirió engañosamente a estas unidades como “grupos de milicianos respaldados por Irán”. El gobierno estadounidense y los medios de comunicación corporativos que actúan como su portavoz obediente siempre describen a las Hashd como “respaldadas por Irán” para tratar de restar importancia a su papel como protectoras autóctonas de la soberanía iraquí y presentarlas engañosamente como apoderadas extranjeras del coco favorito de Washington. En realidad, las PMF son unidades iraquíes apoyadas por el gobierno elegido y reconocido internacionalmente en Bagdad. Las Hashd desempeñaron un papel destacado en la lucha contra Daesh, Al Qaeda y otros grupos extremistas takfiríes tanto en Iraq como en Siria, mientras que Estados Unidos, el régimen de apartheid de Israel y los aliados de la OTAN gastaron miles de millones de dólares en respaldar a los escuadrones de la muerte salafi-jihadistas en su guerra genocida contra el pueblo de Siria. Los Hashd reciben efectivamente ayuda de Teherán, y tienen todo el derecho a hacerlo. Al fin y al cabo, Irán es vecino de Iraq, mientras que Estados Unidos está al otro lado del planeta. Pero Washington, la OTAN y sus taquígrafos de facto en la prensa corporativa tratan de desacreditar toda la resistencia a la criminal agresión estadounidense en Medio Oriente borrando sus raíces orgánicas y autóctonas y describiéndola perezosamente como una vasta conspiración controlada por un omnipresente controlador iraní. Las FMP dejaron claro que no tolerarán el asalto de Washington a la soberanía de su nación. “Nos reservamos el derecho legal de responder a estos ataques y hacer que los autores rindan cuentas en suelo iraquí”, declaró el Hashd. A diferencia de los ocupantes militares estadounidenses, el pueblo de Iraq y Siria sí tiene derecho a ejercer la autodefensa en respuesta a los ataques de agresores extranjeros. Pueden resistirse legalmente a la ocupación militar y al neocolonialismo estadounidense, al igual que el pueblo de Palestina tiene derecho a resistirse a la ocupación militar israelí y al colono-colonialismo sionista. Es un derecho consagrado en el derecho internacional, y un derecho inalienable que cualquier nación defendería. Si Washington quiere poner fin a los ataques contra sus tropas, hay una manera fácil de hacerlo: retirarlas de la región donde no se las quiere. Los soldados estadounidenses estarán mucho más seguros en casa. (Este artículo fue publicado por primera vez en Al Mayadeen Español.)

Write an article about: British government admits to arming Ukrainian Nazis from Azov militia. 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.

Azov, Britain, fascism, Nazis, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

The UK government admitted to sending anti-aircraft weapons weapons to Ukrainian neo-Nazis from the white-supremacist Azov regiment of the National Guard. The British government has admitted to sending weapons to Ukrainian neo-Nazis from the extremist Azov regiment. Azov is a neo-Nazi militia that preaches a white-supremacist ideology, and was officially incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard after a violent US-sponsored coup in 2014. A member of parliament, Kenny MacAskill, from the Alba Party, a Scottish pro-independence party, formally asked the British Ministry of Defence on March 21 “whether any members of Ukraine’s Azov movement have access to UK-supplied anti-aircraft weapons.” The British parliamentary under-secretary of defence, James Heappey, a member of parliament from the Conservative Party, replied on March 24 confirming that the Ukrainian extremists have indeed received these weapons. “The UK is taking a lead role in coordinating the humanitarian and military support to Ukraine,” he boasted. “This includes lethal aid in the form of defensive weapons, and non-lethal aid such as body armour.” Heappey said that Britain is specifically sending Starstreak anti-aircraft weapons to the Ukrainian military. “Under the current circumstances, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence is likely to have operational command of the National Guard, which also includes the Azov battalion,” Heappey acknowledged. The British official’s response was indirect, but its meaning was clear: as part of the Ukrainian National Guard, yes, the neo-Nazi Azov regiment has indeed received anti-aircraft weapons from the UK. Azov uses Nazi Germany-era symbols, such as the wolfsangel and black sun. It also preaches a white-supremacist ideology that portrays the war in Ukraine as a race war between “asiatic” Russians and “white” Ukrainians. The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion Azov fascists hold torchlit ceremonies with Nazi symbols, and post videos on their official YouTube channel: US and Canadian military officials have been photographed meeting with and advising Azov neo-Nazis in Ukraine. In the back of this photo, you can also see a Canadian officer, alongside US military officers, meeting with Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which uses Nazi-era symbols.https://t.co/8tOZ9A7YGK pic.twitter.com/dAZBeFaHdU — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 16, 2018 Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, NATO member states have provided more weapons and military training to Azov neo-Nazis. NATO is sending weapons and trainers to help neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s white-supremacist Azov movement fight Russia, as the US floods the country with weapons. This follows numerous reports of Western government support for Ukrainian far-right extremists.https://t.co/5gYgmU8PFo — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 10, 2022 Despite its fascist ideology, Azov extremists have been repeatedly promoted by Western media outlets. CNN promoted a commander from Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov regiment, failing to mention his militia’s explicit white-supremacist ideology Azov then proudly shared the CNN video on its official Twitter account Azov uses Nazi symbols. NATO has armed/trained ithttps://t.co/VcgTBkrl2u — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 21, 2022 The official Twitter account of Ukraine’s National Guard even posted a video of a neo-Nazi Azov fighter dipping bullets in pig fat to kill Russian Chechen Muslims, whom the Ukrainian state institution dehumanized as monstrous “orcs.” This is the official, verified Twitter account of Ukraine's National Guard publicly portraying Russian Chechen Muslims as monstrous "orcs," and praising its Nazi soldiers for threatening to kill them with lard-greased bullets: https://t.co/gs0yYu4qXohttps://t.co/PMKeTajw9e — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022

Write an article about: Behind the original neoliberal ‘color revolution’: How Serbians provoked violence to push regime change. 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.

Ivan Zlatić, Otpor, Serbia

Left-wing Serbian activist Ivan Zlatić explains how his country was ground zero for US-backed neoliberal “color revolutions,” and how operatives intentionally provoke violence from the government to push regime change. When Serbia’s government was overthrown in 2000, it was the first example of a successful US-backed neoliberal color revolution. The tactics used in this regime-change operation were subsequently repeated in countries around the world. Journalist Brian Mier spoke with Serbian activist Ivan Zlatić, a member of the presidency of the Party of the Radical Left, about this foundational experience. Zlatić explained how regime-change operatives intentionally “provoke violence” and then capitalize on the response of the government to discredit it and demand that it be toppled. Serbia was the original US-backed neoliberal color revolution Ivan Zlatić of Serbia's Party of the Radical Left explains how groups in his country pioneered the tactic of intentionally provoking violence from the government in order to push regime change Video by @BrianMteleSUR pic.twitter.com/CGT6H7A9B3 — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) June 15, 2022 “Serbia was the color revolution zero,” Zlatić said. “It was the first time that this format was utilized to provoke the reaction from the regime, or from the governing party, to go violently on young people. And then it provoked the reaction of a larger public, that, ‘We don’t want our kids to be beaten down by the police.'” “It was very successful. I mean, this campaign was very successful to support the opposition parties, because all the people were enraged by how police is dealing with students and with these fine, nice young people who only want democracy and human rights, and la la la la la.” “That actually enraged even those people who were supporting the regime politically, but were enraged with this police violence against students.” Ivan Zlatić, a leader of Serbia’s Party of the Radical Left Zlatić noted that Serbian regime-change operatives cashed in and “made a corporation, actually, out of that expertise, on how to provoke a violent reaction.” “It was called, within the opposition circles, it was called, ‘Let’s make the regime show its real face.'” “It’s not the real face. You are provoking them to violence. It’s not the real face,” Zlatić added. “But all this expertise in provocation, to make the regime look like you want it to look like, to make the regime look like you want it to look like, was from that period.” “But also before that, what is also important, because the movement that, the Otpor organization, the movement was actually hijacked. Otpor was originally a left-wing organization.”

Write an article about: Europe angry that US profits from Ukraine proxy war while destroying EU economy. 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.

EU, Europe, European Union, gas, Joe Biden, LNG, Ukraine

EU leaders are furious that the US is making lots of money from the proxy war in Ukraine by selling weapons and exporting expensive natural gas. Meanwhile European industries are being destroyed as high energy prices and US subsidies push its companies to go overseas. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) Cracks are emerging in the NATO alliance. Numerous Western corporate media outlets have published reports showing growing political divisions between the United States and European Union. EU leaders are angry that the US is making lots of money from the proxy war in Ukraine, both by selling vast quantities of weapons and by making Europe reliant on its expensive liquified natural gas (LNG), instead of Russia’s significantly cheaper pipeline gas. Meanwhile, European economies suffer from high inflation rates and an energy crisis that make manufacturing so expensive and uncompetitive it could bankrupt entire industries. Politico published an article in November detailing precisely this, titled “Europe accuses US of profiting from war.” An unnamed “senior official” in Europe told the publication, “The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons.” Politico wrote: French President Emmanuel Macron said high U.S. gas prices were not “friendly” and Germany’s economy minister has called on Washington to show more “solidarity” and help reduce energy costs. Ministers and diplomats based elsewhere in the bloc voiced frustration at the way Biden’s government simply ignores the impact of its domestic economic policies on European allies. When EU leaders tackled Biden over high U.S. gas prices at the G20 meeting in Bali last week, the American president simply seemed unaware of the issue. The escalating US-EU conflict recalls the notorious maxim of former Secretary of State and imperial planner Henry Kissinger: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” The Biden administration’s passage of the Inflation Reduction Act this August has sent the EU “into full-blown panic mode,” and even threatens to bring about a “transatlantic trade war,” according to Politico. The law pledges up to $369 billion in subsidies to support companies that claim to be environmentally friendly, as part of a “green” transition. These huge US subsidies “threaten to destroy European industries,” the outlet reported, and have led Brussels to “draw up plans for an emergency war chest of subsidies to save European industries from collapse.” An unnamed EU diplomat told Politico, “The Inflation Reduction Act has changed everything,” asking, “Is Washington still our ally or not?” A similar article by a staunchly pro-NATO columnist, also published by Politico, insisted “Biden keeps ignoring Europe. It’s time EU leaders got the message.” The column emphasized that the US government’s top priority its its new cold war on China. “The U.S. remains steadfastly focused on what most perceive to be its main existential challenge: China,” Politico wrote. “In that equation, Europe is often an afterthought.” The media outlet concluded: But what the Europeans are discovering is that the Ukraine war is just one facet of the U.S.’s larger strategic duel with China, which will always take precedence over EU interests. That was true under Trump, and it remains true under his successor. It’s just that the message is delivered in a different style. In the long run, Biden’s polite indifference may prove more deadly. As recently as the beginning of 2022, Russia was the largest exporter of both gas and oil to Europe. But in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, the US and EU imposed harsh sanctions on Moscow and vowed to boycott its energy. This has blown back on Europe, and hard. In August, Bloomberg published an article titled “European Power Prices Reach Records as Industry Starts to Buckle.” It noted that electricity prices in Germany have risen as much as 500% in the past year. The report warned the “magnitude of the crisis isn’t comparable to anything in the past few decades.” “Countries across Europe are planning for possible power shortages this winter, with some considering rationing supplies to certain industries to ensure essential demand can be met,” Bloomberg said. These historically high energy prices were already painful enough. But Washington’s proposed subsidies have only further incentivized European companies to move to the United States. In a November report titled “European industry pivots to US as Biden subsidy sends ‘dangerous signal,’” the Financial Times reported the same: the Inflation Reduction Act “is moving momentum a lot from Europe to the US.” The FT wrote: The combination of the Biden Administration’s $369bn package and high energy costs in Europe, where even after recent declines gas prices remain five times more expensive than in North America, is sounding alarm bells in EU capitals. “I think we need a European wake-up on this point,” French president Emmanuel Macron told executives from domestic industrial companies such as glassmaker Saint-Gobain and cement maker Lafarge in a speech last week. Germany’s economy minister, Robert Habeck, described the US support as “excessive” and “hoovering up investments from Europe”. The EU has accused Washington of breaching World Trade Organization rules and set up a task force with the Biden administration to resolve their differences. The Wall Street Journal published a similar article in September, titled “High Natural-Gas Prices Push European Manufacturers to Shift to the U.S.” “The Ukraine war is driving up energy costs in Europe, while relatively stable prices and green-energy incentives are luring companies to the U.S.”, the newspaper wrote. “Battered by skyrocketing gas prices, companies in Europe that make steel, fertilizer and other feedstocks of economic activity are shifting operations to the U.S., attracted by more stable energy prices and muscular government support,” the Wall Street Journal added. The report predicted that Europe “could face high prices, at least for gas, well into 2024, threatening to make the scarring on Europe’s manufacturing sector permanent.”

Write an article about: Inside Russia: Economists describe impact of Western sanctions and Ukraine war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Alan Freeman, economics, neoliberalism, Radhika Desai, Russia, sanctions, Ukraine

From inside Russia, economists Radhika Desai and Alan Freeman report on the impact of Western sanctions and the Ukraine war. They discuss Moscow’s integration with Asia and move away from neoliberal economics. Economists Radhika Desai and Alan Freeman of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group traveled to Russia to participate in several conferences and investigate the impact of Western sanctions and the Ukraine war. They spoke with Geopolitical Economy Report about the economic situation in the ground, the country’s deepening integration with Asia, and Russian economists’ gradual move away from neoliberalism. Russian “economists have always been looking to the East; what is interesting is what’s going on in the leadership now”, Freeman said. He noted that Moscow is trying to implement a program of import substitution industrialization, to replace Western products. Desai said there has been a lot of capital flight in Russia, and “some [Western] businesses have left, but not all”. “What’s remarkable about Russia is how relatively low the economic pain has been, and that Russia’s economy has in fact been quite resilient”, she said. “So you know in Spring last year, the IMF had predicted that Russia’s economic growth would be lowered, that there would be -12% degrowth essentially in Russia, and in fact, Russia has escaped with a relatively minor lower adjustment of %2 degrowth”, she added. “It definitely doesn’t look like there’s a war economy”, Desai continued. “[There’s] maybe a certain amount of hardships. Certainly we saw some boarded up shops, you know, shops which had fading signs of the old brand names, Western brand names that have left. But you know, a lot of these brand names are still here. I have taken some pictures. Subway is here. Burger King is here. Citibank is here. Benetton is here. I mean there are so many Western Brands which are still operating their shops here”. In Russia, Freeman explained, “the atmosphere amongst economists … is very different to that that you find in the West”. “Here the economists themselves are radicalizing”, he said. “And every time I come here, they get more and more shirty about the things that they think should be done in the Russian economy”, and “the internal domestic structural challenges that Russia faces”. Desai recalled her experience in the conferences in Russia: “Your regular neoliberals were there, but they were only a handful, whereas the overwhelming majority of the economists who were there were taking a distinctly anti-neoliberal position, recalling that actually state controls, state direction, and state-organized redistribution are the keys to Russia’s economic survival in the face of sanctions”. “So the overwhelming majority of economists were distinctly to the left, far to the left, of what you hear of course in Western countries”, Desai added.

Write an article about: Britain takes aggressive anti-China line with hawkish PM Liz Truss. 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.

Britain, China, Liz Truss, NATO, Penny Mordaunt, Rishi Sunak, Tom Tugendhat, Tories, UK, United Kingdom

Liz Truss, the UK’s new prime minister, is the most anti-China British leader in decades. In the Conservative leadership contest that brought her to power, candidates competed to show who could be more belligerent against Beijing. Liz Truss, the UK’s new prime minister, must be in the running for the most anti-China British leader in a century. Truss has done more than any other single politician to move the Conservative Party, and therefore the British government, from wanting to be a close friend of China, during the David Cameron premiership, to today where the UK is openly threatening Beijing’s economic stability and political security. As foreign secretary in 2021, Truss convinced fellow G7 foreign ministers to include a line in their closing communique condemning China’s economic policy. Then, in a major speech this April, she threatened to crack down on China’s rise if they “don’t play by the rules”. As she vied for the top seat in 10 Downing Street this August, Truss pledged that, if she were made prime minister, she would officially designate China a “threat” to British national security. When the speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, visited Taiwan that same month, in a deeply provocative trip aimed at angering China, Truss openly talked about the need for the West to support the Taiwanese separatist movement. To see the significant influence that anti-China hawks now have in the UK’s domestic politics, we need look no further than the Conservative Party leadership contest, where candidates competed to see who could be the most aggressive against Beijing. Truss’ major opponent in the race was the former chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak. As chancellor, Sunak had emphasised closer economic ties with China. But it seems he feared appearing “soft” before the Conservative Party membership, and so in July, he came out as an anti-China hawk, claiming Beijing was Britain’s “number one threat”. Sunak was not alone. Penny Mordaunt, in an ultimately unsuccessful bid to remain in the Conservative party leadership race this summer, criticized Boris Johnson for having a supposed soft touch on China. She argued Johnson had prioritized the economy over national security. Tom Tugendhat, another failed Conservative leadership contender, who served as chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and was Truss’ pick for minister of security, warned in an interview that China allegedly poses a great danger to the British people. The UK’s Conservative leadership race came on the heels of a NATO summit in Madrid in June, where the Western military alliance declared China to be a “strategic competitor” that poses a “systemic challenge” to “our interests, security and values.” Britain’s shift toward hard-line anti-China policies also coincides with the same move in the United States, where the Joe Biden administration has continued Donald Trump’s campaign to counter China’s influence across the globe. After decades of relatively stable co-operation and co-existence, Western leaders are now falling over themselves to attack China. Yet these claims of Chinese aggression toward Europe have no real basis. In its thousands of years of history, China’s armies have never set foot on European soil, never mind marched victorious into a European capital. The Chinese state has never colonized European cities. Looted European art does not sit in Chinese museums. Chinese people have never demanded exemption from European law, nor inserted themselves into European politics. Chinese businesses have never used the threat of Chinese naval fleets to open European markets on favourable conditions. Certainly, China has become more assertive on the world stage in the era after the 2008 financial crash. As Beijing-based journalist Michael Schuman lays out in his book “Superpower Interrupted”, for many in China, the late 19th and 20th centuries were a period of aberration, a time when one of the world’s natural great powers was forced by colonialism, war, and internal crisis into a diminutive role. Economic expansion since the 1980s, and the sense of perpetual crisis in the West, has allowed the Chinese leadership to reassert Beijing’s place as a potential superpower. Yet the Western media always takes the least charitable view of any move made by Chinese leadership. Every time a Chinese fund invests in Africa, or a Chinese ship enters the South China Sea, or the Chinese government signs a security agreement with another country, Western media outlets will warn, Cassandra-like, of the impending doom of Chinese global domination. China’s newfound assertiveness must be put in its proper geopolitical context. For decades, the Western alliance has been at war continuously. In this same period, China hasn’t dropped a single bomb on a single person. China has just one foreign military base, in Djibouti, which is part of international anti-piracy operations. (Western governments allege that China is building another secret base in Cambodia. It is not clear if this is true, but even if it is, that means Beijing has a mere two foreign military bases.) The United States, on the other hand, has some 800 foreign military bases in more than 70 countries. Even the United Kingdom, a country with a total population smaller than the membership of the Communist Party of China, dwarves Beijing in foreign base totals. China is not involved in regime-change operations. And unlike the United States, it does not seek to assassinate foreign leaders. While several countries on China’s borders suffer under stifling economic sanctions, which bring death and misery to untold numbers, none of these sanctions were initiated by China. Judged by any metric, China is by far the least aggressive of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and is the only member not currently involved in a war. Given these historical and contemporary geopolitical realities, there is no basis for anyone in the US or Europe to consider China a national security threat. The United Kingdom and Europe as a whole face manifold issues, from the effects of climate change, to the energy crisis, to entrenched inequality, to an ongoing public health crisis. None of these can rightly be blamed on China building bridges in Africa or developing security arrangements in the Pacific. What truly motivates British political leaders to feel this way can be gleaned from passing comments made by figures like Tom Tugendhat, one of the candidates in the Conservative leadership contest. Tugendhat was the long-time chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, and the co-founder of the China Research Group (CRG), a self-appointed Beijing watchdog. In response to a question by Quartz about why he saw the rise of China as such a threat, Tugendhat responded: The UK, by accident of history, was fundamental to the writing of the operating system of the global system from 1700 through to 1990, and the UK economy, more than almost any other, was built on the basis of it… We therefore have a choice, which is, do we defend the system upon which our prosperity is built? In other words, the UK’s economic prosperity still rests on the system that came out of the colonial period, and China represents a credible challenge to that colonial legacy. The “threat” felt in Western capitals, then, is not of Chinese gunboats on the Thames, but of something much less tangible. The return of China to superpower status is not a threat so much for what Beijing will or will not do, but of what this represents for Western hegemony. As Tugendhat put it, since the 19th century, the West – and particularly the UK and the USA – have used their status as the pre-eminent imperial powers to write a rule book of their own design. This is often euphemistically called the “rules-based international order”, but amounts to nothing more that the fruits of centuries of colonialism. China, with its 1.4 billion population, huge economy, and strong state, is the first credible challenge to that Western colonial framework since the end of the first cold war. Indeed, given China’s integration into the global economy, and the parallel rise of other nations in the Global South, this may be the greatest challenge to the colonial order since the Age of Victoria. The fear among Western policy-makers is real, but the concern is not that Europe will be dominated by China; instead, it is a fear that China’s rise means the end of European domination. After all, the long, bloody, and exploitative history of European involvement in Asia, Africa, and much of the Americas gives the people of the Global South little reason to remain loyal to their old colonial masters, even if they try to forcibly return the gunboats to port.

Write an article about: West prepares to plunder post-war Ukraine with neoliberal shock therapy: privatization, deregulation, slashing worker protections. 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.

António Guterres, Denys Shmyhal, disaster capitalism, EU, European Union, NATO, neoliberalism, Ruslan Stefanchuk, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, Ukraine Recovery Conference, Ukraine Reform Conference, Ursula von der Leyen, Volodymyr Zelensky

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,” drop tariffs, deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors.” While the United States and Europe flood Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars of weapons, using it as an anti-Russian proxy and pouring fuel on the fire of a brutal war that is devastating the country, they are also making plans to essentially plunder its post-war economy. Representatives of Western governments and corporations met in Switzerland this July to plan a series of harsh neoliberal policies to impose on post-war Ukraine, calling to cut labor laws, “open markets,” drop tariffs, deregulate industries, and “sell state-owned enterprises to private investors.” Ukraine has been destabilized by violence since 2014, when a US-sponsored coup d’etat overthrew its democratically elected government, setting off a civil war. That conflict dragged on until February 24, 2022, when Russia invaded the country, escalating into a new, even deadlier phase of the war. The United States and European Union have sought to erase the history of foreign-sponsored civil war in Ukraine from 2014 to early 2022, acting as though the conflict began on February 24. But Washington had sent large sums of weapons to Ukraine and provided extensive military training and support over several years before Russia invaded. Meanwhile, starting in 2017, representatives of Western governments and corporations quietly held annual conferences in which they discussed ways to profit from the civil war they were fueling in Ukraine. In these meetings, Western political and business leaders outlined a series of aggressive right-wing reforms they hoped to impose on Ukraine, including widespread privatization of state-owned industries and deregulation of the economy. On July 4 and 5, 2022, top officials from the US, EU, Britain, Japan, and South Korea met in Switzerland for a so-called “Ukraine Recovery Conference.” There, they planned Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and performatively announced aid commitments – while salivating over a bonanza of potential contracts. New NATO candidates Finland and Sweden committed to assure reconstruction in Lugansk, roughly 48 hours after Russia and separatist forces announced the region had fallen fully under their control. But the Ukraine Recovery Conference was not new. It had been renamed to save the expense of a new acronym. In the previous five years, the group and its annual meetings were instead referred to as the “Ukraine Reform Conference” (URC). The URC’s agenda was explicitly focused on imposing political changes on the country – namely, “strengthening the market economy“, “decentralization, privatization, reform of state-owned enterprises, land reform, state administration reform,” and “Euro-Atlantic integration.” Before 2022, this gathering had nothing to do with aid – and a lot to do with economics. Documents from the 2018 Ukraine Reform Conference emphasized the importance of privatizing most of Ukraine’s remaining public sector, stating that the “ultimate goal of the reform is to sell state-owned enterprises to private investors”, along with calls for more “privatization, deregulation, energy reform, tax and customs reform.” Lamenting that the “government is Ukraine’s largest asset holder,” the report stated, “Reform in privatization and SOEs has been long awaited, as this sector of the Ukrainian economy has remained largely unchanged since 1991.” The Ukraine Reform Conference listed as one of its “achievements” the adoption of a law in January 2018 titled “On Privatization of State and Municipal Property,” which it noted “simplifies the procedure of privatization.” While the URC enthusiastically pushed for these neoliberal reforms, it acknowledged that they were very unpopular among actual Ukrainians. A poll found that just 12.4% supported privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOE), whereas 49.9% opposed it. (An additional 12% were indifferent, whereas 25.7% had no answer.) Economic liberalization in Ukraine since Russia’s February invasion has been even more grim. In March 2022, the Ukrainian parliament adopted emergency legislation allowing employers to suspend collective agreements. Then in May, it passed a permanent reform package effectively exempting the vast majority of Ukrainian workers (those at businesses with fewer than 200 employees) from Ukrainian labor law. While the most immediate beneficiaries of these changes will be Ukrainian employers, Western governments have been lobbying to liberalize Ukraine’s labor laws for years. Documents leaked in 2021 showed that the British government coached Ukrainian officials on how to convince a recalcitrant public to give up workers’ rights and implement anti-union policies. Training materials lamented that popular opinion towards the proposed reforms was overwhelmingly negative, but provided messaging strategies to mislead Ukrainians into supporting them. Ukraine Recovery Conference participants in Lugano, Switzerland on July 4, 2022 The July 2022 Ukraine Recovery Conference, which was held by Lugano, Switzerland and jointly hosted by the Swiss and Ukrainian governments, featured representatives from the following states and institutions: European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen speaks at the Ukraine Recovery Conference on July 4, 2022 Among the prominent officials who attended were European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, Swiss President Ignazio Cassis, and UK Foreign Minister Liz Truss. Ukraine’s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky also addressed the conference via video. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky addresses the Ukraine Recovery Conference via video on July 4, 2022 Physically present at the Switzerland meeting were Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and Zelensky’s top political ally Ruslan Stefanchuk, the chairman of Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada. Stefanchuk is the second-in-line for the presidency after Zelensky. He is also a member of Ukraine’s all-powerful National Security and Defense Council, which truly governs the country. (From left to right) Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, Swiss President Ignazio Cassis, European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, and Verkhovna Rada chairman Ruslan Stefanchuk at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Switzerland on July 4, 2022 Even the United Nations gave its imprimatur to the conference: UN Secretary-General António Guterres delivered a video statement as well. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addresses the Ukraine Recovery Conference on July 5, 2022 At the two-day meeting, the attendees agreed that Ukraine should eventually be given membership in the European Union. The country had already been granted EU candidate status just two weeks before, at a June summit in Brussels. At the conclusion of the meeting, all governments and institutions present endorsed a joint statement called the Lugano Declaration. This declaration was supplemented by a “National Recovery Plan,” which was in turn prepared by a “National Recovery Council” established by the Ukrainian government. This plan advocated for an array of neoliberal reforms, including “privatization of non critical enterprises” and “finalization of corporatization of SOEs” (state-owned enterprises) – identifying as an example the selling off of Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear energy company EnergoAtom. In order to “attract private capital into banking system,” the proposal likewise called for the “privatization of SOBs” (state-owned banks). Seeking to increase “private investment and boost nationwide entrepreneurship,” the National Recovery Plan urged significant “deregulation” and proposed the creation of “‘catalyst projects’ to unlock private investment into priority sectors.” In an explicit call for slashing labor protections, the document attacked the remaining pro-worker laws in Ukraine, some of which are a holdover of the Soviet era. The National Recovery Plan complained of “outdated labor legislation leading to complicated hiring and firing process, regulation of overtime, etc.” As an example of this supposed “outdated labor legislation,” the Western-backed plan lamented that workers in Ukraine with one year of experience are granted a nine-week “notice period for redundancy dismissal,” compared to just four weeks in Poland and South Korea. Neoliberal economic reforms proposed in Ukraine’s National Recovery Plan In the same vein, the National Recovery Plan urged Ukraine to cut taxes on corporations and wealthy capitalists. The blueprint complained that 40% of Ukraine’s GDP comes from tax revenue, calling this a “rather high tax burden” compared to its model example of South Korea. It thus called to “transform tax service,” and “review potential for decreasing the share of tax revenue in GDP.” In short, the Ukraine Recovery Conference’s economic proposal was little more than a repackaged Washington Consensus: a typical right-wing program that involves implementing mass privatizations, deregulating industries, gutting labor protections, cutting taxes on the rich, and putting the burden on Ukrainian workers. In the 1990s, following the overthrow of the Soviet Union, the United States imposed what it called capitalist “shock therapy” on Russia and other former constituent republics. A 2001 UNICEF study found that these harsh neoliberal reforms in Russia caused 3.2 million excess deaths, and pushed 18 million children into poverty, bringing about rampant malnutrition and public health crises. Washington and Brussels appear committed to return to this very same neoliberal shock therapy in their plans for post-war Ukraine. To accompany its July 2022 meeting in Switzerland, the Ukraine Recovery Conference published a “strategic briefing” compiled by a right-wing Ukrainian organization called the Center of Economic Recovery. The Center of Economic Recovery describes itself as a “platform that unites experts, think tanks, business, the public and government officials for the development of the country’s economy.” On its website, it lists many Ukrainian corporations as its partners and funders, making it clear that it acts as lobby on their behalf, like a chamber of commerce. The report that this corporate lobby wrote for the Ukraine Recovery Conference was even more explicit than the National Recovery Plan in its advocacy of aggressive neoliberal economic reforms. Using right-wing libertarian language of “economic freedom,” the document urged to “reduce government size” and “open markets.” Its proposal read as neoliberal boilerplate: “decrease the regulatory burden on businesses” by “reducing the size of the government (tax administration, privatization; digitalization of public services), improving regulatory efficiency (deregulation), and opening markets (liberalization of capital markets; investment freedom).” In the name of “EU integration and access to markets,” it likewise proposed “removal of tariffs and non-tariff non-technical barriers for all Ukrainian goods,” while simultaneously calling to “facilitate FDI [foreign direct investment] attraction to bring the largest international companies to Ukraine,” with “special investment incentives” for foreign corporations. It was essentially a call for Ukraine to surrender its economic sovereignty to Western capital. Both the National Recovery Plan and the strategic briefing also heavily emphasized the need for robust anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Neither document acknowledged that fact that Kiev’s Western-backed leader Volodmyr Zelensky, who spoke at the Ukraine Recovery Conference, is known to have large amounts of wealth hidden in a network of offshare accounts. Zelensky was named in the Pandora Papers, a leak of suspicious offshore companies, and he is linked to luxury properties in London. In addition to the National Recovery Plan and the strategic briefing, the July 2022 Ukraine Recovery Conference presented a report prepared by the company Economist Impact, a corporate consulting firm that is part of The Economist Group. This third document, titled “Ukraine Reform Tracker,” was funded by the Swiss government with the stated “aim of stimulating and supporting discussion on this matter at the 2022 Ukraine Recovery Conference.” The Ukraine Reform Tracker analyzed the neoliberal policies already imposed in Ukraine since the US-backed 2014 coup, and urged for even more aggressive neoliberal reforms to be implemented when the war ends. Of the three reports presented at the conference, this was perhaps the most full-throated call for Ukraine to adopt neoliberal shock therapy after the war – a tactic often referred to as disaster capitalism. Quoting the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the document insisted that Ukraine has “issues in deregulation and competition that still need to be addressed, such as ongoing state intervention” – depicting state intervention in the economy as something inherently bad. In this vein, the Ukraine Reform Tracker pushed to “increase foreign direct investments” by international corporations, not invest resources in social programs for the Ukrainian people. The report emphasized the importance of developing the financial sector and called for “removing excessive regulations” and tariffs. “Deregulation and tax simplification has been further deepened,” it wrote approvingly, adding, “Steps towards deregulation and the simplification of the tax system are examples of measures which not only withstood the blow of the war but have been accelerated by it.” The Ukraine Reform Tracker praised the central bank for “successfully liberalising the currency, floating the exchange rate.” While it noted some of these policies were reversed due to the Russian invasion, the report urged “the swiftest possible elimination of currency controls,” in order to “reinstate competitiveness within the financial sector.” The report however complained that these neoliberal reforms are not being implemented quickly enough, writing, “Privatisation— which already progressed slowly before the war—stalled, with a draft law aiming to simplify the process rejected” by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament. It called for further “liberalising agriculture” to “attract foreign investment and encourage domestic entrepreneurship,” as well as “procedural simplifications,” to “make it easier for small and medium enterprises” to “expand by purchasing and investing in state-owned assets,” thereby “making it easier for foreign investors to enter the market post-conflict.” “Further pursuing the privatisation of large and loss-making state-owned enterprises” will “allow more Ukrainian entrepreneurs to enter the market and thrive there in the post-war context,” the report urged. The Economist Impact study stressed the importance of Ukraine cutting its trade with Russia and instead integrating its economy with Europe. “Ukraine’s trade reforms centre on efforts to diversify its trade operations and enhance its integration into the EU market,” it wrote. The Western government-sponsored report boasted of significantly reducing Kiev’s economic ties to its eastern neighbor, noting: “Russia was Ukraine’s main trading partner in 2014, capturing 18.2% of its exports and providing 22% of its imports. Since then, however, Russia’s share of Ukraine’s exports and imports has decreased consistently, reaching 4.9% and 8.4% in 2021, respectively.” “Ukraine made particular progress in diversifying its trade portfolio within the EU, raising its trade volumes with member states by 46.2% from 2015 to 2019,” it added. The report added that it is “essential” that Ukraine carry out other reforms, such as modifying its railways by “aligning the rail gauges with EU standards.” The Ukraine Recovery Conference in Lugano, Switzerland on July 5, 2022 The Ukraine Reform Tracker presented the war as an opportunity to impose even more disaster capitalist policies. “The post-war moment may present an opportunity to complete the difficult land reform by extending the right to purchase agricultural land to legal entities, including foreign ones,” the report stated. “Opening the path for international capital to flow into Ukrainian agriculture will likely boost productivity across the sector, increasing its competitiveness in the EU market,” it added. The document proposed new ways for exploiting Ukrainian labor in specific industries, “especially pharmaceutical and electrical production, plastic and rubber manufacturing, furniture, textiles, and food and agricultural products.” “Once the war is over, the government will also need to consider substantially lowering the share of stateowned banks, with the privatisation of Privatbank, the country’s largest lender, and Oshchadbank, a large processor of pensions and social payments,” it insisted. The Ukraine Reform Tracker concluded optimistically, stating that that “post-war moment will be an opportunity for Ukraine,” and “there is likely to be significant pressure to continue and speed up the implementation of the reform agenda. Continued business reforms could allow Ukraine to further deregulate [and] privatise lossmaking SOEs.” While these three documents published by the 2022 Ukraine Reform Conference (URC) were vociferous calls for the imposition of right-wing economic policies, they were accompanied by superficial appeals to social justice rhetoric. The URC released a set of seven “Lugano Principles” that it identified as the keys to a just, equitable post-war reconstruction: These principles demonstrate the ways that hawks in Washington and Brussels have increasingly weaponized ideas about “intersectionality” to advance their belligerent foreign policy. In his report “Woke Imperium: The Coming Confluence Between Social Justice and Neoconservatism,” former US State Department officer Christopher Mott discussed the growing use of left-liberal social-justice talking points to legitimize and enforce Western imperialism. Mott observed that the “liberal Atlanticist tendency to push moralism and social engineering globally has immense potential to create backlash.” Western-backed liberals in post-socialist Europe have spent three decades creating a false dichotomy between either a liberalizing cultural project that can only be realized under US-led trans-Atlantic hegemony and neoliberal economic reforms, or a purely fictional socialist past whose political legacy is somehow reflected in right-wing anti-communist nationalist parties attempting to roll back advances that women had achieved under socialism. Despite its patent absurdity, this narrative has won adherents among younger liberal intellectuals, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, who have little or no memory of the socialist period, and who face increasingly desperate career prospects outside of the Western-backed ideological apparatus. On the other hand, right-wing nationalists like Hungary’s Viktor Orban posture as the only defenders of their countries’ cultural sovereignty against hostile outsiders, while also refusing to break from neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy. In turn, organic local activists struggling for legitimate social justice causes find themselves portrayed as agents furthering the agendas of foreign powers. At best, during peacetime, this undermines their work and hinders progress for their causes. In a country like Ukraine, where Western governments have supported far-right, neo-fascist groups and eight years dragging out a civil war, this is life-threatening. On May 9, 2022, the US Congress passed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, greatly expanding Washington’s authority to provide military aid to Ukraine. Lend-lease provisions originated during World War II and were used by the US government to provide military aid to countries fighting Nazi Germany, including Britain and the Soviet Union, without formally entering the war. Under this framework, the US provides military equipment as a loan; if the equipment is not or cannot be returned, recipient governments are on the hook to pay back the full cost. The Joe Biden administration explained its use of lend-lease by the need to quickly move the bill through Congress before other funding ran out. While many North Americans protested what they saw as a pointless giveaway of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to a foreign country, lend-lease provisions are loans, not grants. Britain, one of the United States’ closest allies, only finished paying back its 60-year-old lend-lease debt in 2006. Russia settled its former Soviet obligations the same year. Given this historical precedent, Ukraine will likely be saddled with debts it can’t readily pay back – debts extended to corrupt Western-backed elites under wartime duress. This means US financial institutions will have further collateral to impose neoliberal structural adjustment policies on Ukraine, subordinating its economy for years to come. Washington and its allies have a long history of instrumentalizing debt to force countries to accept unpopular pro-Western policy changes, and difficulties of repayment often compel countries to accept even more debt, leading to debt trap cycles that are extremely difficult to escape. It was in fact the International Monetary Fund, and specifically the refusal of Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych to accept IMF demands that he cut wages, slash social spending, and end gas subsidies in order to integrate with the EU, which led him to turn instead to Russia for an alternative economic agreement, thus setting the stage for the Western-backed “Euromaidan protests” and eventually the 2014 coup. International Monetary Fund played a crucial role in precipitating #UkraineWar https://t.co/AXXCULv0Gn — The Leaflet (@TheLeaflet_in) March 5, 2022 Meanwhile, in the current war, Moscow and Russian-backed separatist fighters are occupying and may annex what were historically the most industrialized regions of Ukraine, located in the east. At the same time, much of what remained of the country’s pre-war industrial base has been physically destroyed by the war. And these same regions hold much of Ukraine’s energy resources, notably coal. Millions of Ukrainians have already emigrated and are unlikely to return, especially if they are able to access work visas in the EU. Young and educated people with technical skills are the least likely to stay. The situation is even bleaker when one considers that, well before Russia’s February invasion, Ukraine was already the poorest country in Europe. While Soviet Ukraine had thrived as a centre of the USSR’s heavy industry, and a source for much of Soviet political leadership, post-Soviet Ukraine has been a playground for rival elites supported by the West or by Russia. Post-Soviet Ukraine has been devastated by persistent economic crises and rampant and systematic corruption. It has consistently had smaller incomes and a lower standard of living even compared to neighboring post-socialist countries, including Russia. Ukraine has not been able to restore the size of the economy it had in 1990, when it was still part of the Soviet Union. And looking beyond raw GDP data, the quality of life for many Ukrainian workers and their access to social services has significantly declined. With limited financial means to provide for basic state functions, much less to repay foreign debts, a post-war Ukraine could be forced to accept humiliating and dangerous concessions in other spheres – serving, say, as an Israel-style trying ground for weapons testing, or hosting Kosovo-style black sites for US covert operations, or providing Western businesses a Chile-style no-regulation environment for tax evasion and criminal activities – all while gutting what little remains of its domestic welfare state and labor protections. Yet instead of advocating for a diplomatic solution to the war, which could help the Ukrainian government and people concentrate their resources on economic recovery, Western governments have adamantly opposed proposed peace talks, insisting, in the words of EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, “This war will be won on the battlefield.” Washington and Brussels are sacrificing Ukraine for their geopolitical interests. And their Ukraine Recovery Conference shows they expect to keep benefiting economically even after the war ends. Touched by the resilience, determination and hospitality of @ZelenskyyUA & @Denys_Shmyhal. I return with a clear to do list: 1. This war will be won on the battlefield. Additional €500 million from the #EPF are underway. Weapon deliveries will be tailored to Ukrainian needs. pic.twitter.com/Jgr61t9FfW — Josep Borrell Fontelles (@JosepBorrellF) April 9, 2022

Write an article about: USA & NATO responsible for Ukraine war, German & French public say in poll. 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.

Alexei Navalny, Annalena Baerbock, Anti-Corruption Foundation, France, Germany, Leonid Volkov, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

Most people in Germany and France blame the United States and/or NATO for the war in Ukraine, according to a poll conducted not by a pro-Russian group but rather by anti-Putin activists. Most people in Germany and France blame the United States or NATO for the war in Ukraine, according to a poll conducted not by a pro-Russian group but rather by anti-Putin activists. This public opinion is unlikely to have a significant impact on government policy, however. Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated bluntly in a NATO-funded conference in 2022 that Berlin would support Ukraine “no matter what my German voters think”. An anti-Putin advocacy group that calls itself the “Anti-Corruption Foundation” conducted a poll in Europe to assess popular opinion of the war in Ukraine. To their surprise, they found that a majority of people in Germany, the most populous country with the largest economy in the European Union, did not blame Russia for the war. 60% of Germans blamed either the USA, NATO, or Ukraine for starting the war. Just 27% of Germans blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the German poll, respondents were only allowed to pick one answer. In France, the poll was a bit different, and people could blame multiple parties for starting the war in Ukraine. (This explains why the sum of the latter poll is greater than 100%.) Among the French surveyed, 43% blamed the USA, 36% NATO, 19% Ukraine, and 19% other European countries, while 40% blamed Putin. These results suggest that many average Europeans can see clearly that the conflict in Ukraine is not merely a battle between Kiev and Moscow, but rather a proxy war that the NATO military alliance, led by the United States, is waging against Russia. The outcome of these polls is even more striking when one considers who sponsored them. The so-called “Anti-Corruption Foundation” was founded by Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, a regime-change activist who is openly supported by Western governments. Navalny started his political career as a far-right nationalist, participating in racist rallies alongside skinheads and fascists. In 2007, Navalny made a fascistic campaign ad in which he compared Muslim immigrants in Russia to cockroaches, portrayed them as monsters, and even shot one with a gun. In his early years as a political gadfly, Navalny appealed to far-right racists with insinuations that he would kick out immigrants from the Caucasus. But like the neo-Nazi and extreme-right forces in Ukraine, Navalny later rebranded as a freedom-loving “anti-corruption” activist, and courted staunch Western backing. Despite its name, Navalny’s “Anti-Corruption Foundation” (ACF) doesn’t focus much on corruption. Rather, it is an explicitly anti-Putin opposition group, closely linked to Western governments, and flush with funding. At the top of its website (as of August 2023), the ACF says, “Together against Putin”. It has a big photo of Navalny, stating, “The man Putin fears”. A button below reads, “Defeat Putin”. This group is not in any way subtle; it is a Western-backed regime-change organization, dedicated to overthrowing the Russian government. Navalny’s chief of staff is an anti-Putin activist named Leonid Volkov. In his own political career, Volkov has long been involved in promoting neoliberal economics and pro-EU policies. Volkov was the longtime chairman of Navalny’s “Anti-Corruption Foundation”, although he was ironically exposed for being involved in corruption, lying about lobbying the EU to lift sanctions on London-based Russian oligarchs. On 16 August, Volkov tweeted the results of the poll, showing that a majority of people in Germany and France blame the US and/or NATO for the war in Ukraine. But that's not all the bad news I have for you today.Watch these slides and you will see how successful Putin is in spreading his lies and conspiracy theories in Western Europe.Who started the war? The answer of the majority is the Americans, NATO, Ukraine itself…10/14 pic.twitter.com/xKohtP1Gkb — Leonid Volkov (@leonidvolkov) August 15, 2023 Volkov claimed the results are evidence of “how successful Putin is in spreading his lies and conspiracy theories in Western Europe”. He failed to mention the US-sponsored 2014 coup in Ukraine, Washington’s color revolution in Kiev in 2004, NATO’s constant expansion and encirclement of Russia, the intentional sabotage of the Minsk Accords by Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky, or the West’s refusal to grant Russian security guarantees in late 2021.

Write an article about: German leftist lawmaker says US soldiers and nukes must leave her country. 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.

Annalena Baerbock, Germany, Marshall Plan, NATO, Sevim Dagdelen, Soviet Union, USSR, World War II

On the floor of Germany’s parliament, Left Party MP Sevim Dağdelen called for the c. 38,000 US soldiers in her country to leave, and to take their nuclear weapons with them. She lamented that Washington “doesn’t actually want allies, just loyal vassals”. A member of parliament from Germany’s Left Party has called for the thousands of US soldiers and nuclear weapons in her country to leave. “After 78 years, it is now time for US soldiers to go home. All other allies left Germany a long time ago”, said Die Linke MP Sevim Dağdelen on the floor of Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag. “The US nuclear weapons must go”, she added, in a March 31 parliamentary event on the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. As of 2022, the United States had 38,500 troops in Germany, in dozens of bases and other military installations. Dağdelen urged for “breaking with the existing relationship of extreme subservience by Germany on matters of US foreign policy, one that is marked by war, breaches of international law, and support of coups”. “The US administration gives the impression that they don’t actually want allies, just loyal vassals”, she said. “Yet fewer and fewer countries around the world are prepared to accept this. And that is good news”. “The US military bases behave like extraterritorial areas in which the [German] constitution does not apply”, Dağdelen said. “On German soil, assistance is provided in US wars, lethal drone strikes, and torture flights, in breach of international law”. “And the US hosts conferences at Ramstein Air Base in Germany as if the Occupation Statue was still in force”. Deutsch-Amerik. Freundschaft heute heißt, dass US-Soldaten aus #Deutschland abziehen & die #Atomwaffen mitnehmen.Meine Rede zu 75 Jahre #MarshallPlan German- #USA Friendship today means withdrawing US soldiers & nuclear weapons from Germany. My speech today in the #Bundestag ? pic.twitter.com/FC7iFmdlVH — Sevim Dağdelen, MdB (@SevimDagdelen) March 31, 2023 Dağdelen noted that “there once was a time when the Bundestag had more courage”, recalling that, in 2010, the German parliament voted overwhelmingly to withdraw US nuclear weapons. But she lamented that that resolution was not implemented. “Now, Germany’s federal government allows itself to be pushed directly into the line of fire by the USA, with supplies of Leopard battle tanks”, she continued, referencing the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. “Now the federal government is refusing to support an international investigative commission into the terror attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines”, Dağdelen added. “I say, terror attacks among friends simply cannot be tolerated”. She called for Berlin to defend its “democratic sovereignty”, asking, “Why is the federal government refusing, even after 20 years, to condemn the US war of aggression in Iraq as a violation of international law?” She also addressed Germany’s foreign minister: “Why are you, Ms. [Annalena] Baerbock, not lobbying for the release of Julian Assange, who faces 175 years in prison in the USA for making US war crimes public? Why did you not offer asylum to the dissident Edward Snowden?” Dağdelen did thank the United States for its support in the battle against the Nazi regime, but she noted that “the main burden in the fight against German fascism was shouldered by the Soviet Union”, which lost more than 26 million people in World War II, compared to 400,000 North Americans. In an interview with Geopolitical Economy Report in February, Dağdelen condemned the conflict in Ukraine as a NATO proxy war against Russia, lamenting that EU member states have been acting as US “vassals” and sacrificing their own economic interests on behalf of US corporations. I interviewed German Member of Parliament @SevimDagdelen, of the Left Party, Die Linke. She called to end NATO's "proxy war" in Ukraine, saying the EU are acting as US "vassal states". She denounced the US "terrorist attack" on Nord Stream. Full video: https://t.co/enAXNQbYrm pic.twitter.com/w8BlkroHV8 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 22, 2023

Write an article about: Illegal US sanctions blocking aid to Syria, after earthquake killed thousands. 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.

Alena Douhan, China, earthquake, HTS, sanctions, SDF, Syria, Turkey, Türkiye, Venezuela, YPG

Illegal US and EU sanctions have blocked some humanitarian aid from going to Syria after a devastating earthquake killed thousands of people. UN experts have demanded an end to the “suffocating” sanctions, saying they “may amount to crimes against humanity”. Illegal US and EU sanctions have prevented some humanitarian aid from being sent to Syria, after a devastating earthquake killed thousands of people. The death toll is increasing by the day, but at least 3000 Syrians had lost their lives due to the earthquake as of February 9. Thousands of buildings were also destroyed. This is especially damaging because Syria had already been destabilized by a decade of war, fueled with billions of dollars and foreign meddling by the US, Europe, and Israel. Syrian Arab Red Crescent director Khaled Hboubati told the Associated Press that unilateral Western sanctions have exacerbated the “difficult humanitarian situation”. “There is no fuel even to send (aid and rescue) convoys, and this is because of the blockade and sanctions”, Hboubati warned. Syria’s United Nations Ambassador Bassam al-Sabbagh explained that US and EU sanctions have prevented planes from landing in Syrian airports, “So even those countries who want to send humanitarian assistance, they cannot use the airplane cargo because of the sanctions”. The country’s Foreign Minister Fayssal Mikdad stated, “The sanctions imposed by the United States and Western countries on Syria exacerbated the disaster”. Syrian state media Sana reported, “Mikdad also stressed that the Americans claim that they did not impose sanctions on humanitarian aid, but in reality their sanctions do not allow anything from reaching Syria, including preventing the purchase of medicines, as well as Washington and its western allies give orders to some countries and threaten them to impose sanctions on them if they negotiate with Syria or if any bank deals with Syria”. In an interview with the Lebanon-based news network Al Mayadeen, the Syrian foreign minister emphasized that unilateral sanctions are illegal according to international law and violate the UN charter and numerous Security Council resolutions. In November 2022, the top UN expert on sanctions published a report detailing how “outrageous” Western sanctions are “suffocating” millions of Syrian civilians and “may amount to crimes against humanity.” The UN special rapporteur said “outrageous” Western sanctions on Syria are “suffocating” millions of civilians and “may amount to crimes against humanity.” Proxy war caused the country’s economy to shrink by 90%. Nine in 10 Syrians now live in povertyhttps://t.co/FmY7vMooqX — Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) November 28, 2022 When the US, Britain, and European Union launched a proxy war against Syria in 2011, they began imposing illegal unilateral sanctions. Those grew into a de facto blockade in 2019, with the passage of the so-called Caesar Act. Because of these sanctions and war, “The whole [Syrian] population stays in life-threatening conditions with severe shortages of drinking water”, electricity, fuel, and food, reported Alena Douhan, the UN special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. Syria’s economy shrunk by 90% due to the foreign-fueled proxy war. Today, nine in 10 Syrians live in poverty. The “huge negative effect of unilateral sanctions” have “a devastating effect on the whole population” and “a devastating effect on nearly all categories of human rights”, Douhan reiterated. The UN expert stated, “Maintaining unilateral sanctions amid the current catastrophic and still-deteriorating situation in Syria may amount to crimes against humanity against all Syrian people”. Syria’s northwestern Idlib province is controlled by an extremist Salafi-jihadist militia, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is a rebranded al-Qaeda affiliate. It has received extensive support from NATO member Türkiye (formerly known as Turkey). The northeastern part of Syria is occupied by the US military, in alliance with Kurdish-led forces from the SDF and YPG militias. This territory, which is effectively controlled by Washington, makes up a significant part of Syria’s oil fields and wheat production. China condemned the US sanctions against Syria, and called for them to be lifted. While sending humanitarian aid, Beijing also denounced the US military occupation of the country and its theft of Syrian resources. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated: The US has long been engaged in the Syrian crisis. Its frequent military strikes and harsh economic sanctions have caused huge civilian casualties and taken away the means to subsistence of the Syrians. As we speak, the US troops continue to occupy Syria’s principal oil-producing regions. They have plundered more than 80% of Syria’s oil production and smuggled and burned Syria’s grain stock. All this has made Syria’s humanitarian crisis even worse. In the wake of the catastrophe, the US should put aside geopolitical obsessions and immediately lift the unilateral sanctions on Syria, to unlock the doors for humanitarian aid to Syria. “US troops continue to occupy Syria’s principal oil-producing regions. They have plundered more than 80% of Syria’s oil production and smuggled and burned their grain stock. All this has made Syria’s humanitarian crisis even worse,” Mao Ning said following the massive quake. pic.twitter.com/1j3dz8MlTA — Andy Boreham 安柏然 (@AndyBxxx) February 8, 2023 Syria’s neighbor Türkiye was also hit hard by the earthquake. At least 16,000 people have died in the country. China responded by sending an 82-member rescue team and more than 20 tons of humanitarian supplies. While Venezuela is under illegal Western sanctions and a US blockade, it has shown solidarity with the people of Syria. In response to the earthquake, the Venezuelan government sent to Damascus a plane full of 15 tons of food, medicine, and other aid, along with a search and rescue team. Venezuela’s ambassador to Syria, José Gregorio Biomorgi Muzattiz, stated, “Solidarity will never be blockaded”. Syrian state media confirmed that a plane from Venezuela's state-owned airline Conviasa landed in Damascus, bringing 15 tons of humanitarian aid: Venezuela "breaks the [US/EU] blockade and arrives in Syria to help the people affected by the earthquake"https://t.co/gVIWYfIckc — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 9, 2023

Write an article about: Despite Biden’s claims, Gaza health ministry death toll is accurate, scientific studies show. 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.

Gaza, Israel, Palestine, The Lancet

US President Biden criticized Gaza’s health ministry, but its statistics on Israel’s killings of Palestinians are accurate, according to peer-reviewed articles in top medical journal The Lancet. The death toll of Israel’s war on Gaza reported by the Palestinian health ministry is accurate, according to two peer-reviewed studies by scientific experts published in top medical journal The Lancet. As of December 18, Israel had killed 19,453 Palestinians in Gaza, the ministry reported. Two-thirds of the deaths were children (7,729) and women (5,153). United Nations bodies, human rights organizations, and major media outlets have often used these statistics, because they have a history of being accurate. “International organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available”, the Washington Post acknowledged. “Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements”, the prominent US newspaper wrote. Israel has claimed, without any evidence, that Gaza’s health ministry is untrustworthy, because it is supposedly run by the political party Hamas. (In reality, the Gaza health ministry is partially funded by and linked to Hamas’ political rival, the Palestinian Authority, based in the Occupied West Bank.) The US government has echoed Israel’s disinformation. President Joe Biden said in an October 25 press conference, “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed… I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using”. Despite Biden’s criticism, HuffPost revealed that the US State Department uses the Palestinian health ministry figures in its own reports on Gaza. In one of such memos, a US official acknowledged that, if anything, “The numbers are likely much higher, according to the UN and NGOs reporting on the situation”. This was exactly the conclusion reached by scientific experts at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. The peer-reviewed article “No evidence of inflated mortality reporting from the Gaza Ministry of Health”, published in leading medical journal The Lancet on December 6, noted that the Palestinian institution “has historically reported accurate mortality data”. In past conflicts, discrepancies between Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH) data and independent United Nations figures were only between 1.5% and 3.8%. Gaza MoH data were also quite similar to figures from Israel’s own Foreign Ministry, with a difference of just around 8%. Scholars Benjamin Q Huynh, Elizabeth T Chin, and Paul B Spiegel wrote that they “found no evidence of inflated rates”. Scientific experts from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine came to a similar conclusion in their own peer-reviewed article in The Lancet, published on November 26. For this previous study, scholars Zeina Jamaluddine, Francesco Checchi, and Oona M R Campbell reviewed death statistics from October 7 to 26, analyzing the list of 7028 deaths compiled by the Gaza Ministry of Health. Out of the 7028 names, only one had a duplicated ID number, one had an implausible age, and just 281 lacked an ID number. The experts concluded that the data were reasonable, writing, “We consider it implausible that these patterns would arise from data fabrication”. They also reviewed MoH figures from previous wars in Gaza, and found them to be reliable. “Assessments of Palestinian MoH data validity in the 2014 conflict had shown them to be accurate, and we saw no obvious reason to doubt the validity of the data between Oct 7 and Oct 26, 2023”, the scholars stated. If anything, they concluded that the Gaza MoH figures may be rather conservative. “The death reporting system currently being used by the Palestinian MoH was assessed in 2021, 2 years before the current war, and was found to under-report mortality by 13%”, they wrote, adding that “it is plausible that the current Palestinian MoH source also under-reports mortality because of the direct effect of the war on data capture and reporting, for example by omitting people whose bodies could not be recovered or brought to morgues”.

Write an article about: US blocks peace in Gaza, supporting Israel’s genocidal war on civilians. 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.

Gaza, genocide, Israel, Nakba, Palestine, UN, UN Security Council, United Nations

The United States vetoed Gaza ceasefire proposals at the UN Security Council, while sending Israel more weapons. UN experts warn Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing. An Israeli scholar of the Holocaust says Israel is guilty of “genocide” against Palestinians. While Israel indiscriminately bombs the Gaza strip, killing thousands of Palestinian civilians, the United States has blocked numerous ceasefire proposals at the United Nations Security Council. Instead of supporting peace, Washington has sent more weapons and military aid to Israel. Meanwhile, mainstream Western human rights organizations have clearly stated that Israel is carrying out rampant war crimes, wiping out entire families. A top UN expert warned “that Palestinians are in grave danger of mass ethnic cleansing”. An Israeli scholar who is a specialist in genocide and the history of the Nazi holocaust even published an article warning that Israel’s scorched-earth war on Gaza is “a textbook case of genocide”. Gaza is a small strip of land that is just 40 kilometers (25 miles) long. But with roughly 2.3 million people, it is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. Since 2007, Palestinians in Gaza have lived under a suffocating Israeli blockade. In 2011, UN experts emphasized that this blockade flagrantly violates international law. But Israel continued to impose it, controlling everything that goes in and out of Gaza. Human Rights Watch stated in 2022 that Israel’s 15-year blockade had “devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians”. Israel had “turned Gaza into an open-air prison”, Human Rights Watch wrote. Even the United Kingdom’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged the same back in 2010, insisting, “Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp”. In response to an attack by Palestinian militants on 7 October, 2023, Israel tightened the blockade even further. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared, “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed”. The top Israeli official described Palestinians as “human animals”. The UN human rights chief, Volker Turk, publicly stated that this Israeli siege was illegal, and violated restrictions under international law against collective punishment of civilians. Ignoring the United Nations, Israel launched a devastating war, relentlessly carpet bombing civilian areas in Gaza. In 13 days of nonstop attacks, Israel had killed 4,137 Palestinians, according to data published on 20 October by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). The vast majority, 70 percent, of the Palestinians killed by Israel were children and women. Another 1,000 people were missing, many trapped under the rubble of their houses. Israel destroyed or damaged at least 30% of all housing units in Gaza, OCHA reported. A staggering 1.4 million of the roughly 2.3 million people in Gaza were internally displaced. A week into the Israeli bombing, on 14 October, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) published an alarming statement: “A UN human rights expert warned today that Palestinians are in grave danger of mass ethnic cleansing and called on the international community to urgently mediate a ceasefire”. “Palestinians have no safe zone anywhere in Gaza, with Israel having imposed a ‘complete siege’ on the tiny enclave, with water, food, fuel and electricity unlawfully cut off”, the OHCR stressed. The UN human rights office quoted the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, writing: “There is a grave danger that what we are witnessing may be a repeat of the 1948 Nakba, and the 1967 Naksa, yet on a larger scale. The international community must do everything to stop this from happening again,” the UN expert said. She noted that Israeli public officials have openly advocated for another Nakba, the term for the events of 1947-1949 when over 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes and lands during the hostilities that led to the establishment of the State of Israel. The Naksa, which led to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967, displaced 350,000 Palestinians. “Israel has already carried out mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the fog of war,” the expert said. “Again, in the name of self-defence, Israel is seeking to justify what would amount to ethnic cleansing. “Any continued military operations by Israel have gone well beyond the limits of international law. The international community must stop these egregious violations of international law now, before tragic history is repeated.” Many countries have joined UN officials in calling for a ceasefire to end the violence in Gaza. But the United States has blocked all attempts at bringing about peace. On 16 October, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted on a resolution that called for a humanitarian ceasefire. The measure was proposed by Russia. The ceasefire resolution was opposed by four former colonial powers on the council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Japan. Five Security Council members supported it: China, Russia, Gabon, Mozambique, and the United Arab Emirates. The remaining six countries on the 15-member UNSC abstained: Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Malta, and Switzerland. The UN News agency noted that Russia’s representative, Vassily Nebenzia, blamed the “selfish intention of the Western bloc” for sabotaging the ceasefire proposal, stating that the US and its allies had “basically stomped” on the attempt to bring about peace. The Western powers killed a UN Security Council resolution that proposed a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza The resolution was proposed by Russia 5 countries voted for the ceasefire:???????? China???????? Gabon???????? Mozambique???????? Russia???????? UAE 4 voted against:???????? France???????? Japan???????? UK???????? US… pic.twitter.com/6UMfoRRqQH — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 17, 2023 Two days later, the UN Security Council held another vote on a Gaza-related resolution. This measure, which was proposed by Brazil, called for “humanitarian pauses”, in order to send aid to besieged civilians. The United States was the only country on the 15-member council that voted against this resolution. Washington thus killed the proposal, because it is one of the five permanent members, which have veto power. 12 UNSC members voted for the humanitarian pauses: Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland, and the UAE. The United Kingdom abstained in the vote, along with Russia. But while London abstained as a show of support for Israel, Moscow abstained in protest of how weak the measure was. UN News reported, “Prior to the vote, two amendments proposed by Russia, calling for an immediate, durable and full ceasefire, and to stop attacks against civilians were rejected by the Security Council”. The UN News agency added that Russia’s ambassador, Nebenzia, “proposed a call to end indiscriminate attacks on civilians and infrastructure in Gaza and the condemnation of the imposition of the blockade on the enclave; and adding a new point for a call for a humanitarian ceasefire”. US vetoes Security Council resolution that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza Favor: 12 (Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland,UAE)Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 2 Russia, UK pic.twitter.com/y4tiAbRMUQ — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) October 18, 2023 An anonymous senior diplomat from an unnamed G7 member state acknowledged to the Financial Times that the nations of the Global South, which represent the vast majority of the world population, have been enraged by the West’s support for Israel as it massacres Palestinian civilians. “We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South”, the diplomat lamented. ”Forget about rules, forget about world order. They won’t ever listen to us again”. "We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South", a Western diplomat admitted. "Forget about rules, forget about world order. They won’t ever listen to us again". True — although the Global South never supported the G7 colonial powers. What is different now is Global… pic.twitter.com/Nz3a3VlCZ7 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 19, 2023 On 18 October, the day that the United States unilaterally killed the UNSC proposal for a humanitarian pause in Gaza, President Joe Biden arrived in Israel. There, Biden met with the country’s far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The US president reassured him unflinching support for Israel. The Biden administration also released a $105 billion national security package, which included $14.3 billion in aid for Israel (along with $61.4 billion for Ukraine). This funding was in addition to the baseline $3.8 billion in military aid that the United States provides to Israel every year. Biden’s friendly meeting with Netanyahu came at a moment when Israel was bombing not only Gaza, but also the occupied West Bank, southern Lebanon, and even airports in the Syrian cities of Damascus and Aleppo. On 19 October, Israel attacked the roughly 1,000-year-old St. Porphyrios Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza, killing at least 17 civilians, including 10 members of a family. Numerous international Christian churches condemned this Israeli assault on Palestinian civilians. The Catholic Church’s Vatican News agency cited a statement by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, which wrote that “targeting churches and its affiliated institutions, in addition to the shelters they provide to protect innocent citizens, especially children and women who lost their homes as a result of the Israeli bombing of residential areas during the past thirteen days, constitutes a war crime that cannot be ignored”. The World Council of Churches likewise stated, “We condemn this unconscionable attack on a sacred compound and call upon the world community to enforce protections in Gaza for sanctuaries of refuge”. Amnesty International then published a bone-chilling report on 20 October titled “Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza”. The mainstream Western human rights organization described Israel’s attack as a “cataclysmic assault on the occupied Gaza Strip”, writing: Amnesty International has documented unlawful Israeli attacks, including indiscriminate attacks, which caused mass civilian casualties and must be investigated as war crimes. The organization spoke to survivors and eyewitnesses, analysed satellite imagery, and verified photos and videos to investigate air bombardments carried out by Israeli forces between 7 and 12 October, which caused horrific destruction, and in some cases wiped out entire families. Here the organization presents an in-depth analysis of its findings in five of these unlawful attacks. In each of these cases, Israeli attacks violated international humanitarian law, including by failing to take feasible precautions to spare civilians, or by carrying out indiscriminate attacks that failed to distinguish between civilians and military objectives, or by carrying out attacks that may have been directed against civilian objects. “In their stated intent to use all means to destroy Hamas, Israeli forces have shown a shocking disregard for civilian lives. They have pulverized street after street of residential buildings killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential infrastructure, while new restrictions mean Gaza is fast running out of water, medicine, fuel and electricity. Testimonies from eyewitness and survivors highlighted, again and again, how Israeli attacks decimated Palestinian families, causing such destruction that surviving relatives have little but rubble to remember their loved ones by,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General. Israeli forces have shown a shocking disregard for civilian lives. They have pulverized street after street of residential buildings killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential infrastructure. Our full findings and calls here ???? https://t.co/FtogYxR2Xf — Amnesty International (@amnesty) October 20, 2023 The same day that Amnesty released this report on Israeli war crimes, Republicans and Democrats in the US Senate voted unanimously, 97-0, to support Tel Aviv. An Israeli scholar has argued that Tel Aviv is engaged in a campaign of genocide against Palestinians. The magazine Jewish Currents published an article on 13 October by Raz Segal, an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University in the United States. Segal wrote that “the assault on Gaza can also be understood in other terms: as a textbook case of genocide unfolding in front of our eyes. I say this as a scholar of genocide, who has spent many years writing about Israeli mass violence against Palestinians”. “Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by ‘the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,’ as noted in the December 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, Segal explained, adding, “In its murderous attack on Gaza, Israel has loudly proclaimed this intent”. Even a columnist at the mainstream British newspaper The Guardian, Chris McGreal, warned that the “language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal”. He noted that Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, blamed the Palestinian people as a whole for the 7 October attacks, declaring, “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true”. Similarly, a member of Israel’s parliament from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s far-right Likud party, Ariel Kallner, openly called for the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, proclaiming, “Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948”.

Write an article about: Western media helps Ukrainian neo-Nazis spread staged propaganda. 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.

Azov Battalion, corporate media, Freikorps, media, Russia, Ukraine

Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion organized a photo op training Ukrainian elderly women and children to shoot guns. Top US and British media outlets eagerly spread the fascist propaganda to demonize Russia. Major Western media outlets have helped to amplify a photo op staged by neo-Nazi extremists in Ukraine as a form of anti-Russia propaganda. Ukraine’s state-backed neo-Nazi militia the Azov Battalion organized a training session for civilians on February 13 in the southeastern city of Mariupol, near the border with Russia. The fascist extremists captured videos and photos of Ukrainian elderly women and children learning how to shoot guns. And they found eager allies in the Western press. Several US and British media outlets promoted the training session, depicting it as a noble form of Ukrainian self-defense against an impending Russian invasion, without mentioning that the event was organized by neo-Nazis. This is despite the fact that the Nazi-style Wolfsangel symbol could be clearly seen on the patches of the Azov extremists hosting the training. A Nazi-style Wolfsangel patch can be seen on the Azov militant training Ukrainians Media networks like Bloomberg promoted video footage of the training session in which these Azov fascists proudly display their Nazi-style Wolfsangel patches, and failed to disclose their extremist far-right views. Another Nazi-style Wolfsangel patch on an Azov militant at the training session in Mariupol, Ukraine The Azov Battalion played a key role as the violent muscle behind a US-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Following the putsch, Azov was officially incorporated into the country’s National Guard. The group makes no secret of its fascist and white-supremacist ideology, proudly using two Nazi symbols in its official logo. The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion NBC News’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, exemplified how renowned Western reporters helped amplify this neo-Nazi propaganda operation. Engel tweeted a photo of a Ukrainian great grandmother named Valentina Constantinovska who participated in the training. The veteran NBC journalist failed to mention that the event was organized by neo-Nazis. Did you not notice the fascist Azov Battalion insignia? Did you not realize it was fascist Azov Battalion? If you didn't know, why are you covering Ukraine when you know so little? pic.twitter.com/WYyRo937Kw — Margaret Kimberley (@freedomrideblog) February 14, 2022 Photos of this elderly Ukrainian woman holding an assault rifle on the ground were heavily promoted by US and British media outlets. Newspapers like The Times and the Daily Telegraph put the image on the front page, while failing to mention the fascist Azov extremists behind the photo op. Amazing. Czech media reporting that Granny Valentyna's photo op was organized by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. Meaning a bonafide Nazi propaganda tool is the darling of the Angloid media elites. Truly the face of Ukrainian resistance.https://t.co/Gis690ivAK pic.twitter.com/hYVdnd2zBe — Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) February 14, 2022 A video package of the Azov training session was prepared by major Western news agency the Associated Press (AP), and subsequently republished by numerous top media outlets. The original AP source footage was simply titled “Ukraine special forces offer training to civilians.” In the lengthy description accompanying the video, the AP quietly acknowledged that the Azov Battalion was “formed in 2014 by far-right activists,” but this fact was curiously not disclosed by other media outlets. In fact the Azov Battalion published video of the training session on its own official YouTube account, and posted a press release about the event to its website. Western corporate media outlets essentially acted as Azov’s unwitting press team. Military.com published the AP video with the headline “Ukraine Special Forces Offer Training to Civilians.” Britain’s The Independent ran the footage as well, under the title “Ukraine Special Forces train elderly and child civilians amid rising Russian tensions.” Neither Military.com nor The Independent disclosed that the training session was organized by Nazis, describing them instead simply as “the Special Forces Unit Azov.” Not all Western media outlets were so gullible, however. The internet loves Valentina, a 79-year-old Ukrainian grandma training to repel Russian invaders! *5 seconds later* We regret to inform you Valentina was trained by far-right nationalists https://t.co/PtEqjPoZkn — max seddon (@maxseddon) February 14, 2022 Euronews, for instance, published the same footage with the title “Ukraine far-right group offers training to civilians.” Euronews acknowledged that the training was organized by “Members of Ukraine’s far right movement Azov.” The media outlet reported, “Ukraine’s far right Azov Battalion, part of Special Forces Unit at Ukraine’s National Guard, trained residents to assemble and dissemble a gun, to load ammunition and aim at targets.” London’s BBC, on the other hand, uncritically promoted the video of the neo-Nazi training session. Why did @OrlaGuerin and @BBCNews not inform viewers that the weapons training shown here is by the far-right Azov Brigade?https://t.co/FLzNCYIQrG https://t.co/3YHUKzmy7n — Media Lens (@medialens) February 14, 2022 On January 30, NBC News published another example of subtle Nazi propaganda. Its video titled “Kyiv residents pick up their guns to train for potential Russian attack” featured Azov fighters, but did not mention their far-right extremist ideology. NBC described the hard-line fascist militants simply as “veterans of the conflict against pro-Russian separatist rebels in Ukraine’s Donbas region.” Every single time. pic.twitter.com/bOiBFOSlya — Ian Goodrum (@isgoodrum) February 15, 2022 Azov is one of several far-right extremist militias in Ukraine. The country has even launched its own version of the Freikorps, proto-fascist paramilitaries in Germany that formed the violent base of Nazism. One of the few exceptions to this pattern of whitewashed Western media reporting was Al Jazeera English, which published a report on February 13 titled “Ukraine: Allegedly neo-Nazi armed groups fighting Russia-backed separatists.” Al Jazeera English reporter Charles Stratford interviewed members of Ukraine’s far-right Freikorps. Unlike the other journalists, Stratford did make it clear that these extremists are neo-Nazis. He did not hide their explicitly fascist ideology. The report by Al Jazeera English even showed the Freikorps militants posing in front of a Nazi-style Wolfsangel flag, next to a Ukrainian national flag. AL Jazeera English also made it clear that some of these Nazi extremists have been incorporated into the Ukrainian state.

Write an article about: Ukraine is brutally repressing the left, criminalizing socialist parties, imprisoning activists. 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.

Azov, David Frum, left, media, Nazis, Russia, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky

Ukraine’s Western-backed government has criminalized socialist political parties, while its Nazi-infiltrated intelligence agencies are hunting down leftists, accusing them of being too soft on Russia. This comes after Kiev gave state honors to WWII-era Ukrainian fascists who collaborated with Hitler. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Ukraine’s Western-backed government has used Russia’s February 24 invasion to drastically escalate its repression of the left, banning Ukrainian socialist parties and imprisoning left-wing activists. There are widespread reports of Ukrainian state security services arresting and torturing leftists. Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists have systematically infiltrated Kiev’s police, military, and intelligence agencies since a US-sponsored 2014 coup installed a compliant pro-Western government. In an early morning speech on March 20, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council was banning 11 opposition political parties, half of which are left-wing. Some of the parties that were criminalized include the Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, and Party of Socialists. Zelensky published an English-language transcript of this speech on the official website of the office of the president, boasting of having prohibited the dozen opposition parties. To justify illegalizing these left-wing forces, the Ukrainian government accused them of being pro-Russian, or having unproven “ties” to Moscow. However, some of these opposition parties have publicly condemned the Russian invasion. Ukraine, which is under martial law, is using the war with Russia to crush all political opposition. And the US and EU are staunchly supporting the regime as it consolidates absolute power. On March 20, Zelensky also signed a decree to seize control of all private media outlets, combining them into one state-controlled platform, with a “unified information policy” that ensures no deviation from the official Ukrainian regime propaganda line. Citing martial law, Ukraine president signs decree to combine national TV channels into one platform https://t.co/Bkyi6m2DXM pic.twitter.com/sg7bqtaGQF — Reuters (@Reuters) March 20, 2022 Back in February 2021, more than a year before Russia invaded, Zelensky similarly shut down several TV channels that criticized his government. He subsequently arrested opposition politicians who challenged his iron grip on power, such as the elected lawmaker Viktor Medvedchuk. Zelensky did this with full Western backing. But this is far from the first time that Kiev has implemented such extremist policies. After the US-backed “Maidan” coup in 2014, the Ukrainian regime effectively declared war on the left. Kiev banned all communist parties and launched a far-right “decommunization” campaign that made it illegal to be a communist. Simultaneously, the Western-backed Ukrainian government gave state honors to Ukrainian fascists who had collaborated with Nazi Germany in the Holocaust. Britain’s establishment newspaper The Guardian admitted this in a 2015 article titled “Ukraine bans Soviet symbols and criminalises sympathy for communism.” The Guardian wrote, “Two new laws that ban communist symbols while honouring nationalist groups that collaborated with the Nazis have come into effect in Ukraine, raising concerns that Kiev could be stifling free speech and further fragmenting the war-torn country.” These articles say something about the state of Ukraine's democracy. The Communist Party is banned. Singing the Internationale can get you 5 years in prison. It's an offence to deny the "criminal character" of the USSR. Meanwhile Nazi collaborators are honoured and racism is ok pic.twitter.com/gKUKrmHiux — Carlos Martinez (@agent_of_change) March 16, 2022 The use of all Marxist symbols is illegal in Ukraine, including the hammer and sickle or even Soviet-era souvenirs and memorabilia. After the Western-backed 2014 coup, it was made illegal in Ukraine to sing The Internationale, the anthem of the global socialist movement. Any individual caught violating Ukraine’s far-right “decommunization” laws faces up to five years in prison, and members of left-wing organizations face up to 10 years behind bars. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s post-Maidan coup regime made it a crime to criticize ultra-nationalist Nazi collaborators, including the fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). Leaders of these far-right Ukrainian death squads, including Hitler collaborator Stepan Bandera, have become state heroes. The United States and European Union strongly supported the right-wing regime in Kiev as it passed these extremist policies, blatantly violating the civil liberties of left-wing Ukrainians. Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, there have also been reports of rampant use of torture and other extreme human rights abuses committed by the neo-Nazi and far-right forces in Ukraine’s security services. Ukrainian leftists created a Telegram channel called “Repression of the left and dissenters in Ukraine,” sharing chilling reports of brutally violent crimes carried out by the Western-backed Ukrainian regime. (Some of their stories are embedded at the bottom of this article.) The authenticity of these accounts was confirmed by prominent left-wing activist Paweł Wargan, the coordinator of the International Secretariat of the Progressive International. The internal Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), which has been infiltrated by neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, has been particularly vicious in its crackdown on the Ukrainian left. Left-wing activists and journalists have been quite literally hunted down and tortured. Extremists in the SBU also shot and killed a Ukrainian negotiator who had been involved in peace talks with Russia, accusing him of “treason.” Amid the horrors of war, the Ukrainian left has faced tremendous and violent repression. Read their plea for international solidarity. pic.twitter.com/bX42kYKurV — Paweł Wargan (@pawelwargan) March 19, 2022 Following the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014, neo-Nazi militias like the Azov regiment were officially incorporated into the National Guard, while the fascist Aidar Battalion became part of the Armed Forces. NATO member states have sent weapons to these Ukrainian neo-Nazis, and have even trained them. After Russia invaded, Ukraine’s National Guard posted a propaganda video on Twitter boasting of a neo-Nazi fighter from the Azov detachment greasing bullets with pig fat in order to kill Chechen Muslims, which the Ukrainian state institution dehumanized as “orcs.” This is the official, verified Twitter account of Ukraine's National Guard publicly portraying Russian Chechen Muslims as monstrous "orcs," and praising its Nazi soldiers for threatening to kill them with lard-greased bullets: https://t.co/gs0yYu4qXohttps://t.co/PMKeTajw9e — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022 While the Ukrainian regime criminalizes socialist parties and hunts down leftists, in alliance with neo-Nazis, Western media pundits are heaping praise on Kiev. David Frum, a former speechwriter for US President George W. Bush and editor of the centrist Atlantic magazine, insisted on Twitter that “Ukraine may be the first example in human history of a country that under the pressure of war is becoming *more* tolerant and *more* liberal.” Frum tweeted this mere hours before Ukraine banned socialist parties and seized control of all media outlets in the country. Ukraine may be the first example in human history of a country that under the pressure of war is becoming *more* tolerant and *more* liberal — David Frum (@davidfrum) March 19, 2022 Below Multipolarista has embedded reports compiled by the “Repression of the left and dissenters in Ukraine” Telegram channel: Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, representatives of the far-right and liberal milieu have been spreading calls for violence and even for the killing of those who had previously publicly advocated the implementation of the Minsk agreements, against “decommunisation” and for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Donbas. Activists of left-wing groups were the first to be threatened. Lists of unreliables have emerged. Some “left-wing activists” also started compiling lists of “wrong leftists”. On 3 March, SBU officers, with the participation of neo-Nazis from the Azov group, detained leftist activist Oleksandr Matyushenko from the Levitsa association in Dnipropetrovsk. He was charged under Article 437 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code – “waging aggressive war”. And, as the courts in Ukraine do not work now, he was arrested for 30 days without trial – on the prosecutor’s order. The details of the criminal case are not known because the SBU refuses to introduce it to anyone but his lawyer. But most lawyers refuse to defend him or demand 3,000 dollars for their services, a rather large sum for Ukrainians. On the same day, 12 people were detained in Dnipro on similar charges. On March 4, 14 people were detained. On 5 March, 11 people were detained. In Kyiv, arrests had begun even earlier. On 27 February, brothers Mikhail and Aleksandr Kononovich, leaders of the Ukrainian Komsomol [the Communist Youth], ethnic Belarusians, were detained. It is not known where they are and what they are accused of, as there is no contact with them. On 7 March, journalist Dmitriy Dzhangirov, a member of the New Socialism party, Vasyl Volha, a former leader of the Union of Left Forces, journalist Yury Dudkin and publicist Aleksandr Karevin, who managed to write on his Facebook page: “The SBU has come”, were detained in Kiev. Where all of them are now and what they are accused of is also unknown. Dzhangirov’s Facebook page posted a video of him, possibly under physical duress, saying things that are not typical of him. On 11 March, left-wing activist Spartak Golovachev disappeared in Kharkiv. “The door is being broken down by armed men in Ukrainian uniforms. Goodbye,” he managed to write on social media. It should be noted that there is fighting for Kharkiv, but in general it is under the control of the Ukrainian armed forces. On March 11, in Odessa, the SBU detained Elena Vyacheslavova, the daughter of Mikhail Vyacheslavov, who died on May 2, 2014 in the fire of the Odessa House of Trade Unions. The whereabouts of several members of the left-wing New Socialism and Derzhava parties are also unknown. They have stopped making contact or writing anything on social media. They may be in hiding, but they may also have been detained. On March 13, in a village near Odessa, neighbors with nationalist sentiments burned down the house of left-wing activist Dmitry Lazarev. On March 4, Vladimir Ivanov, a left-wing activist from Zaporozhye, disappeared. His whereabouts are unknown. Posts that are uncharacteristic for him are appearing in his Telegram account. According to reports from Dnepropetrovsk, on March 19, in the city of Krivoy Rog, security forces broke into a house and detained Yuriy Bobchenko, chairman of the Trade Union of Metallurgists and Miners of Ukraine at the Arcelor Mital Krivoy Rog enterprise, owned by transnational capital. All indications are that as the fighting continues, the repression of dissenters and leftists will continue. Our capacity to defend the rights of the politically repressed in Ukraine is now very limited. And solidarity with Ukrainian political prisoners of the left and human rights defenders in all countries is very important to us.

Write an article about: US pushing war on China: Malaysia’s ex PM explains imperialism’s roots in capitalism. 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.

capitalism, China, imperialism, Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia, neoliberalism

Malaysia’s ex Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad warned the US is provoking war with China over Taiwan. He also explained how imperialism is rooted in capitalism. Malaysia’s longest-serving Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad warned that the US is trying to start a war with China over Taiwan. He also explained how imperialism is rooted in capitalism and detailed its economic exploitation of the Global South. “Malaysia’s Mahathir says US seeking to provoke war in Taiwan,” Associated Press “Mahathir: We can learn a lot from China,” 2019 interview with The Star PBS interview with Mahathir Mohamad in 2001 Quotes from the 2001 PBS interview: INTERVIEWER: I want to take you back to the end of the Cold War, [when] you said that capitalism was capitalism with a big “C,” not democracy. Can you tell me what you meant by that? DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: It’s quite obvious that when the Eastern bloc was still there, it was a bustle between capitalism and communism. Once communism was defeated, then capitalism could expand and show its true self. It’s no longer constrained by the need to be nice, so that people will choose their so-called free-market system as opposed to the centrally planned system. So because of that, nowadays there is nothing to restrain capital, and capital is demanding that it should be able to go anywhere and do whatever it likes. INTERVIEWER: You also said that capitalism can be linked to the new imperialism; instead of bombs, instead of nuclear warheads, capital is the new weapon. Can you tell me what you mean by that? DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: In the old days you needed to conquer a country with military force, and then you could control that country. Today it’s not necessary at all. You can destabilize a country, make it poor, and then make it request help. And [in exchange] for the help that is given, you gain control over the policies of the country, and when you gain control over the policies of a country, effectively you have colonized that country. INTERVIEWER: [Friedrich von] Hayek, [Milton] Friedman and others would say that free markets work. Free markets should be left alone to rule the world, and prosperity would follow. What do you think would happen if free markets are left unregulated? DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: If they are left unregulated then they will profiteer, because the market is all about making profits, as much profit as possible, and they will do anything in order to increase their profits. One [thing companies will do] is to become monopolies. If they could monopolize something, they could corner the market; then they can enrich themselves. What happens to people — that is irrelevant to them. They are not in the business of attending to the social needs of people. They are only thinking about their profit, and if you allow the market to go free, unregulated, then the world will face monopolies of giants who will not care at all about what happens to people, what happens to the consumers, for example. Of course, a big company can be more efficient, probably do more R & D. But you reach the stage of a monopoly, you don’t have to bother, because whatever you produce people have to buy anyway. That will lead to a deterioration in the quality of things. So it is not true at all that a free market will ensure a democracy. It doesn’t. There must be a balance between a free market and some regulations which are essential in order to safeguard the interests of consumers and of people in general. … We believe in trade, but we didn’t believe in just being a market for other people. But the stress is on market opening. Even if you open your market to us, we have very little to sell other than raw material…. In terms of finished product, we must sell more raw material all the time in order to buy less and less finished product. So when you talk about opening markets, you’re talking about the rich people who can manufacture goods with added value and selling it in our markets, not the other way around. … INTERVIEWER: In the early to mid-90s, we heard of the Washington consensus. Maybe you can explain what you felt was the Washington consensus. Here in Malaysia, did you feel that there was a new policy being pushed? What for you was the Washington consensus? DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: Washington itself implied that this is something out of the rich Western countries, and if they agree on something that is to be imposed on the rest of the world, it means that there is no consultation. It should be a world consensus, not a Washington consensus. Every time we are up against this understanding there, we find that they are all designed in order to be in their favor, to enrich them, in fact, and it would be at our expense. That is why we feel a need to resist the Washington consensus. … INTERVIEWER: Let’s talk more about the Washington consensus and the American desire for Asia to open her markets. Was the head of the IMF coming to you and saying, “What you should do is open your capital markets — it’ll make you prosperous”? Was there other talk of American free marketeers as evangelists, who were like missionaries going out to Asia and spreading the gospel of the free market? When did you sense this, and was anyone talking to you about this? DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: I think it was very early on, long before globalization was being implemented or becoming a very common household word. Various delegations came from America, one of which was headed by [former Secretary of State Alexander] Haig, and they were insisting that we allow American banks to operate as national banks in this country. We pointed out that if they come in, their size would smother the Malaysian banks. But [we were told] this is good for you, because they are going to bring in their expertise [and] efficiency, and things would be stimulated by their participation. We have a responsibility to protect our local banks. We told them that we are not ready yet for that. Wait until we are big enough, and then you can come in. So very early on there has been this pressure to give national status to foreign companies. National status is what we use to protect our weak businesses, banks, and industries so that they have a chance to survive. But if you allow at that early stage for foreign companies to attain national status, then there’s no way we can protect our own businesses. Of course, when globalization became a formal idea which everybody seemed to espouse, it is the same thing: the desire [to] give foreign companies national status in your country. We felt if we do that, then all our own businesses will be just swallowed up. All will just perish, so that is why we fear that globalization, as defined by the Western countries, is not going to be good for us, and we had a foretaste of that during the currency crisis.

Write an article about: Many Global South countries blame US/NATO for Ukraine war, not Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Brazil, China, India, Iran, Laos, NATO, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, Venezuela, Vietnam

While Western powers impose sanctions on Russia, many countries in the Global South blame the US and NATO for the Ukraine war, including South Africa, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Eritrea. China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Mexico, Vietnam, and more remain neutral. These represent the majority of the world’s population. The United States and its Western allies have exclusively blamed Moscow for the war in Ukraine, imposing crushing sanctions aimed at suffocating Russia’s economy and ultimately provoking regime change in the Kremlin. But the reality is very different in the Global South. While the governments representing the roughly 15% of the global population living in North America and Europe portray the proxy conflict in Ukraine as a battle between the so-called “international community” on one side and Russia on the other, that it not how it is seen by many states representing the vast majority of humanity in the Global South. South Africa, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Eritrea, among other nations, have all clearly said that it is the United States and its NATO military alliance that bear responsibility for causing the war in Ukraine, not Russia. Many other countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa have expressed neutrality in the conflict, refusing to join the Western campaign to isolate Moscow. The largest nation on Earth, China, has publicly maintained neutrality, while backing Russia economically and blaming “US hegemony” and NATO in its media. Even India, the world’s second-biggest country by population, whose right-wing government has become a close US ally in recent years, has been careful to stay neutral. India is also developing an alternative payment mechanism to circumvent Western sanctions on Russia and instead do trade in Indian rupees and Russian rubles, cutting out the dollar. Pakistan, the world’s fifth-most populous nation, is neutral as well, while leaning toward supporting Moscow. Bangladesh, the ninth-largest country, is also neutral, and is considering using the Chinese currency, the yuan, to evade sanctions and continue trading with Russia. Vietnam has likewise shown neutrality, calling for dialogue to lead to a peaceful resolution, while still maintaining friendly relations with Russia. Many African nations are neutral, including Algeria, Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda, and Tanzania. One of the most important US trade partners, Mexico, has taken a neutral stance as well. The center-left government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has refused to give in to Washington’s pressure to impose sanctions on Russia. The government of Bolivia’s socialist President Luis Arce has shown neutrality, while anti-imperialist former President Evo Morales blamed NATO and said “the US uses Ukraine to militarily, politically, and economically attack the people of Russia.” Morales made a “call for an international mobilization to stop the interventionist expansionism of NATO and the US,” declaring that its “hegemony of weapons and imperialism puts world peace at risk.” He has since helped organize popular workshops teaching people about the crimes of NATO. Even the notoriously pro-US regime of Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has stayed neutral. Brazil’s foreign minister, Carlos Franca, said the country’s position was one of “impartiality,” not siding firmly with Russia or Ukraine. Brazil’s left-wing Workers’ Party published a statement blaming the United States and NATO expansion onto Russian borders for the conflict, although it later deleted the post and took a more neutral position. Former president Dilma Rousseff expressed a similar stance. Russia is part of the BRICS framework, uniting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa in an attempt to create an alternative political and economic infrastructure to challenge Western hegemony. All of the other countries in this bloc, which represent some of the largest economies in the world, have stayed neutral over Ukraine, while some have explicitly blamed the US and NATO. The countries in yellow have sanctioned Russia. The countries in gray have not sanctioned Russia. pic.twitter.com/0md8fPxOoB — Ollie Vargas (@OVargas52) March 25, 2022 The government of South Africa has pointed the finger at NATO for starting the war in Ukraine. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said in parliament, “The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region,” in comments reported by Reuters. “There are those who are insisting that we should take a very adversarial stance against Russia. The approach we are going to take (instead) is … insisting that there should be dialogue,” the South African president said. “Screaming and shouting is not going to bring an end to this conflict.” The South African leader did not however endorse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, stating that his government “cannot condone the use of force and violation of international law.” Ramaphosa is the leader of the African National Congress (ANC) party that led the struggle to overthrow the system of racial apartheid imposed by Dutch colonialism in South Africa. The ANC has maintained a neutral foreign policy, balancing between the Western powers, Russia, and China. The views expressed by South Africa’s government are shared by many other countries on the continent. The governments of Algeria, Angola, Eritrea, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, which waged successful anti-colonialist struggles, have either blamed NATO for the war, or stayed neutral. The Western political establishment’s frustration over African neutrality was made clear in a March 28 report in British elite newspaper The Guardian. Drenched in neocolonialist rhetoric, this article had the title “Cold war echoes as African leaders resist criticising Putin’s war,” and the subtitle “Many remember Moscow’s support for liberation from colonial rule, and a strong anti-imperialist feeling remains.” The condescending report conceded that numerous African states are “calling for peace but blaming Nato’s eastward expansion for the war, complaining of western ‘double standards’ and resisting all calls to criticise Russia.” The Guardian lamented, “Support from many African leaders and governments for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – or at least reluctance to condemn it – has dismayed western officials.” The British newspaper reluctantly acknowledged that many African nations, such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, and Mozambique, “are still ruled by parties that were supported by Moscow during their struggles for liberation from colonial or white supremacist rule.” In Latin America, positions on the war in Ukraine are transparently divided on ideological lines: left-wing anti-imperialists have blamed the US and NATO for the war, while right-wing pro-US forces have demonized Russia and heroized Ukraine. As Multipolarista previously reported, a top US official admitted that Washington’s sanctions on Russia over Ukraine also intentionally seek to hurt Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. These three Latin American nations with socialist governments, where the United States has constantly organized coup attempts, have blamed US aggression against Russia and NATO expansion for the crisis in Ukraine, while simultaneously emphasizing how tragic war is and how much the world needs peace. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said his government “laments the mockery and breaking of the Minsk agreements by NATO, promoted by the United States of America,” accusing Washington and NATO of causing the conflict because they “generated strong threats against the Russian Federation.” Cuba’s Foreign Ministry wrote, “The U.S. determination to continue NATO’s progressive expansion towards the Russian Federation borders has brought about a scenario with implications of unpredictable scope, which could have been avoided.” The Cuban government added, “History will hold the United States accountable for the consequences of an increasingly offensive military doctrine outside NATO’s borders, which threatens international peace, security and stability.” Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega stressed that war is never a good thing, causing people to “lose their humanity” and generating destructive economic consequences. But he put the blame for this war squarely on Washington. The Sandinista leader recalled that the United States organized a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014, overthrowing its democratically elected government with “terrorism,” and then installing into power “political forces subordinated to the North American government and European imperialism, who have thought that now is the time that Europe and the United States eliminate Russia, without keeping in mind that there are big changes in the world, that there are other powers in the world.” Very similar comments were made by the government in Iran, another Global South nation that waged a successful revolution against a Western-backed regime. Iran’s public media outlet Press TV reported: “Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has blamed the American regime for the current Ukraine crisis, and demanded an end to the war in Ukraine.” “The US disrupted the stability of the country [Ukraine] by interfering in its affairs and organizing rallies and creating a color coup,” Khamenei said, referring to the US-sponsored 2014 coup in Kiev. “We oppose the killing of people and the destruction of the infrastructure of nations,” he added. The Iranian supreme leader referred to the United States as “basically a mafia regime – political mafia, economic mafia, arms mafia and all kinds of mafias that run and rule the policies of that country and control the country.” He said the US “regime is a crisis-producing and crisis-consuming regime, and it feeds off creating crises in the world,” and explained that the military-industrial complex needs conflicts like the war in Ukraine: “If the United States fails to create a crisis, the arms factories will not be able to make the most of it. They have to create crises in order to maximize the interests of these mafias.” The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) likewise blamed “the hegemonic policy of the U.S. and the West” for the war in Ukraine. “The root cause of the Ukraine crisis totally lies in the hegemonic policy of the U.S. and the West which indulge themselves in high-handedness and arbitrariness towards other countries,” the DPRK’s Foreign Ministry wrote in a statement in the official KCNA news agency. “The U.S. and the West, in defiance of Russia’s reasonable and just demand to provide it with legal guarantee for security, have systematically undermined the security environment of Europe by becoming more blatant in their attempts to deploy attack weapon system while defiantly pursuing NATO’s eastward expansion,” it continued. ” The U.S. and the West, having devastated Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are mouthing phrases about ‘respect for sovereignty’ and ‘territorial integrity’ over the Ukrainian situation which was detonated by themselves. That does not stand to reason at all,” Pyongyang wrote. It concluded: “The greatest danger the world faces now is high-handedness and arbitrariness by the U.S. and its followers that are shaking international peace and stability at the basis. The reality proves positive once again that peace would never settle on the world at any time as long as there remains the unilateral and double-dealing policy of the U.S. which threatens peace and security of the sovereign state.”

Write an article about: Pakistan’s Imran Khan compares his ouster to CIA coup in Iran, criticizes Western colonialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CIA, coup, Ebrahim Raisi, Imran Khan, Iran, Israel, Mohammad Mossadegh, Pakistan, Palestine

Pakistan’s ex Prime Minister Imran Khan compared the US-backed coup against him in April 2022 to the CIA plot that overthrew Iran’s elected PM Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. He praised Tehran’s sovereignty, criticized Western colonialism, and reaffirmed support for Palestine. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) Pakistan’s former Prime Minister likened the US-backed parliamentary coup that removed him from power in April 2022 to the violent CIA operation that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. The CIA-organized coup “was a very similar pattern followed in when my government was dismissed,” Khan said. He likewise praised Iran’s independence today, stating that Western sanctions means that “the people of Iran might have suffered, but they haven’t lost their dignity.” Khan added that, while Pakistan and Iran may have some differences, “you cannot disagree with them standing for their sovereignty. So I admire that about them.” As prime minister, during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, Khan publicly called on the United States to lift its illegal sanctions on Iran, arguing, “It is very unjust they are dealing with such a large outbreak on one side, and on the other they are facing international sanctions.” Since his ouster, Pakistan’s unelected, US-backed coup regime has hit Khan with baseless “terror” charges, violently repressed protests, banned public broadcasts of his speeches, and arrested dissidents for criticizing it on social media. Prominent journalists who exposed the corruption of the coup regime, like Arshad Sharif, were killed in mysterious circumstances. A gunman even tried to assassinate Khan, shooting him in the leg at a rally in November. Khan made these comments likening the coup against him to the CIA putsch against Mossadegh, and commending Iran for its independence, in a December 28 interview with the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), a think tank based in Istanbul, Türkiye. In the discussion, Khan stressed the supreme importance of sovereignty, saying “a sovereign country is the key for me to success.” He criticized the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) for limiting the sovereignty of developing nations like Pakistan. Khan also emphasized that he will always support the struggle of the Palestinian people and would never recognize Israel. Khan said of Iran in the interview: Well, in Iran, during Mohammad Mossadegh’s premiership, his government was removed, and this is now documented, it was removed by the CIA. And it was because an independent-minded prime minister took over Iran, and wanted to make policies for the interest of the people of Iran. And so we all know what happened to him. There was, first of all, there was this campaign of propaganda campaign against him in the media. Then the opposition parties were paid to do demonstrations against the government of Prime Minister Mossadegh. And then his own party members were given money to change party affiliation. And eventually it was finally the army which removed him. So it was a very similar pattern followed in when my government was dismissed. But, you know, let me just talk about Iran. I find that it is most important for a country to live with dignity and self-respect. I mean, that for me is the most important thing. You know, we Muslims, our oath with the Almighty is “La ilaha illa Allah” – “There is no god but Allah.” It gives us dignity, self-respect. We are not supposed to bow in front of anyone but the Almighty. And the Muslim countries, when they become subservient or when they become blind states, when they lose their dignity – unfortunately, in Pakistan, we have suffered from this. I have found that Pakistan’s foreign policy, the vast majority of the people of Pakistan have found it very undignified, because we have relied on aid, and we stretch our hands, and we get money. Or we fight other people’s war, and then we participate, a lot of our own people die in this, and we do it for foreign aid or US dollars. And I think it has consequences for our society. Number one, the society never learns to stand on its own feet, because only when you stand on your own feet do you realize your strength. But when you are always having crutches of foreign aid, just because you are trying to serve someone else’s foreign-policy objectives, you lose your dignity. And for me, the people of Iran might have suffered, but they haven’t lost their dignity. They, you know, we will disagree with maybe what their world view is. We might disagree with the world view of Islam. But you cannot disagree with them standing for their sovereignty. So I admire that about them. Later in the discussion, Khan reiterated similar comments about the supreme importance of sovereignty: Eventually, a country has to be sovereign. I believe that a country must stand its own feet, have dignity and self-respect, and that’s what gives it strength, because you rely on your own resources. A human being that walks on crutches, his legs will waste away. The bigger the weight we lift, it strengthens us. Same with human societies. If you start depending on aid, which we have, and if you depend on foreign loans and the IMF, you would never really learn how to stand on your own feet. So a sovereign country is the key for me to success. Khan argued that developing countries are still recovering from the harms of European colonialism: You see, the problem most of the developing world, or what you call the ex colonies, all of us, the problems we faced are the same. We have struggled to establish rule of law, justice. I mean, justice means rule of law. Rule of law means that everyone is equal before the law. And when you have colonialism, basically the colonials are above law. And in Pakistan, unfortunately, and like most of the developing, like most of the ex-colonial countries, when they got their independence, the rulers mostly took the role of the colonizers, and they put themselves above law. And so when you do not have rule of law, corruption becomes one of the biggest symptoms of the lack of rule of law, because the powerful elite goes above law. And when they start making money, the state institutions cannot check the corruption. And that’s how countries become poor, not because of lack of resources, but the corruption of the ruling elite that bankrupts countries. And that’s the case with almost the entire developing world. It’s certainly the case with Pakistan. We suffer because, after colonialism, either we had military dictatorship, half the time we were ruled by military dictators – and military dictators, clearly, when they when they take over a country, when they decide to impose martial law, they break the constitution. It’s against the constitution and the rule of law. But unfortunately, when we’ve had civilian government, so called democratic government, they also have put themselves above law, which is why they have been able to make so much money through corruption and take the money abroad. And it’s the same story in almost all the developing world. What you have in the developing countries are the ruling elites siphoning off money and taking it abroad. … You know, the problem about the Muslim world is that we are still evolving. We are coming out of colonialism; we haven’t found our feet. Our education system lags behind. We don’t have a great many scholars who can direct us. We have a split. We have the Westernized elites in the Muslim world who have moved quite far away from the religion and don’t understand much about it. And then we have a lot of conservatives who do not understand the Western thought. Khan reaffirmed his strong support for Palestine and reiterated that he would never recognize Israel: The founder of Pakistan [Muhammad Ali Jinnah], whom we call Quaid-e-Azam, the “Great Leader,” you know, he in 1948 gave a statement on Palestine, and he spoke about the injustice which was being done to the people of Palestine. And he was very clear that Pakistan would not accept or would not recognize Israel as long as the people of Palestine were not given justice. So that has been basically the line of all Pakistani heads of state since then. And secondly, we have – the issue of Palestine is almost exactly the same as the people of Kashmir. So the moment we give up our principled stand on the recognition of Israel means that we give up on Kashmir, too, because the issues are more or less the same. … So the United States, being a superpower, every country wants to have a good relationship with them. So the temptation is that, if you are friendly, if you recognize Israel, you will have a good relationship with the US. But the problem in Pakistan is that it is a democratic country. And anyone who wants to go to the people, he knows that the public will never accept any head of state who has recognized Israel.

Write an article about: ‘Western dominance has ended’, EU foreign-policy chief admits, warning of ‘West against the Rest’ geopolitics. 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.

EU, European Union, Gaza, General Assembly, Global South, Josep Borrell, Sahel, Ukraine, United Nations

The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, admitted that the “era of Western dominance has indeed definitively ended”. He warned that the EU must not divide the world into “the West against the Rest”, as “many in the ‘Global South’ accuse us of ‘double standards’”. Europe’s top diplomat has acknowledged that the “era of Western dominance has indeed definitively ended”. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, wrote this in a blog post on the official website of the EU’s diplomatic service on February 25. “If the current global geopolitical tensions continue to evolve in the direction of ‘the West against the Rest’, Europe’s future risks to be bleak”, he warned. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza, along with the anti-colonial uprisings in Africa’s Sahel region, have “significantly increased this risk” of Europe becoming geopolitically irrelevant, Borrell said, lamenting that “Russia has managed to take advantage of the situation”. The European foreign-policy chief revealed that “improving our relations with the ‘Global South'” is one of ” the four main tasks on EU’s geopolitical agenda”. “Many in the ‘Global South’ accuse us of ‘double standards'”, he confessed. Borrell is known for sporadically making frank comments, admitting inconvenient truths that most European diplomats leave unsaid. In 2022, the EU foreign-policy chief confessed, “Our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market”, with “cheap energy coming from Russia” and “access to the big China market” as the cornerstone of the European economy. However, Borrell’s insistence that Europe must not divide the world into the “West against the Rest” was contradicted by his insistence in the same February 2024 article that the EU must expand its “cooperation with key partners, and in particular the US”. The top European diplomat wrote that “recent months have reminded us how important NATO remains to our collective defence”, calling to strengthen the US-led military bloc. In 2023, the influential think tank the European Council on Foreign Relations published a white paper titled “The art of vassalisation”. It warned of “Europe becoming an American vassal”, noting how the war in Ukraine had “revealed Europeans’ profound dependence on the US”. The EU’s foreign-policy chief does recognize that it would be an error to pit “the West against the Rest”, yet he is simultaneously calling for deepening the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and Europe, which only exacerbates that geopolitical division. On the global stage, Europe frequently joins the United States in violating the will of the international community. At the United Nations, the US and Europe often vote together, while the vast majority of member states, which are located in the Global South, vote against them. Source: Alastair Iain Johnston, “China in a World of Orders: Rethinking Compliance and Challenge in Beijing’s International Relations”, International Security (2019) The US only voted with the majority of the world at the UN General Assembly 32.7% of the time from 1983 to 2012. In 1988, just 15.4% of overall UNGA votes coincided with the US vote. Europe is the only region of the world that consistently votes with the US. In November 2023, the West voted against the vast majority of the world in UN General Assembly resolutions concerning democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, mercenaries, and unilateral coercive measures (sanctions). In April 2023, the West once again voted as a bloc against the other countries on the UN Human Rights Council, defending unilateral sanctions, which violate international law. In December 2022, the West voted against the rest of the planet in UN General Assembly votes calling for a new international economic order. West votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions

Write an article about: Wikileaks: US supported Khmer Rouge to weaken Soviet-allied Vietnamese communists. 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.

Cambodia, Khmer Rouge, Soviet Union, USSR, WikiLeaks

Classified 1978 diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show the US government supported the Khmer Rouge, in order to maintain “stability” in Cambodia and weaken the Vietnamese communists, which were allied with the Soviet Union. Formerly classified 1978 diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show that the US government supported the Khmer Rouge, in order to maintain “stability” in Cambodia and weaken the Vietnamese communists, which were allied with the Soviet Union. The State Department sent a cable to six US embassies in Asia on 11 October 1978 stating, “We believe a national Cambodia must exist even though we believe the Pol Pot regime is the world’s worst violator of human rights.” The Phnom Penh Post reported: Yet while the US government was aware of the horrific actions of the Pol Pot regime, with a July 21 cable from the US Embassy in Laos estimating 2 million people had died at its hands, it refused overtures from the country’s previous leadership to challenge the Pol Pot government’s right to represent Cambodia at the United Nations. A 16 December US State Department cable to the UN stated, “If the Pol Pot regime was toppled, this could result in indefinite guerrilla warfare in Cambodia.” The US government insisted that, in spite of the roughly 1 to 2 million people killed by the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot maintained “stability” in Cambodia, and that was most important. Renowned muckraking journalist John Pilger, who witnessed firsthand the brutality of Pol Pot’s regime, has detailed how the US and UK helped give rise to the Khmer Rouge in the first place. Pilger explained in detail in 2000: Declassified United States government documents leave little doubt that the secret and illegal bombing of then neutral Cambodia by President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger between 1969 and 1973 caused such widespread death and devastation that it was critical in Pol Pot’s drive for power. “They are using damage caused by B52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda,” the CIA director of operations reported on 2 May 1973. “This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of young men. Residents say the propaganda campaign has been effective with refugees in areas that have been subject to B52 strikes.” In dropping the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on a peasant society, Nixon and Kissinger killed an estimated half a million people. Year Zero began, in effect, with them; the bombing was a catalyst for the rise of a small sectarian group, the Khmer Rouge, whose combination of Maoism and medievalism had no popular base. After two and a half years in power, the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the Vietnamese on Christmas Day, 1978. In the months and years that followed, the US and China and their allies, notably the Thatcher government, backed Pol Pot in exile in Thailand. He was the enemy of their enemy: Vietnam, whose liberation of Cambodia could never be recognised because it had come from the wrong side of the cold war. For the Americans, now backing Beijing against Moscow, there was also a score to be settled for their humiliation on the rooftops of Saigon. To this end, the United Nations was abused by the powerful. Although the Khmer Rouge government (“Democratic Kampuchea”) had ceased to exist in January 1979, its representatives were allowed to continue occupying Cambodia’s seat at the UN; indeed, the US, China and Britain insisted on it. Meanwhile, a Security Council embargo on Cambodia compounded the suffering of a traumatised nation, while the Khmer Rouge in exile got almost everything it wanted. In 1981, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said: “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot.” The US, he added, “winked publicly” as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge. In fact, the US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980. The extent of this support – $85m from 1980 to 1986 – was revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the Thai border with Cambodia, the CIA and other intelligence agencies set up the Kampuchea Emergency Group, which ensured that humanitarian aid went to Khmer Rouge enclaves in the refugee camps and across the border. Two American aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote: “The US government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed . . . the US preferred that the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation.” Under American pressure, the World Food Programme handed over $12m in food to the Thai army to pass on to the Khmer Rouge; “20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerillas benefited,” wrote Richard Holbrooke, the then US assistant secretary of state. I witnessed this. Travelling with a UN convoy of 40 trucks, I drove to a Khmer Rouge operations base at Phnom Chat. The base commander was the infamous Nam Phann, known to relief workers as “The Butcher” and Pol Pot’s Himmler. After the supplies had been unloaded, literally at his feet, he said: “Thank you very much, and we wish for more.” In November of that year, 1980, direct contact was made between the White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA, made a secret visit to a Khmer Rouge operational headquarters. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser on President-elect Reagan’s transitional team. By 1981, a number of governments had become decidedly uneasy about the charade of the UN’s continuing recognition of the defunct Pol Pot regime. Something had to be done. The following year, the US and China invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was neither a coalition nor democratic, nor a government, nor in Kampuchea (Cambodia). It was what the CIA calls “a master illusion”. Prince Norodom Sihanouk was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The two “non-communist” members, the Sihanoukists, led by the Prince’s son, Norodom Ranariddh, and the Khmer People’s National Liberation Front, were dominated, diplomatically and militarily, by the Khmer Rouge. One of Pol Pot’s closet cronies, Thaoun Prasith, ran the office at the UN in New York. In Bangkok, the Americans provided the “coalition” with battle plans, uniforms, money and satellite intelligence; arms came direct from China and from the west, via Singapore. The non-communist fig leaf allowed Congress – spurred on by a cold-war zealot Stephen Solarz, a powerful committee chairman – to approve $24m in aid to the “resistance”. Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O’Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the “non-communist” members of the “coalition” had been going on “at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years”. The instructors were from the SAS, “all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain”. The Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the “Irangate” arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. “If Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot,” a Ministry of Defence source told O’Dwyer-Russell, “the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements.” Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that “the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”. In 1991, I interviewed a member of “R” (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. “We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff – a lot about mines,” he said. “We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . . We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . .” The Foreign Office response was to lie. “Britain does not give military aid in any form to the Cambodian factions,” stated a parliamentary reply. The then prime minister, Thatcher, wrote to Neil Kinnock: “I confirm that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them.” On 25 June 1991, after two years of denials, the government finally admitted that the SAS had been secretly training the “resistance” since 1983. A report by Asia Watch filled in the detail: the SAS had taught “the use of improvised explosive devices, booby traps and the manufacture and use of time-delay devices”. The author of the report, Rae McGrath (who shared a joint Nobel Peace Prize for the international campaign on landmines), wrote in the Guardian that “the SAS training was a criminally irresponsible and cynical policy”. When a UN “peacekeeping force” finally arrived in Cambodia in 1992, the Faustian pact was never clearer. Declared merely a “warring faction”, the Khmer Rouge was welcomed back to Phnom Penh by UN officials, if not the people. The western politician who claimed credit for the “peace process”, Gareth Evans (then Australia’s foreign minister), set the tone by calling for an “even-handed” approach to the Khmer Rouge and questioning whether calling it genocidal was “a specific stumbling block”. Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot’s prime minister during the years of genocide, took the salute of UN troops with their commander, the Australian general John Sanderson, at his side. Eric Falt, the UN spokesman in Cambodia, told me: “The peace process was aimed at allowing [the Khmer Rouge] to gain respectability.” The consequence of the UN’s involvement was the unofficial ceding of at least a quarter of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge (according to UN military maps), the continuation of a low-level civil war and the election of a government impossibly divided between “two prime ministers”: Hun Sen and Norodom Ranariddh. The Hun Sen government has since won a second election outright. Authoritarian and at times brutal, yet by Cambodian standards extraordinarily stable, the government led by a former Khmer Rouge dissident, Hun Sen, who fled to Vietnam in the 1970s, has since done deals with leading figures of the Pol Pot era, notably the breakaway faction of Ieng Sary, while denying others immunity from prosecution. Once the Phnom Penh government and the UN can agree on its form, an international war crimes tribunal seems likely to go ahead. The Americans want the Cambodians to play virtually no part; their understandable concern is that not only the Khmer Rouge will be indicted. The Cambodian lawyer defending Ta Mok, the Khmer Rouge military leader captured last year, has said: “All the foreigners involved have to be called to court, and there will be no exceptions . . . Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush . . . we are going to invite them to tell the world why they supported the Khmer Rouge.” The 1978 documents released by WikiLeaks also indicate that the Chinese government joined the United States in supporting the Khmer Rouge. At the time, a decade after the Sino-Soviet split, Beijing was an ally of Washington; the two were united in their intense antipathy toward the Soviet Union, which they both targeted for overthrow. The Phnom Penh Post reported that “Chinese support for Cambodia was driven by fear of Vietnamese expansionism in the region,” and the Vietnamese were important allies of the Soviets. The newspaper added that China had gone so far as to claim that the “reports of mass killings in Cambodia were untrue.” Those who follow Middle Eastern politics may notice that the US policy toward the Khmer Rouge sounds a lot like the US policy in West Asia today, echoing Washington’s support for hyper-repressive theocratic Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and NATO’s backing of Khmer Rouge-style Salafi-jihadist death squads in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

Write an article about: Russia leaves neoliberal West to join World Majority – Economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson explain. 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.

dollar, economics, Geopolitical Economy Hour, Michael Hudson, Radhika Desai, Russia, sanctions, trade, Ukraine

Economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson discuss Russia’s economic transition away from the neoliberal West and integration with what it calls the “World Majority” in the Global South. In this episode of their program Geopolitical Economy Hour, economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson discuss Russia’s economic transition away from the neoliberal West and integration with what it calls the “World Majority” in the Global South. You can find more episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour here. ​RADHIKA DESAI: Hi everyone, welcome to the seventh Geopolitical Economy Hour, a program about the political and geopolitical economy of the fast-changing world of today. ‘m Radhika Desai. MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson. RADHIKA DESAI: And as some of you know I just got back from Russia which is why we are doing this show with a week’s delay. Of course it’s been a really interesting time there. I attended many conferences, talked to loads of people: economists, political observers, commentators, etc. Michael and I thought that what we’d do today is talk about my impressions, and also weave them into a broader discussion about how the world order is changing towards multipolarity. So many things have happened. President Xi went to Russia, and President Macron went to China, and so many things are going on. So we’ll weave all of that into a broader discussion about my impressions from Russia. So what Michael and I thought we’d do is focus on two particular points that we thought were interesting that I picked up when I was in Russia is that during the whirlwind of conferences that I was at, at which some very prominent Russians spoke, the one thing that I heard that was really interesting is a decisive statement coming from some of the most influential speakers, that essentially Russia is moving away from the West and will never return. And the second idea, which is also very fascinating, is that increasingly the Russians are now thinking of themselves as part of a “World Majority.” Right, Michael? To us these are the two most interesting things. MICHAEL HUDSON: The important point is that once you break away from the West, what are you going to break to? And while you were in Russia talking about how they wanted something new, the whole West was in a turmoil. We’re really at a turning point of a civilization, probably the biggest turning point since World War I. Where, in order to not follow the West, there has to be a whole new set of institutions that are non-Western. A new kind of International Monetary Fund (IMF), meaning some kind of a means of financing trade and investment among the non-Western countries. Some kind of a new World Bank. Well so far we have the Belt and Road Initiative for a new kind of investment. And what we’re really talking about, since a theme of our talk all along has been Biden saying that this split is going to go on for twenty years, we’re really talking about the split between Western finance capitalism and the global majority moving towards socialism. RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. And it seems as though there has been an increasing consciousness of this in Russia. So, just to elaborate on the first point, which is of Russia turning away from the West. I was at a conference at the Higher School of Economics, and it’s important to underline this is a very prestigious, post-communist institution which was designed in order to essentially develop and entrench neoliberalism in Russia. And in the hallowed halls of this institution, which by the way is very beautiful. It was a former military academy. They have an annual conference every year on economic policy and so on. And this is where, in a [panel] on the “World Majority”, as it was entitled, I heard Dmitri Trenin make a really interesting statement. Now, Demitri Trenin is also interesting and important. He used to be, again, part of this larger pro-Western, pro-neoliberal group of people. He headed the Carnegie Institution in Moscow and interestingly particularly after 2014, and after 2022, when many people of his ilk had left Russia, he has decided to stay and he is still very much in the forefront of the commentariat in Russia. He said, “When the war is over, Russia will not strive to be part of the West.” That chapter, he said, is over. So that’s really fascinating. That somebody like he should say that. And just as a matter of settled fact. And this is interesting because if you sort of cast your mind back, you know, Lenin, from the earliest days of the Russian Revolution, and even before realizing that Russia’s fate was tied up with the East. But then in particular, after the Second World War and Khrushchev all that, you saw an increasing turn to the West and Russia has remained very oriented to the West. And now this is over. And the chair of the session was an elderly professor called Sergei Karaganov. And he had been one of the founders of the Valdai Club. Again, the Valdai Club, which is sort of the equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. The Valdai Club was also set up as a way in which Russian intellectuals would meet Western intellectuals and think about Russia as part of the West. But Sergei Karaganov also concluded the session by reiterating, and he said, “Russia will never come back to the West. It’s done there,” he said. So I thought this was really fascinating. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the interesting thing there is that while you’re talking about what Russia’s future is with China, Iran, and the rest of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, there was a sort of frantic talk in Washington, especially at this week’s meetings with the IMF and the World Bank about — well, if Eurasia goes that way, what is going to happen to what we call the Global South. What’s going to happen to Latin America and Africa? Well you’ve had the first Mr. Blinken of the US, and then Vice President Harris go to Africa and to say, “We want to make sure that we have your cobalt, we have your raw materials, and that you leave all of the US and NATO investments in place and do not give any of the cobalt or lithium or other raw materials to China and Russia and Eurasia.” So, essentially, the southern hemisphere countries are being faced with a choice. What’s so interesting is what makes this choice different from what it was in, say, 1945. After World War II, the United States had all sorts of economic arguments as to why capitalism was going to offer prosperity to the whole world, including the southern hemisphere. And Soviet Russia at that time was pushing communism. Well, there’s no ideological discussion today. On the one hand, the West doesn’t have any attempt to justify joining the US and NATO bloc. All it says is, — If you don’t join us, we’re going to do to you what we did to Libya, and we’re going to do to you what we did to Ukraine. Use pure force. The question is now what the global majority and what Eurasia is going to say. — Well, we’re not going to force you. We’re not going to attack you. We’re not going to have a color revolution. But here is the economic future and the way of organizing the international trade and investment market that is going to help you. Well, you can just imagine if Jesus had come in and tried to found Christianity by saying, —We’re going to kill everybody who disagrees with this. That would not have ever taken off. I think that the neoliberal plan today has about as much chance of taking off. You’re not going to get the world to follow you just by threatening to bomb it, but that’s all that America and NATO have to offer: refraining from bombing other countries if they don’t leave things the way they used to be. RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. All the West has to offer is sticks. Whereas China comes loaded with all the carrots that you can imagine. The juiciest carrots that you can imagine. So this World Majority concept that’s come up is essentially all the non-Western world, the World Majority, can see these carrots, they are responding to these carrots. And the other interesting thing is that these carrots are not neoliberal carrots. This is the other thing that is very clear. But let me just first deal with this World Majority thing, because again, at the same conference, it turned out that the session was titled “Development for the world’s majority”. And so the the chair of the of the meeting, Professor Karaganav, also said that this idea had actually come up at the Higher School of Economics in some kind of a brainstorming session in which the purpose was to say, — Okay, Russia is not the Third World, Russia is not the developing world, so Russia is part of the post-communist world, so how do we conceive of a single entity of which Russia is now very active part, and is going to be one of the leaders of this? And so, having brainstormed a lot, somebody came up with this idea of the World Majority. So increasingly, the Russians are thinking of themselves, not as being part of the West, whose attractiveness is shrinking and whose borders are also rather small if you think about it. The bulk of the GDP and people in the world are outside the West. And this is also becoming increasingly clear. The West now accounts for about 30% of world GDP, so this is the rest of the 70%. And it’s only going to grow. Meanwhile, the West’s neoliberal policies are accelerating the decline of this. And Michael, we’re going to talk about these institutions in a second, but let me just say one other thing about the domestic policy which you touched. Then we’ll move over to the institutions that the world majorities work to create. And that is that, we attended another conference as well at the start, that’s where we arrived, the St. Petersburg Economic Forum]. And the St. Petersburg [International Economic Forum] is another annual event. And what really struck us this time, we attended the plenary session at which a lot of very important people, including Sergei Glazyev, who is leading the Eurasian integration process in Russia, spoke. The President of the Free Economic Society of Russia spoke. A number of important ministers and others also spoke. And at this conference, what was remarkable is that, barring the one or two diehard neoliberals who also spoke at the main plenary session, the overwhelming majority of the speakers voiced an anti-neoliberal consensus. Neoliberalism is finished in Russia. The overwhelming consensus is that behind some sort of a developmental state that is going to engage in a fairly effective, high degree of state intervention to ensure that Russia does not lag behind technologically. That Russian industry is revitalized. That Russia, in trade terms, is in a winning situation. Basically, across the board there was a consensus against neoliberalism which I thought was really remarkable. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the problem in what you say is the word “finished”. It’s one thing to say, “We are going to have a new non-neoliberal new order.” And of course that’s what Russia, China, and Iran, and the other countries, India, are all trying to do. But the problem is that there still is a neoliberal world order that covers a lot of the World Majority. And what are we going to do about the survival of these neoliberal institutions? What are we going to do about all the massive foreign debt that’s owed to the West by what we can call here the Global South, because that’s really who owes the debt, not the World Majority. And that’s really what has been under discussion in the United States while you were in Russia. How do they use this carryover, this legacy of debt, as a stranglehold on the Third World countries? Well, there have been a lot of articles about what China has to say about this. The Americans and NATO are all in agreement. South America and Africa can of course pay their debts if they don’t pay China. They’re blaming China for everything, who’s the last newcomer of all and is the least neoliberal. China says, “Well wait a minute, we are not going to write down our debts to Africa and South America just so they can afford to pay you, the bondholders, for your loans that have gone bad. A loan that has gone bad is a bad loan and should be written off.” But there isn’t any system for government bankruptcy because the whole purpose of having a financialized world order and finance capitalism is, you never let other countries declare bankruptcy and wipe out their debts like you can do in America and Canada and other domestic countries. You want to keep this debt forever as an irreversible burden so that an indebted country can never break away from the US and NATO. So the question is: How will these new organizations, these alternatives to neoliberalism for trade and investment, that you’ve been hearing them talk about, how are they going to deal with countering this legacy? President Biden says, “You’re either with us or against us.” So how are the rest of the countries going to choose which bloc they want to join? RADHIKA DESAI: Well I think that the whole issue of debt, world debt in particular, has become a really important issue at this point, and it’s become an important issue because precisely now China is such a large part of the scene. I remember going back to the earliest days of the pandemic when Third World debt had also figured as a major issue. Already at that point, the key reason why the debt issues were not going to be settled is because the West could not come to terms with the fact that it had to deal with China, and that it had to deal equitably with China. Because what the West wants to do is precisely to get China to refinance the debt owed to it so that Third World debt repayments go to private lenders. And China is basically questioning the terms of all of this, because for example China is saying, “Why should the IMF and the World Bank have priority? Why should its debt not be canceled?” And the West is saying, “But this has always been so.” And China is saying, “Well, if you don’t want to reform the IMF and the World Bank, then we are not going to accept their priority. If we have to take a haircut, they will also have to take a haircut.” They simply do not accept that these institutions, the Bretton Woods institutions, have any sort of priority. And this is part of the undermining, as you were saying. This is one of the biggest changes since the First World War. And part of these changes is that the world made at the end of the Second World War by the imperialist powers, who are still very powerful, is now increasingly disappearing. MICHAEL HUDSON: You and I have been talking about this since Covid began in 2020, and it’s only right now that finally the IMF and the World Bank meetings are getting around to finding this out, three years too late. They didn’t want to confront that finance capitalism has a problem. The debts ultimately cannot be paid. The debts mount up faster, especially on the Third World. And the reason we discussed it and they didn’t was they didn’t want Africa and South America to deal with the problem. They wanted the problem just to go on and get worse and worse. So now the IMF has published charts saying, “Wait a minute, most of the Third World countries are now in crisis.” They are not attributing the crisis to the sanctions against Russian oil and food exports. They’re not attributing it to the increase in the dollar’s exchange rate by the Federal Reserve. They’re just blaming statism. Well obviously, the one thing the characterizes the new global World Majority order is a mixed economy where other countries will do what China has done. They will make money and land, meaning housing, and employment into public rights and public utilities instead of commodifying them and privatizing them and financializing them as has occurred in the West . So we’re really talking about, in order to move away from the dollar-NATO-sphere, we’re not really talking about just one national currency or another. It’s not going to be a question of the Chinese yen and the Russian ruble and other currencies replacing the dollar. It’s a whole different economic system. That’s the one thing that is not permitted in the mainstream media to discuss. They’re still on the “There Is No Alternative” Margaret Thatcher slogan, instead of talking about: What is the alternative going to be? Because obviously things cannot last the way they are now. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. And I think that we want to talk about exactly what these new institutions are, because the thing is that you see two very different things going on. On the one hand, there are a number of bilateral and multilateral arrangements being made on a regional basis, whether it’s the BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation [Organization] and what have you. These arrangements are being made. But on the other hand, people are also talking about trying to create some sort of universal system, some kind of bancor or International Clearing Union arrangements. But the problem with them is that of course, at the moment, precisely because the West is taking the position that it’s taking, it is not going to cooperate in anything universal, and without that we will not have a universal agreement. And in that sense, what we will see is necessarily the emergence of regional agreements, maybe quite substantial, but nevertheless they will still be regional. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the question then is: What kind of a revolution is there going to be? Pepe Escobar just wrote an article a few days ago saying that what’s happening now is, the world’s in another 1848, meaning a revolution. But the 1848 revolution was a bourgeois revolution. It was the progressive force of industrial capitalism against the landlords, and against the banks, and against the rentier class that had survived from feudalism. What was needed is a further revolution, obviously, a 20th century revolution, in order to not only free capital from the landlord and the banking class, but to free the whole population from the capital class in general. That’s what nobody dares talk about. And obviously you’re not having China proselytize. It’s not coming out and saying, — Here’s our economic system as opposed to yours. And yet all of this philosophy is going to be implicit in any kind of restructuring that they’re going to have. And so the question is: What will be the guidelines behind this? To what extent are they going this far in the discussions you heard? RADHIKA DESAI: That’s a really interesting point. I wanted to also say that, the impression one got when in Russia was: you didn’t get the impression that this is a nation at war. There was no jingoism. There were hardly ever any of those “Z” signs to be seen. Maybe I saw a total of two or three of them, maybe perhaps all total during my travels around Russia. And in many ways, support for the war is there, and it’s a very quiet kind of support. Whatever view one may have, everybody can see that Russian victory is absolutely essential, that a NATO victory would be disastrous for Russia and the rest of the world. All of this is very clear. And in many ways it is a criticism of the Putin administration made by those who are some partisans of his developmental state. It is that the Putin government has not used the opportunity created by sanctions to move more decisively. On the one hand, to mobilize for war more decisively, both in terms of mobilizing troops as well as economic mobilization, in order to win the war. And then as part of the economic mobilization, the point that people would make, and some critical economics have made, is that the Putin administration is still leaning a little too much in the direction of neoliberalism. For example, capital controls aren’t as extensive as they should be. Monetary policy is far tighter than it should be. The state has not tried to intervene in sectors other than defense production in order to try to increase production. In all of these ways there is a criticism of the Putin administration. It comes from the fact that he has not been decisive enough. So I would say that a couple of things emerged from this. On the one hand, sanctions have definitely created the objective conditions in which anti-neoliberal direction of policy and developmental state direction of policy has become a necessity. And I think that this is most important to remember: I think most countries will find that, if they wish to create any kind of development, they will have to adopt anti-neoliberal developmental policies. So in that sense there are residual effects of neoliberalism, but circumstances are going to ensure that neoliberalism is essentially finished, because any successful attempts at creating development will have to involve the kind of state interventionism which is sort of “this far” away from socialism. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, while you were there both President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been using the same word over and over again, and that is “multipolarity”. But multipolarity, that’s the sort of modern world for the 1648 [Peace of] Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War. The Westphalian system was that no nation should interfere with the policies of other nations. And that was the law that governed basically all international relations until 1945 when the United States said, — Well, we get to interfere with every other nation, but no nation has any authority over us. And we will never belong to any organization in which we do not have veto power, as America has in the UN, IMF and the World Bank. You can see the first stage of this. Countries are trading with each other. The recent deals between Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, to denominate their trade in their own currencies. Well, this means that countries are going to hold, in their foreign reserves, each other’s currencies. And the first question is: What will this mix of foreign currencies be? Well I think the natural solution would be for the mix of currencies to reflect the proportions in which a country’s foreign trade is in. Because China is the major trader of so many countries, obviously the Chinese currency is going to play a major role. But as we’ve talked about before, this does not mean that China’s currency is going to replace the dollar. No currency will replace the dollar because there will never be a dollar standard again. There will never be anything like one country controlling other countries with the ability to grab their money at will to cause a crisis by cutting them off from the SWIFT bank clearing system, from doing the things that the dollar did. But much more than just holding each other’s currency, there’s the whole superstructure of how the economy is going to be structured behind that. You and I have talked before about, given the fact that many countries now are having difficulty, to put it mildly, paying their foreign debts, the countries that agree to join with Russia and China and Eurasia are going to have access to a new kind of international bank. And this international bank will create something that, in one sense, is like gold, in the sense of being a currency, a vehicle, that countries can use to pay debts to each other. That governments can use with each other. Not to be spent domestically. Under the gold exchange standard, nobody was paying [domestically] in gold in the 1930s and 40s, or 1950s and 60s, but gold was used amongst central banks. So we’re going to see something like the Keynes’s bancor currency that you and I have discussed so much, or like the International Monetary Fund’s SDRs, except that the new international bancor will not be created just to give to military countries to wage war against countries that the United States doesn’t like. RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. Moving towards that sort of situation, the bancor-like situation, would be very helpful. Because if you think about the principles that Keynes took into account when designing the International Currency Union and bancor and so on, what were some of the key things? I would say the first and most important thing is that countries would implement capital controls. Which is why central banks would retain their power to settle balances with this multilaterally-agreed international currency, which is not the domestic currency of any country. So capital controls are also important because look at it this way. One of the key reasons why a kind of sensible economic policy of the sort that you and I would endorse, a developmental economic policy, one that is designed to create a productive economy and a broadly-based prosperity, one of the key hindrances to this is the excessive financialization of the dollar system, and all the elites in various Third World countries and the World Majority countries, including Russia, that participate in this dollar system. So I would say that imposing capital controls would be critical. Another really important thing that comes out of this system is that Keynes’s system, the International Currency Union, was designed to minimize imbalances, persistent imbalances. Countries would never have persistent imbalances in terms of trade or investment or anything. There would be no persistent export surpluses, no persistent trade deficits. This is also the opposite of what we have right now. The US dollar-based system in fact relies on the systematic creation of imbalances in which the United States must run current account deficits in order to provide the world with liquidity. And of course the United States and the Federal Reserve have also, in order to make the dollar more acceptable, sponsored the massive financialization of the dollar system generally. And it would also therefore be a more stable system, and it would also be one in which the development of some parts of the world, and the underdevelopment of other parts of the world, does not become a perpetual part of the system. Because what does balanced trade mean? If one country starts generating too much export surpluses, and this is discouraged by taxing their earnings at the level of the International Clearing Union, then this creates an incentive for the country that is the most successful to invest in the success of other countries so that trade rises, but it does so in a balanced fashion. So that is another principle. And a final point I would like to make is that this new currency order that will be created, and I’m sure that when it’s already coming into existence the question is only: To what extent can it become a universal order? But this new currency order will have one very important advantage, which is that the dollar system has always rested on the systematic devaluation of the currencies of other countries, which means that the rest of the world has to work its guts out in order to export vast volumes to First World countries, which is of course one of the key reasons why inflation has been so low in Western countries in the neoliberal period. So they have to work harder and harder to export vast volumes and earn tiny amounts in value terms. So the discrepancy in the volume and value of Third World exports, or World Majority exports, is massive. If the rest of the world, if the World Majority, starts getting a better value for their exports and starts enjoying a better exchange rate, essentially, then it will be better remunerated for its efforts. And I think this is going to be very important for so many World Majority countries. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well you’ve made the key point right there. The dollar system has produced austerity. The international financial system’s result is austerity, and one way that it locked this in is in forcing other countries to devalue. They try to throw more and more of their currency onto the world market to pay their foreign debt. Now, when a country devalues, what’s really devalued? The price of raw materials isn’t devalued. There’s a common world price for all raw materials. There’s a common world price for oil and energy. There’s a common world price for food. There’s a common world price for machinery and capital goods. When you devalue, only one thing is devalued: the wages of labor, and domestic rents. So when the IMF talks about austerity, what it really means is, our class war against labor to make sure that we can increase profits in the US-NATO core by continually reducing what we have to pay for labor that’s paid abroad. And of course the sin of China was not letting its labor be devalued, but instead using industrialization, and even its financial links to the West, to build up and increase living standards, not roll them down. So if you realize that the whole point of the financial system is: How do you make a financial system that doesn’t result in debt peonage and degradation of labor? Well then, you may not want to use central banks. Central banks are created by the commercial banks, against the rest of society. It’s the central banks that have helped destroy industrial capitalism in the West. You really only need the treasury, which is what you had before central banks, and what China uses. Its Bank of China is really an extension of the treasury. It’s not an American- or European-style central bank whose job is to support real estate prices and make housing more expensive so that the domestic labor has to go into debt to buy more and more debt-leveraged housing, and that’s not to push up stock and bond prices of the 1%. The treasury would represent the population as a whole. Now, this used to be called democracy. But President Biden calls it autocracy. So “autocracy” is supporting labor. What he calls “democracy” is the financial war against labor, just to get the Orwellian vocabulary straight. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. Michael, you know better than me that the very origin of the word “tyrant” comes from the fact that debt crises in Rome regularly led to the election of rulers who ruled in the interests of the majority of the people, the debtors, and against the interests of the small number of creditors, which is why the creditors ended up calling them tyrants. In fact, apparently the word tyrant does not mean anything bad, but it’s come to mean something bad because basically we live in a world in which our vocabulary tells us that anything that is against the interests of a tiny minority is somehow against everybody’s interest. But of course this is not so. Michael, what you say makes me think of several things. Just one tiny clarification, and that is of course you’re absolutely right that the central banks as we have in the United States and most European countries are totally agents of big financial capitalists. I agree completely and that’s how they have behaved. In a sense, the idea of a central bank is precisely to act as a buffer between the internal domestic economy and the external economy in a way that it acts as a kind of shock absorber, that if there are external shocks that the vast majority of the people are not to suffer them. And that should be the case. Of course, this is subverted, but therefore central banks are important. As you say, they should become arms of a broader financial system which is aimed at creating productive growth, stable growth, of course in our time ecologically sustainable growth. So just a small clarification about central banks. But then three quick points. Number one, you were pointing to how the dollar system bakes austerity into our system, and of course, again, Keynes’s design of the International Clearing Union and bancor was also interesting from this perspective because its thrust was the opposite. Of course, capital controls was a keystone of the system. You have to have capital controls, and the purpose of doing that was to ensure that all governments, if they so wish, that is to say, if they were so inclined, they could run their economies for full employment with as much state intervention as necessary with as big a role for the government and the economy as necessary. And this could be done because of capital controls. And this also brings me to my second point. It has been very fashionable, in our neoliberal era, to talk about the so-called trilemma of policy, which is that there are three goals which are considered by neoliberalism to be desirable, namely, having a stable exchange rate, having an autonomous monetary policy, and free capital flows. They say you can only achieve two of these at any given time. But my point is, actually it is not a trilemma at all. It is an absolute no-brainer. If you have capital controls, then you can have both an autonomous monetary policy and a stable exchange rate. There is no need to worry about it. It is only by adding free capital flows as a desirable end to this mix that you create this artificial trilemma. It’s a completely artificial trilemma. And my final point. If currencies were really valued realistically rather than this strange overvaluation of the dollar that we have all suffered from for so long, then in fact there would be even less need, even among the rich people of any country, would not feel such a big pressure to hold their money in dollars as they do today, because they only wish that because their own currencies are so subject to the vagaries of the dollar system. The Fed decides to jack up interest rates, then all the money that has hitherto been flowing into these non-Western economies flows right out, creating currency crises, debt crises, trade crises, and all of these sorts of things. The currencies of the rest of the world, of the countries of the World Majority, would also be more stable and that would actually decrease the attractiveness of dollars to even the elites of these societies. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well I think you’re quite right about capital controls. When I went to work in international finance in the 1960s, there were dual exchange rates. The IMF every month would publish the exchange rate for normal trade in goods and services, and a different exchange rate for capital transactions, for debt and investments. So you had two exchange rates. And that’s because there were capital controls. The United States, via the IMF, got rid of capital controls so that other countries could not protect themselves. Only the United States could protect itself. That’s the double standard. Also, as we discussed before, Keynes wanted to solve this by something that is very interesting that the US fought like anything not to accept. Keynes said, “How do you make an international financial system that is not going to be dominated by the strongest currency, by one currency swamping the others? In other words, how do we avoid the disaster and world depression that the United States has brought on?” He said, “If one country continues to run a balance of payment surplus and has enormous claims on other countries, and other countries accumulate a deficit, we can’t let them just be painted into a corner or we’re going to be back to the position of Germany and France in the 1920s.” The country that has the major currency has it because it’s refusing to import from other countries. It’s refusing to help create an international, equitable world order, and so the dominant currency’s claims will be written down. Well of course the United States knew that Keynes was talking about the dollar that was going to grow. But just imagine today if China could say, — We thought about the discussions that took place at the end of World War II shaping how the world financial system developed and, yes, I know that the US and NATO say, — Well China’s going to dominate the whole area and end up being another America. Well, China can say, — We’re in agreement with Keynes’s principle. If we really get so many export surpluses and so many claims on the rest of the country that they can’t pay, of course we’re going to write it down in order to maintain stability. Imagine if the United States had done this in 1945 and accepted what Keynes did. Imagine how the whole world’s development would have been different for the last 75 years. That, I think, would be a great ploy by China. RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. Remember that at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, Keynes had gone there with these proposals for bancor, for International Clearing Union, and they were nixed by the United States because the United States wanted to impose the dollar on the rest of the world. By contrast, by the way, you should know that in China there is quite a lot of interest in Keynes’s proposals for bancor and so on, for a couple of different reasons. One thing I remember very vividly is I was precisely writing an article about Keynes and bancor and so on around the time of the 2008 financial crisis. So I wrote it in the fall of 2008, and it was published in early 2009, and just before it went to press, the governor of the People’s Bank of China issued a short paper in which he recalled that Keynes had proposed a bancor and we need to return to those principles, and so on. And thankfully I just managed to stick a reference to that into the article just before it went to press which was really lucky. So the Chinese have a lot of interest. And that’s one thing. I think you have to understand that the Chinese know the price that the Western economies, the American economy in particular, has paid for making the dollar the world’s money, which is an undermining of its own productive capacity, the financialization of its financial system in such a way that it is geared towards predatory and speculative activity rather than being geared towards financing productive investment. So in all of these ways, actually all of the Americans have paid a huge price for making the dollar the world’s currency, which is only a good thing for the cream of the American elite and not for anyone else. The second thing I wanted to say is, this idea that the national currency of any country can easily, stably, reliably, in a good way, be the currency of the world has become naturalized in our time, but it is a completely false idea. And you see, Keynes’s career is very interesting from this perspective. I’ve written about this as well. When Keynes started his career in the teens, he was fresh out of college, he went to work for the India Office, and there he learned how the British financial system worked, because as we’ve talked about before, it was so reliant on British India. So his first book, published in 1913, was called “Indian Currency and Finance”, and it is widely regarded as the primer. If you want to understand how the gold standard worked, read “Indian Currency and Finance”. And of course, why would a book like “Indian Currency and Finance” be the primer on the gold standard? Because British India was critical to its functioning. Anyway, if you read this book, it’s full of praise for how wonderfully the system works. Keynes was completely uncritical. And then over the course of the rest of his life which, if you think about it, Keynes’s career spanned the First World War, the thirty years’ crisis. The First World War began it, and the Second World War more or less ended it. He died in 1946. So over this period, Keynes was witness to the steepest fall in the international standing and economy of any country he’d seen. Britain went from being the head of the empire on which the sun never set, to essentially being on the cusp of losing that empire and being turned into a weak, industrially declining, medium-sized economy. So Keynes designed bancor. Keynes, over the course of his life, became a critic of the gold standard, its deflationary character, the costs it exacts on other countries. He absorbed all this. And of course towards the end of his life he proposed a replacement for what used to be this gold-sterling exchange standard, which was a complete contrast. Which would not impose austerity. Which would not create financialization. Which would allow countries to run their economies for development, for prosperity, for full employment. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you can say that Eurasia today is picking up the strain of world history where the world left off in 1913 and 1914. World War I changed the whole direction of the world. It stopped the evolution of industrial capitalism into socialism, with the Russian Revolution and the great fight against the Soviet Union. And it replaced industrial capitalism with finance capitalism. And today, over a century later, now finally Eurasia is taking the lead in rejecting this retrogression into neo-feudal finance capitalism and picking up where the world was evolving from industrial capitalism into socialism, which seemed to be the wave of the future for everybody who was writing until World War I was such a shock that it traumatized history. We’re only right now getting over it with Europe and America fighting against it. They don’t want the world to continue the way it was going in 1914. That’s why they sent all the troops into Russia to try to overthrow the revolution. They’re doing everything they can to prevent it and the rest of the world’s task is to fight for civilization against the forces of reaction. RADHIKA DESAI: That’s so interesting. And I would say, Michael, that even Europe is probably going to get off this crazy pro-American track that it’s been on since early last year since the military operations began in Ukraine. I mean, Europe’s position is definitely suicidal, I think increasingly there are voices emerging that are counseling against that. It is not a surprise that Macron, on his visit to China said, his words, not ours, — Europe should stop being a vassal of the United States. I think that it’s very possible, although certainly the bloody-mindedness and crazy policies of European leaders are not giving us much hope, but nevertheless statements like Macron’s point to the fact that Europe is not in a very comfortable place and it’s going to have to, if only for its own economic survival, break these crazy attachments to US policy. So that’s one thing. But I’ll say a couple of other things as we should probably wind down soon. One thing is that, I completely agree with you. I’ve even written stuff about this, for example in this article about Keyes and bancor. The last section, which looks at the US role in all of this, for example in nixing Keynes’s proposals and trying to exert its dominance over the rest of the world, which I have argued was never successful. I argued this in my “Geopolitical Economy”. Anyway, the point is the section was entitled “The Strange Afterlife of Imperialism”, in the sense that the United States, in its desire to recreate the kind of dominance that Britain had enjoyed in the 19th century, the 20th century, that the US would enjoy the same sort of dominance. This attempt managed to, of course, influence world history, but even still it was not successful. But now the story of that attempt is also at an end. It can no longer realistically even try to create this sort of dominance. And that means that the anti-imperialist tide that had begun with the outbreak of the First World War and in the thirty years’ crisis of 1914 to 1945, that anti-imperialist trend is now resuming in a bigger way after being sort of held back a bit by American attempts. But you have to understand that even though the United States wanted to exert its power over the world, in the post-Second World War period it was never entirely successful for the simple reason that the communist world existed. The communist world stretched from Prague to Pyongyang. It was huge. The United States was not the master of this world. Its existence put serious limits on what the United States could do. In that sense, what you have seen is that only after the end of the Soviet Union you saw this hubristic attempt on the part of the United States to try to now finally exert its dominance over the world, but that has as we know ended really badly. There is no unipolarity. Instead there is multipolarity, and the United States has reacted to this very badly and has therefore been engaged in nonstop wars since then. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you’re right to point out Macron’s statement that Europe is caught in the middle. He’s sort of France’s Donald Trump. He’ll say whatever he thinks is going to be popular, and then he’ll just turn around and say to another side the exact opposite. But Europe was in the middle after World War I. It agreed to pay the inter-ally debts, and that’s what forced it to impose the reparations on Germany that wrecked all of its development. It was so rigid in holding to the old financial system in which a debt has to be paid, that it could not break. But right now Europe is in the middle again, America’s war against Russia being fought in Ukraine. I think that when Macron made his statement, that maybe Europe should go its own way, he’s trying to take the voting power away from the right wing of France. The irony is it’s the right wing in almost every European country, the nationalistic wing, that is breaking away from the US, leaving the left way behind. So the irony is that the left is not playing a role in creating an alternative to neoliberalism. The left has embraced neoliberalism ever since Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. So it’s very unique that we’re seeing civilization, a new path of civilization, being developed without any reference to the past discussions at all. I think it would be nice to have a discussion of classical economics, of the political economy of Adam Smith and John Stewart Mill and Marx about value and price. I think they were on to the important things in the 19th century. It’s as if there’s a kind of technocratic class that is trying to reanalyze the world without really any reference to history at all, and I think that’s what you and I are trying to do in our lectures here. We’re trying to provide a basis in history to say, — All this has happened before. What can we learn from the experience of what to do and what to avoid? RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. And Michael, maybe we should bring this to an end, but I totally agree with you. And indeed this is much of the argument of my book “Capitalism, Coronavirus, and War”. It tries to explain why it is that the left has essentially failed to understand imperialism, and this failure today accounts for the fact that it has uniformly become a cheerleader for the West’s disastrous policies against Russia, against China. Whereas what I find really interesting, particularly in recent foreign policy statements, major statements that have come out of China and come out of Russia, is that they have put imperialism, and the understanding of imperialism, at the center of their understanding. Every time I read these I’ve been like, this is astonishing. This is what we have been arguing for such a long time. And now the leaders of these major countries, the governments of these major countries, are essentially behind this, which is really so important. I think that if the West finally wakes up and realizes what it needs to do, I think this can only be a very good thing for us here, because otherwise we are going to be in some sort of spiral of political dysfunction for a very long time. MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the West may wake up, but the Western leadership of politicians won’t wake up. America has had its own color revolution by Wall Street here, and you can say that Europe had its color revolution. RADHIKA DESAI: I like that. That was a very good way of putting what’s happening in Europe right now. Europe has been subject to a color revolution by the United States. We’ve come up to nearly an hour. This has been a great discussion Michael. Next time we are going to decide what exactly to talk about, but we have a couple of pending topics. One of them is of course to examine in greater detail the political and geopolitical economy of the conflict in Ukraine, its effects on the various parts of the world, including Russia and Ukraine and the United States and Europe. And of course we still have to finish our dedollarization final program. If you have any other suggestions for topics, please let us know. Thanks for your attention, and see you in a couple of weeks.

Write an article about: US-backed fascism in Japan: How Shinzo Abe whitewashed genocidal imperial crimes. 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.

Asia, China, CIA, fascism, Japan, Nobusuke Kishi, Shinzo Abe

Japan’s longest serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe tried to rewrite the Japanese empire’s genocidal history. After World War II, the US rehabilitated fascist war criminals, like Abe’s grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, putting them in power in a right-wing one-party regime. Japan’s longest serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe tried to rewrite the history of the fascist Japanese empire and its genocidal crimes. And he and his Nazi-collaborating grandfather enjoyed staunch Western support. After World War II, the US government pardoned and recruited many of the fascists who had led imperial Japan, putting in power war criminals who had committed genocide in China, Korea, and Southeast Asia, carrying out biological warfare, human experimentation, and mass sexual slavery. Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton discusses how Japan’s political system still today is a one-party right-wing regime run by descendants of these fascist war criminals. Below are links to all the sources cited in this report, in chronological order: Re: Abe's political party–A paragraph from American Exception discusses its establishment by yakuza/fascist war criminals rescued by the CIA to help re-establish the Anticommintern under US auspices after World War 2: pic.twitter.com/Kt2svla5Jb — American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) July 8, 2022 Shinzo Abe, former Japanese prime minister, was assassinated. A powerful figure among Japan’s right-wing, Abe was an apologist for imperial Japan’s war crimes and supported US imperialist efforts in the Asia Pacific. A thread on Abe ? pic.twitter.com/KLOcw7pkmy — Nodutdol | 노둣돌 (@nodutdol) July 8, 2022 NATO’s 2022 plan declares second cold war on Russia and China Nazi Germany's former ally Japan has removed its official neo-Nazi designation for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov militia, because the fascist gang plays such an important role in Ukraine's government Japan is again helping Nazis. What could possibly go wrong!https://t.co/bwHqfpTIU8 — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 9, 2022

Write an article about: UN lies about US military occupation of Syria, reporter calls out Ukraine hypocrisy. 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.

Dana Stroul, Donald Trump, Edward Xu, Farhan Haq, Fox News, Kurds, Mark A Milley, oil, Syria, Tom Bowman, UN, United Nations

US troops have illegally occupied Syria’s oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official, Farhan Haq, falsely claimed “there’s no US armed forces inside of Syria”. Chinese reporter Edward Xu called out the UN’s hypocrisy on Ukraine. US troops have illegally occupied Syria’s oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official falsely claimed “there’s no US armed forces inside of Syria”. In a press briefing on March 24, Farhan Haq, the deputy spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres, sparred with Chinese reporter Edward Xu. Xu pressed Haq about a US airstrike on Syria, which killed a dozen people, following an attack on US troops that have been illegally occupying Syrian territory. “Do you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal or not?” Xu asked. “That’s not an issue that we’re dealing with at this stage”, Haq replied. Xu countered, “A foreign ministry based presence in another country without invitation, sounds like something else to me”. The UN spokesman then falsely claimed, “There’s no US armed forces inside of Syria… It’s not a parallel situation to some of the others… I believe there’s military activity. But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I’m not aware of that”. This statement is simply not true. US troops have illegally occupied Syria's oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official falsely claimed "there's no US armed forces inside of Syria" A reporter called out his lie, exposing the UN's hypocrisy on Ukraine. Full video here: https://t.co/9rOeW53fT8 pic.twitter.com/fp42QG9Fje — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 29, 2023 The New York Times published an article on March 4 revealing that US General Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has demanded that troops remain in Syria. “America still has more than 900 troops, and hundreds more contractors, in Syria”, the Times reported. In a March 24 newswire on the US airstrike in Syria, the Associated Press reported that “American troops have been in Syria since 2015“. The news outlet Kurdistan24 has published video footage of US armored vehicles occupying oil wells in Syria. In 2018, the Washington Post printed an article boasting, “In Syria, we ‘took the oil’“. The piece quoted the director of research at the neoconservative, US government-funded think tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), who proudly stated, “We have this 30 percent slice of Syria, which is probably where 90 percent of the pre-war oil production took place… This is leverage”. US state media outlet NPR followed up in 2020, stating very clearly: “U.S. forces in northeastern Syria have a relatively new mission: securing oil fields not only from ISIS, but also from Syrian government and Russian forces”. NPR noted that its embedded reporter Tom Bowman “has been travelling with American military forces”. Bowman explained that President Donald Trump “agreed to keep a small number, about 600 or so, to secure these oil fields not only from ISIS but also from Syrian government and Russian forces. Now, they want their Kurdish forces, their allies, to use the proceeds from the oil to pay for their operations”. For his part, Trump was strikingly honest about what Washington was doing in Syria. He told Fox News, “I left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil… We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil”. Here’s irrefutable video evidence of Trump “fighting the deep state” ? “I left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil… We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil” pic.twitter.com/IYaep53GP5 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 31, 2023 A hard-line neoconservative activist Dana Stroul, who oversaw Washington’s Syria Study Group, boasted in 2019 that the US military “owns” one-third of Syria, including its oil-rich “economic powerhouse”. When President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, Stroul was made the top Middle East policy official in the US Department of Defense. The top Pentagon Middle East policy official, neocon Dana Stroul, confirmed Biden is keeping troops to illegally occupy sovereign Syrian territory Stroul once boasted that the US military "owns" 1/3rd of Syria, including its oil-rich "economic powerhouse"pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs https://t.co/01kZ22dhJ4 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 15, 2021 An official UN transcript of the March 24, 2023 press briefing follows below: Journalist Edward Xu: A couple of questions on Syria. Yesterday, there’s a drone attack to a US base in north-east Syria which resulted in one death and six injured. After that, US launched an air strike, also killed 11 people in Syria. Any reaction from the Secretary-General on this incident? UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq: Oh, well, of course, we continue to be worried about all of the continuing tensions, and we are trying to see what can be done to lower the tensions from different forces in Syria and will continue with those efforts. Edward Xu: Do you not urge everybody to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria? Farhan Haq: Well, of course, that’s a given, and obviously, it’s important that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria is respected. At the same time, you’re aware of the complexity of the situation of foreign forces, but we call for them to exercise restraint. Edward Xu: But, do you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal or not? Farhan Haq: That’s not an issue that we’re dealing with at this stage. There’s been a war. Edward Xu: But, is that… because it sounds very familiar this week. We talk a lot about the UN Charter, the international law and relative resolutions. But, it sounds to me, a foreign ministry based presence in another country without invitation, sounds like something else to me. Farhan Haq: I’ll leave your analysis to you. That there’s… At this stage there’s no… Edward Xu: What’s the difference between the situation in Syria and the situation in Ukraine? Farhan Haq: There’s no US armed forces inside of Syria. And so I don’t have a… It’s not a parallel situation to some of the others. Edward Xu: You’re sure there’s no US military personnel in Syria? Farhan Haq: I believe there’s military activity. But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I’m not aware of that. Edward Xu: Okay. Five US service members were injured in that attack. If there were no US service members in Syria, how could they got injured? That’s weird, right? Should I ask you about that? And by the way, if you’re talking about the resolution, the international law here is the resolution from Security Council 2254 (2015), I believe, it says in its PA [preambular] paragraph, “reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. Farhan Haq: Yes. I’m aware of that. And as you see, that is accepted by the members of the Security Council itself. Edward Xu: Yeah. So, again, back to my question, is that illegal to have presence in Syria for the US base, according to the relevant resolution that I just read out? Farhan Haq: The relevant resolution does call for that and we call on all countries to respect that. I wouldn’t go beyond that at this stage.

Write an article about: At UN, China calls for multipolarity, end to sanctions, ‘win-win cooperation’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, sanctions, UN, United Nations, Wang Yi, war

At the United Nations General Assembly, China called for a multipolar world based on “win-win cooperation, not a zero-sum game.” Condemning illegal sanctions and “colonization,” Foreign Minister Wang Yi pledged to fight poverty and war. China used its platform at the United Nations General Assembly to call for a multipolar world based on peace and “win-win cooperation.” Foreign Minister Wang Yi explained, “The path that China pursues is one of peace and development, not plunder and colonialization. It is a path of win-win cooperation, not a zero-sum game. And it is one of harmony between men and nature, not destructive exploitation of resources.” Wang’s remarks at the General Assembly on September 24 were very measured and diplomatic. They could hardly have been any different from angry, aggressive, and accusatory speech given by US President Joe Biden. Although he didn’t name the United States specifically, the Chinese foreign minister called for the end to its use of illegal sanctions. “A few countries have arbitrarily imposed unilateral sanctions, cut off development aid, and frozen lawful assets of other countries. This is an unacceptable practice that must be corrected,” Wang said. “China firmly supports the Cuban people in their just struggle to defend their sovereignty and oppose external interference and the blockade.” Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the UN: "The path that China pursues is one of peace and development, not plunder and colonialization" "It is a path of win-win cooperation, not zero-sum game. And it is one of harmony between men and nature, not destructive exploitation of resources" pic.twitter.com/tz3dbQ7Igt — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022 Beijing emphasized the importance of the fight against poverty. China “accounts for over 70% of the gains in global poverty reduction,” Wang pointed out. And while the planet is facing many challenges, from economic difficulties to climate change to the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chinese foreign minister argued “we are also at a time full of hope. The world continues to move toward multipolarity.” Peace is the most important priority, Wang said. He urged a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, and in an acknowledgement of the role of the United States and NATO in fueling the crisis, Beijing warned, “He who instigates a proxy war can easily get himself burned.” "China is the only country in the world that pledges to keep to a path of peaceful development in its constitution" "It is the only one among the five nuclear weapons states [the permanent members of the UN Security Council] that is committed to no first use of nuclear weapons" pic.twitter.com/JImgLCPOie — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022 Underscoring its commitment to peace, the foreign minister noted, “China is the only country in the world that pledges to keep to a path of peaceful development in its constitution.” “It is the only one among the five nuclear weapons states [the permanent members of the UN Security Council] that is committed to no first use of nuclear weapons,” he added. Beijing stressed the importance of its relations with other formerly colonized nations in the Global South. “As a member of the developing world, China will forever stand with other developing countries,” Wang said. He added, “Our biggest strength will come from solidarity. Our best strategy is to stick together. And the only way forward is through win-win cooperation” and “South-South cooperation.” Beijing also used its platform at the General Assembly to reject Washington’s attempt to replace international law with an ambiguous so-called “rules-based international order” – in which the US makes the rules and orders everyone around. China instead emphasized the importance of “the UN-centered international system and the international order based on international law.” China clearly rejected Washington’s attempt to replace international law with its “rules-based order” (in which the US makes the rules and orders everyone around). China emphasized the importance of “the UN-centered international system and the order based on international law” pic.twitter.com/rUATb0GIVM — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022 Many countries used their remarks at the UN General Assembly to call for an end to the illegal US blockade of Cuba. Vietnam joined China in doing the same. Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh stated in his UN General Assembly speech, “We stand in firm solidarity with the people of Cuba, and call for the immediate lifting of the unilateral [US] embargo against Cuba, contrary to international law.” Vietnam emphasized that the “confrontational and zero-sum game approach must be eliminated.” Vietnam at the UN: "We stand in firm solidarity with the people of Cuba, and call for the immediate lifting of the unilateral [US] embargo against Cuba, contrary to international law" Vietnam emphasized that the "confrontational and zero-sum game approach must be eliminated" pic.twitter.com/FZ7dOvuN0l — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022 The Lao People’s Democratic Republic likewise echoed these calls at the UN. Deputy Prime Minister Saleumxay Kommasith stated, “My delegation once again joins the overwhelming global call for lifting the [US] economic embargo on Cuba, and putting an end to all unilateral coercive measures [sanctions], which have caused more negative impacts on innocent people.” Lao People's Democratic Republic at the UN: "My delegation once again joins the overwhelming global call for lifting the [US] economic embargo on Cuba, and putting an end to all unilateral coercive measures [sanctions], which have caused more negative impacts on innocent people" pic.twitter.com/nmW01yMyXK — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 24, 2022

Write an article about: West fueling Ukraine crisis to justify ‘painful’ sanctions on Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Annalena Baerbock, EU, European Union, Gazprom, Germany, Joe Biden, Munich Security Conference, Nancy Pelosi, Nord Stream 2, Russia, Ukraine, Ursula von der Leyen, Vladimir Putin

US and European leaders are preparing “painful” sanctions on Moscow, which could include sabotaging Germany’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline and hitting Russian gas giant Gazprom. Putin says the Ukraine crisis is being used as an excuse for the economic attack. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Top Western officials met at the Munich Security Conference on February 18 and jointly declared that they are preparing a series of “painful” sanctions against Russia. Germany’s foreign minister confirmed that the economic coercive measures could force the closure of its Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia – an outcome the United States has repeatedly called for. The chief of the European Union added that Russian energy giant Gazprom may be sanctioned as well. There are even discussions of potential US sanctions to cut off Russian state-owned banks from using dollars, which Reuters noted would freeze “any dollar-denominated assets or liabilities held by the banks at home and abroad.” Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, has argued that Western governments are using the Ukraine crisis as an excuse to impose these sanctions on his country, and he condemned the economic attack as illegal. In a press conference after meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on February 18, Putin said, “Sanctions will be imposed in any case. Whether they have a reason today, for example, in connection with the events in Ukraine, or there is no such reason – it will be found, because the goal is different, in this case the goal is to slow down the development of Russia and Belarus.” “This is a gross violation of international law, but those who are now talking about [new sanctions], they care about [international law] only when it is advantageous to them,” the Russian leader added. “When it is not advantageous to them, they are happy to forget about all the norms of international public right.” Putin’s argument has been clearly confirmed by comments made by top US and European leaders. Washington’s goal in stoking the crisis in Ukraine and constantly giving false dates of an impending Russian invasion is to enforce NATO bloc discipline and prevent Europe from economically integrating with Russia – and by extension China. The US government has made it clear that it seeks to sabotage the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would bring gas from Russia to Germany, and therefore deepen Russia’s ties to Western European economies. The pipeline has already been built, but it is awaiting certification from German regulators. President Joe Biden has repeatedly stressed that, if Russia militarily intervenes in Ukraine, Washington will force Germany to cancel Nord Stream 2. For his part, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to say if the pipeline would be shut down if the violence escalates in Ukraine. But Germany’s hawkish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock let the cat out of the bag in a speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 18. Baerbock, of the US-backed, pro-war Green Party, declared that NATO member states are united in preparing “unprecedented sanctions” on Moscow. “All options are on the table, including Nord Stream 2,” Baerbock said. She added, “We, Germany, are prepared to pay a high economic price for this.” German chancellor Scholz has been criticised for not stating clearly enough that #NordStream2 would be stopped if Russia goes a step too far. His foreign minister, @ABaerbock, has been clear enough, here again in Munich.pic.twitter.com/9pNdm5ueEa — Thomas Sparrow (@Thomas_Sparrow) February 18, 2022 The German foreign minister’s comments were echoed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Munich Security Conference. “Everything is on the table,” von der Leyen said, when asked if the European Union was considering imposing sanctions on Russia’s state-owned energy firm Gazprom. Gazprom is the heart of Russia’s economy, and the largest company in the country. Sanctions on the firm would be an unprecedented attack aimed at decoupling Western European economies from Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told CNBC at #MSC2022 on Saturday that "everything is on the table" in terms of the possibility of energy sanctions on gas giant Gazprom if Russia invades Ukraine. #RussiaUkraineConflict https://t.co/d4IiWxRB4T — Vicky McKeever (@VMcKeeverCNBC) February 19, 2022 Von der Leyen noted that Europe imports approximately 40% of its gas from Gazprom, criticizing it as a form of “dependency.” Since the crisis in Ukraine erupted in late 2021 and early 2022, the United States has become the largest exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG) for the first time in history. This is precisely because the US has substantially boosted its LNG exports to Europe, to make up for a decrease in imports from Russia. "Sky-high European demand drove U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to a record in December" About half of the record U.S. LNG volumes went to Europe, up from 37% earlier in 2021https://t.co/j18Mvniqgs — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 22, 2022 Senior State Department officials have in fact quietly held discussions with leaders of fossil fuel corporations to make plans for drastically increasing the gas supply to Europe if violence escalates in Ukraine. It's not a coincidence that, as hawks in the US/EU/Ukraine have pushed for conflict with Russia over the past few months, Russian gas exports to Europe have dropped — and US gas exports to Europe have increased to a record high. It's part of the strategyhttps://t.co/L8Wb0X1aan pic.twitter.com/5ob6db4RJW — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 22, 2022 Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, also traveled to Munich for the conference. Pelosi emphasized at the meeting that, if Russia militarily intervenes in Ukraine, NATO member states will impose sanctions that “are going to be fierce, and they are going to be painful.” “There is a price to pay,” the Democratic Party leader declared. “It won’t be a long time for the Russian people, sadly, to feel the impact of the [sanctions].” Democrats have long worked to strengthen the US alliance with NATO partners and allies. With Russia on the brink of attacking Ukraine, Putin needs to know we are united in solidarity against war and for targeted sanctions that will be painful for him. –NP https://t.co/w2svIhC8rQ — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) February 19, 2022 Some Western foreign policymakers have also used the crisis in Ukraine as an opportunity to call for imposing sanctions on China. Recognizing that these Western sanctions are essentially inevitable, Russian President Putin called for strengthening “economic sovereignty.” “There is only one way to overcome this state of affairs – to strengthen ourselves from within, and above all, of course, in the economy,” he said.

Write an article about: British army chief tells troops prepare for World War III with Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Britain, Patrick Sanders, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

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

Write an article about: US corporations cash in on Ukraine’s oil and gas. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Chevron, ExxonMobil, Financial Times, gas, Halliburton, IMF, International Monetary Fund, oil, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky

As Ukraine sells off public assets in a privatization spree, US fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Halliburton are in talks to run its oil and gas industry, and the IMF is imposing the Washington Consensus. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) As the war in Ukraine drags on, the government is selling off state assets in a big privatization spree. US fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Halliburton are participating in discussions to take over the Eastern European nation’s oil and gas industry, as Kiev pushes to increase production to replace Russian energy exports. This comes soon after Ukraine’s Western-backed leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, sent a friendly video message to a US corporate lobby group, thanking companies like BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Starlink, and promising “big business” for others. In September, Zelensky also symbolically opened the New York Stock Exchange, announcing that his country is “open for business”, offering more than $400 billion in “public-private partnerships, privatization, and private ventures” for US companies. The Ukrainian government has used the war as an excuse to ram through some of the most aggressive anti-worker laws on Earth. The director of the Kiev-based workers’ rights NGO Labor Initiatives warned of a “full-scale attack on Ukraine’s labour rights”, writing in a German government-funded journal that the “war cannot be used to justify stripping workers of their rights”. In an attempt to bring an end to this war, China has taken the lead in advocating peace talks. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva has backed Beijing’s efforts. The West, on the other hand, has vociferously opposed all attempts at diplomatic negotiations and instead pushed to escalate the NATO proxy war on Russia, sending fighter jets and tanks to Kiev. Ukrainian officials, meanwhile, are treating their country as a for-profit company, frequently travelling to the United States in search of lucrative business opportunities. The CEO of Ukraine’s state-owned energy company Naftogaz, Oleksiy Chernyshov, flew to Washington, DC this April to meet with US political and corporate officials. The Financial Times reported that Chernyshov sat down with representatives from ExxonMobil and Halliburton, following a similar meeting with Chevron in January. “The negotiations with big US fossil fuel players are part of a strategic push to increase natural gas production that Ukrainian officials believe could help replace Russian supply to Europe in the years ahead”, the newspaper wrote. As the war drags on, Ukraine is selling off state assets in a big privatization spree. US fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Halliburton are in discussions to run the country's energy industry. Full video here: https://t.co/gxzQEZrNOL pic.twitter.com/Q39YCy1zdJ — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 27, 2023 Halliburton is notorious for its involvement in corruption schemes, involving fat government contracts. In 2017, it was fined $29.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with highly profitable oilfield services contracts in Angola. Halliburton is also the world’s biggest provider of fracking services, or hydraulic fracturing, a controversial form of gas extraction that is so environmentally destructive it was banned in the United Kingdom. Responding to the Financial Times report, economist Yanis Varoufakis, who previously served as Greece’s minister of finance, tweeted: “And there you have it. EXXON, HALLIBURTON & CHEVRON, after Iraq, are now taking over the Ukrainian oil and gas fields. Planning to introduce large scale fracking – a clear and present threat to poison U’s agriculture”. And there you have it. EXXON, HALLIBURTON & CHEVRON, after Iraq, are now taking over the Ukrainian oil and gas fields. Planning to introduce large scale fracking – a clear and present threat to poison U's agriculture pic.twitter.com/LlC0nv39qk — Yanis Varoufakis (@yanisvaroufakis) April 22, 2023 Chernyshov, the CEO of Ukraine’s state energy company Naftogaz, told the newspaper, “We want them [Halliburton] to expand [their presence] dramatically. We want them there seriously — boots on the ground”. “We will welcome them”, he added. “We can do joint production on gas together, PSA agreement — production sharing agreement — they can have a licence and produce by themselves, we will welcome it”. In November, the president of Halliburton in the eastern hemisphere, Joe Rainey, travelled to Ukraine to meet with Chernyshov. Naftogaz published a press release on its website boasting that it “is strengthening its strategic cooperation with American’s Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oilfield services providers, to unlock the new potential of Ukraine’s fields”. “Your support and visit to Kyiv is a powerful signal for the entire market and the world”, Chernyshov said. “I am grateful to the US government, the American people and you personally for your comprehensive support of Ukraine. We really appreciate it. Our cooperation is extremely important and we are doing our best to improve and expand it”. Naftogaz and @Halliburton boost strategic cooperationhttps://t.co/RFLunXsK4x — Naftogaz of Ukraine (@NaftogazUkraine) November 25, 2022 Halliburton was a household name in the United States in the 2000s, and was practically synonymous with corruption. Vice President Dick Cheney, who served under former President George W. Bush, had worked for years as chairman and CEO of Halliburton. Cheney, a hardline neoconservative, was a key architect of the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003. That same year, Halliburton was given what NPR described as a “‘sweetheart’ deal in Iraq”. NPR wrote: Oil services company Halliburton has come under intense scrutiny over its multi-billion-dollar contracts with the U.S. military in Iraq. Congressional critics want to know if the company is engaging in gold-plating contracts — inflating costs and pocketing the difference. Other critics charge that Halliburton has seemingly become another branch of the U.S. military, while the company’s former chief executive officer, Dick Cheney, is now the vice president. In the first of a three-part series looking at the complex relationship between the defense contractor and the federal government, NPR’s John Burnett examines the scope of contracts in Iraq held by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, better known as KBR. America’s war on terrorism has created a windfall for KBR. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the company has constructed base camps at more than 60 locations throughout the Middle East and South Asia. Under its deal with the Pentagon — known as a “Logcap” contract — KBR is the go-to company to provide troops in Iraq with everything from portable toilets to Internet cafes. A decade later, the International Business Times reported that Halliburton subsidiary KBR had received more Iraq-related contracts than any other private firm in the 10 years of the war. The media outlet reported: The company [KBR] was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks. The Financial Times reported that the Ukrainian government specifically hopes to drill for offshore natural gas in the Black Sea, off of Crimea. Kiev is unable to access that gas, however. Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014, following a referendum with 83% turnout in which 97% of participants said they wanted to join the Russian Federation. Western governments cast doubt on the vote, but polling by mainstream US firm Pew Research found that 91% of Crimeans said the referendum was free and fair and 88% wanted Ukraine to recognize the results. Despite Crimeans’ overwhelming support for integration with Russia, Ukraine and its NATO sponsors have insisted that they will retake the region – not only because of its valuable offshore gas reserves, but also due its deep geostrategic importance for Russia. Russia only has one warm water naval base, the Sevastopol base in Crimea. This is the main base used by Russia’s Black Sea Fleet – and, without it, the sea would effectively become controlled by NATO. For Moscow, this is genuinely a security concern, not one motivated by ulterior economic interests. Even the US military-backed think tank the RAND Corporation conceded this, publishing a report in April 2022 titled “Russia Does Not Seem to Be After Ukraine’s Gas Reserves”. RAND wrote: Ukraine does indeed control Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas, almost 80 percent of which are located east of the Dnipro River. However, these reserves amount to less than 3 percent of Russia’s total natural gas reserves. And though Ukraine theoretically might have considerable shale gas reserves, they remain largely unproven, and Russia currently has no experience or technology for shale gas production. The geostrategic location of Russia’s only warm water naval base, in Sevastopol, Crimea During his trip to Washington this April, Naftogaz CEO Chernyshov not only met with corporate executives; he also sat down with senior government officials, like former US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Pyatt represented Washington in Kiev during a violent US-backed coup in 2014, which overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government and installed a pro-Western regime. A notorious leaked phone call from top State Department official Victoria Nuland showed US officials deciding who would run the Ukrainian government after the coup. Joining Nuland on the call was none other than Pyatt. Today, Pyatt serves as US assistant secretary of state for energy resources, and he also coordinates cooperation between the G7 and Ukraine. In a press release on Chernyshov’s meeting with Pyatt, Naftogaz wrote with pride that it “is working to attract American companies – their technologies, expertise and investments – to increase production in Ukraine”. “We discussed a number of issues. From Ukraine’s new role in Europe’s energy security system to the implementation of corporate governance reform”, Chernyshov said. On his trip to Washington, Naftogaz CEO Chernyshov also met with representatives from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the US-dominated financial institution that is infamous for imposing neoliberal economic policies on indebted nations. This March, the IMF made the unprecedented decision of approving a $15.6 billion loan for Ukraine. The IMF had never before provided financing to a country that is at war. A reporter at US state media outlet NPR admitted that the IMF had to implement a “rule change”, which “was obviously, you know, politically motivated”. Since it was created in 1944, the IMF refused to give loans to countries at war But it is now giving $15.6 billion to Ukraine US state media NPR admits the "rule change was obviously politically motivated" This is the US "rules-based order": change the rules when it suits you pic.twitter.com/u0GKLMFsmB — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 1, 2023 Naftogaz declared in a press release that “successful and consistent cooperation with the IMF is crucial for Ukraine’s resilience during the war”. Using racist rhetoric that implied that Russia is “uncivilized”, Chernyshov stated: Cooperation with the IMF is crucial for the stability of our country in times of war. The fact that we have a program is a signal to the civilized world that the country is moving in the right direction. Ukraine has made its civilizational choice. Naftogaz has fulfilled its part of the conditions for our country to receive the IMF program. This demonstrates that we are a reliable partner. Naftogaz will not let the country down. The Naftogaz statement did not clarify what these “conditions” were, but a February press release from the IMF made it clear that it includes neoliberal reforms. The IMF reported that its discussions with Ukrainian authorities “covered the medium-term macroeconomic framework, fiscal policy, the financing mix, financial sector policies, and governance”. The IMF’s conditions included, “In particular, reform initiatives to enhance productivity and competitiveness of the private sector need to be advanced to help lay the foundation for a robust post-war growth against a backdrop of progress toward EU accession”. Reforms to “enhance productivity and competitiveness of the private sector” is a euphemistic way of saying that Ukraine must further privatize state-owned industries and sell off public assets. In its statement, the IMF stressed, “The private sector is also expected to contribute to the reconstruction efforts”. The Fund also wrote favorably of “draft tax laws aimed to increase revenues”, calling for “shoring up tax revenues” and “creating fiscal space for war-related repairs”. “Efforts to expand issuance in the domestic bond market should continue to help ensure a stable financing mix and eliminate reliance on monetary financing”, it added. In short, the IMF’s conditions for Ukraine are a typical reflection of the Washington Consensus: neoliberal austerity measures, which increase the burden on Ukrainian workers, whose living standards are declining and who have fewer and fewer rights, while US corporations are offered profitable opportunities to buy up public assets.

Write an article about: NATO’s Atlantic Council promoted Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Atlantic Council, Azov Battalion, fascism, Nazis, Russia, Ukraine

NATO’s think tank the Atlantic Council, funded by the US and European governments, promoted Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in 2014, depicting its far-right extremist fighters as anti-Russia heroes while whitewashing their fascist ideology. The NATO military alliance’s de facto think tank, the Atlantic Council, promoted a notorious neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine, the Azov Battalion, in a 2014 article that depicted the fascist extremists as anti-Russian heroes. The Atlantic Council is one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington. With funding from the US State Department, numerous Western governments, NATO, and the weapons industry, it plays a key role in shaping US foreign policy, particularly toward Russia. The Atlantic Council published a report in June 2014 titled “The Battle For Mariupol.” It was little more than a press release for Azov, written by a reporter who embedded inside the neo-Nazi militia. The article was posted in the think tank’s “New Atlanticist” blog. It identified the author, Askold Krushelnycky, simply as a “British journalist embedded with the Azov Battalion.” Azov preaches a white supremacist Nazi ideology that portrays Ukrainians as a pure white race fighting “Asiatic” Russians in a war to maintain racial purity. The battalion uses explicit Nazi symbols, including the German Wolfsangel and Black Sun. The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion The Atlantic Council article mentioned nothing at all about Azov’s fascist politics. Reporting on a battle between Ukrainian Russian-speaking independence supporters and far-right Azov extremists over the southeastern city of Mariupol, the article called it “a good piece of news for Ukraine’s government” that the Nazi militias won in combat. In order to defeat these Ukrainian Russian-speaking independence fighters, the Western-backed government in Kiev essentially relied on local fascist gangs hired by wealthy oligarchs. The Atlantic Council euphemistically described these as “local or provincial-level Ukrainian battalions that have been raised, often by pro-Kyiv business magnates, to fill a gap created by the uneven performance of Ukraine’s national military.” After a 2014 US-sponsored coup d’etat in Ukraine, in which far-right extremist groups played a leading role, Azov was officially incorporated into the country’s National Guard. The author of the report, Krushelnycky, published a photo of a makeshift armored vehicle used by the Nazi militia, which he said “looked like one of the vehicles from the Mad Max films.” The Atlantic Council shared this photo on its official Flickr account, with a Creative Commons license that allows for free republication. On Flickr, the Atlantic Council created a special album specifically for the photos of the Ukrainian Nazis. (The album is archived here, and the specific photos are archived here, in case the think tank deletes them.) All of the photos were released under the Creative Commons license. The Atlantic Council even published two photos (archived here) of prisoners taken by the Ukrainian Nazis, describing them as “captured separatist militants.” The NATO think tank added that one of the Azov prisoners “wears an orange-and-black band on his left wrist, which identifies him as pro-Russian.” Anti-Russia critics have often claimed that the accusation that Ukraine’s Western-backed government is infiltrated by neo-Nazis and far-right extremists is “Russian propaganda.” Yet in 2018, the Atlantic Council itself admitted this undeniable fact, in an article titled “Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn’t Write This Headline).” The post reported that Ukraine’s Ministry of Youth and Sports gave funding to the neo-Nazi group C14 to promote “national patriotic education projects.” C14 has launched brutal attacks on the Roma and LGBTQ communities. It also cited mainstream human rights organization Amnesty International, which warned that “Ukraine is sinking into a chaos of uncontrolled violence posed by radical groups and their total impunity.” When some US lawmakers launched a campaign to try to get Azov listed as a terrorist organization, due to its close links to violent white-supremacist fascist groups inside the United States, the Atlantic Council pushed back. In 2020, the NATO think tank published an article titled “Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization,” written by anti-Russia researcher Anton Shekhovtsov. The post admitted that it is “indisputable” that Azov’s ideology is rooted in Nazism, and the “leading core of” it “was formed by the far right.” But Shekhovtsov argued that Azov must not be designated a terrorist organization because it is a special operations detachment of the Ukrainian National Guard, and therefore “an integral part of official structures” of the state, following “orders given by the Interior Ministry.” Labeling this Ukrainian government-sponsored Nazi group a terrorist organization would be a “gift to the Kremlin,” Shekhovtsov insisted. Back in 2014, the Atlantic Council was heroizing these very same Nazis. The author of the “The Battle For Mariupol” report, Askold Krushelnycky, acknowledged that the pro-Kiev/Western side consisted of roughly 400 fighters, half of whom were Azov Nazis, with the rest comprised of soldiers from Ukraine’s army, national guard, and volunteer units, led by a Ukrainian army general. Krushelnycky noted that some of these Azov extremists had also fought alongside Georgians and Chechens in their previous wars against Russia. The Atlantic Council article implicitly admitted that these Nazis played a key role as the muscle behind the violent US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014. Krushelnycky wrote: Many of the [Azov] battalion’s members took part in the months of mass demonstrations against their former pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, after he reneged on his promise to bring his country closer to the European Union and instead sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some of those now in the battalion were the persons who transformed the passionate protests into revolution and were in the forefront of street battles against Yanukovych’s brutal security forces. The “Battle For Mariupol” report makes absolutely no mention of Azov’s fascist ideology. The closest it comes to disclosing Azov’s extremist politics is one sentence: “The battalion has had political support from hardline Ukrainian nationalists such as Oleh Lyashko, a parliament member from the Radical Party who won 8 percent of votes in last month’s presidential election.” Krushelnycky described Oleh Lyashko merely as a “nationalist politician.” In reality, he is a notorious right-wing extremist. Even more deceptively, the Atlantic Council report mentioned the leader of Azov, Andriy Biletsky, but did not say anything about his fascist ideology. Biletsky helped found two different neo-Nazi groups, the Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine, both of which use the German Wolfsangel symbol. Just a few months after the Atlantic Council published this article whitewashing and praising a neo-Nazi militia, the NATO think tank held a special event with Ukraine’s Western-backed president, Petro Poroshenko. #Ukraine's @poroshenko: "This is my country. This is my land. This is my soil – and soul." #ACUkraine pic.twitter.com/5zzq0HPhcf — Atlantic Council (@AtlanticCouncil) September 18, 2014 Poroshenko, a billionaire oligarch known as the “chocolate king,” is infamous for his ties to far-right extremists as well. One of his advisors wrote a neo-Nazi symbol on Facebook that combines a white supremacist slogan with “Heil Hitler.” Poroshenko also posed for a photo op with a soldier wearing a Nazi symbol, and even shared a historical photo of German Nazis marching Jews to a death camp and falsely blamed it on the Soviet Union. In September 2014, Poroshenko was personally given an award by the Atlantic Council’s president and CEO, Fred Kempe; the NATO think tank’s chairman, Jon Huntsman; and the US chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez. They were rewarding Poroshenko for his aggressive pro-Western and anti-Russian policies.

Write an article about: ‘World War 3 has already started’ between US and Russia/China, argues French scholar. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Emmanuel Todd, Europe, France, Germany, Le Figaro, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

Prominent French intellectual Emmanuel Todd argues the Ukraine proxy war is the start of WWIII, and is “existential” for both Russia and the US “imperial system”, which has restricted the sovereignty of Europe, making Brussels into Washington’s “protectorate”. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) A prominent French intellectual has written a book arguing that the United States is already waging World War Three against Russia and China. He also warned that Europe has become a kind of imperial “protectorate”, which has little sovereignty and is essentially controlled by the US. Emmanuel Todd is a widely respected anthropologist and historian in France. In 2022, Todd published a book titled “The Third World War Has Started” (“La Troisième Guerre mondiale a commencé” in French). At the moment, it is only available in Japan. But Todd outlined the main arguments he made in the book in a French-language interview with the major newspaper Le Figaro, conducted by the journalist Alexandre Devecchio. According to Todd, the proxy war in Ukraine is “existential” not only for Russia, but also for the United States. The US “imperial system” is weakening in much of the world, he observed, but this is leading Washington to “strengthen its hold on its initial protectorates”: Europe and Japan. This means that “Germany and France had become minor partners in NATO”, Todd said, and NATO is really a “Washington-London-Warsaw-Kiev” bloc. US and EU sanctions have failed to crush Russia, as Western capitals had hoped, he noted. This means that “the resistance of the Russian economy is pushing the American imperial system toward the precipice”, and “the American monetary and financial controls of the world would collapse”. The French public intellectual pointed to UN votes concerning Russia, and cautioned that the West is out of touch with the rest of the world. “Western newspapers are tragically funny. They don’t stop saying, ‘Russia is isolated, Russia is isolated’. But when we look at the votes of the United Nations, we see that 75% of the world does not follow the West, which then seems very small”, Todd observed. He also criticized the GDP metrics used by Western neoclassical economists for downplaying the productive capacity of the Russian economy, while simultaneously exaggerating that of financialized neoliberal economies like in the United States. Emmanuel Todd, one of the greatest French intellectuals today, claims that the "Third World War has started." Small ? translating the most important points in this fascinating interview.https://t.co/eYdKoBJx7B — Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) January 13, 2023 In the Le Figaro interview, Todd argued (all emphasis added): This is the reality, World War III has begun. It is true that it started ‘small’ and with two surprises. We went into this war with the idea that the Russian army was very powerful and that its economy was very weak. It was thought that Ukraine was going to be crushed militarily and that Russia would be crushed economically by the West. But the reverse happened. Ukraine was not crushed militarily even if it lost 16% of its territory on that date; Russia was not crushed economically. As I speak to you, the ruble has gained 8% against the dollar and 18% against the euro since the day before the start of the war. So there was a sort of misunderstanding. But it is obvious that the conflict, passing from a limited territorial war to a global economic confrontation, between the whole of the West on the one hand and Russia backed by China on the other hand, has become a war world. Even if military violence is low compared to that of previous world wars. The newspaper asked Todd if he was exaggerating. He replied, “We still provide weapons. We kill Russians, even if we don’t expose ourselves. But it remains true that we Europeans are above all economically engaged. We also feel our true entry into war through the inflation and shortages”. Todd understated his case. He didn’t mention the fact that, after the US sponsored the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014, setting off a civil war, the CIA and Pentagon immediately began training Ukrainian forces to fight Russia. The New York Times has acknowledged that the CIA and special operations forces from numerous European countries are on the ground in Ukraine. And the CIA and a European NATO ally are even carrying out sabotage attacks inside Russian territory. Nevertheless, in the interview, Todd continued: Putin made a big mistake early on, which is of immense sociohistorical interest. Those who worked on Ukraine on the eve of the war considered the country not as a fledgling democracy, but as a society in decay and a ‘failed state’ in the making. I think the Kremlin’s calculation was that this decaying society would crumble at the first shock, or even say ‘welcome Mom’ to holy Russia. But what we have discovered, on the contrary, is that a society in decomposition, if it is fed by external financial and military resources, can find in war a new type of balance, and even a horizon, a hope. The Russians could not have foreseen it. No one could. Todd said he shares the view of Ukraine of US political scientist John Mearsheimer, a realist who has criticized Washington’s hawkish foreign policy. Mearsheimer “told us that Ukraine, whose army had been taken over by NATO soldiers (American, British and Polish) since at least 2014, was therefore a de facto member of NATO, and that the Russians had announced that they would never tolerate a NATO member Ukraine,” Todd said. For Russia, this is there a war that is “from their point of view defensive and preventative,” he conceded. “Mearsheimer added that we would have no reason to rejoice in the eventual difficulties of the Russians because, since this is an existential question for them, the harder it was, the harder they would hit. The analysis seems to hold true.” However, Todd argued that Mearsheimer “does not go far enough” in his analysis. The US political scientist has overlooked how Washington has restricted the sovereignty of Berlin and Paris, Todd said: Germany and France had become minor partners in NATO and were not aware of what was going on in Ukraine on the military level. French and German naivety has been criticized because our governments did not believe in the possibility of a Russian invasion. True, but because they did not know that Americans, British and Poles could make Ukraine be able to wage a larger war. The fundamental axis of NATO now is Washington-London-Warsaw-Kiev. Mearsheimer, like a good American, overestimates his country. He considers that, if for the Russians the war in Ukraine is existential, for the Americans it is nothing but a power “game” among others. After Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, one debacle more or less… What does it matter? The basic axiom of American geopolitics is: ‘We can do whatever we want because we are sheltered, far away, between two oceans, nothing will ever happen to us’. Nothing would be existential for America. Insufficiency of analysis which today leads Biden to a series of reckless actions. America is fragile. The resistance of the Russian economy is pushing the American imperial system toward the precipice. No one had expected that the Russian economy would hold up against the “economic power” of NATO. I believe that the Russians themselves did not anticipate it. The French public intellectual went on in the interview to argue that, by resisting the full force of Western sanctions, Russia and China pose a threat to “the American monetary and financial controls of the world”. This, in turn, challenges the US status as the issuer of the global reserve currency, which gives it the ability to maintain a “huge trade deficit”: If the Russian economy resisted the sanctions indefinitely and managed to exhaust the European economy, while it itself remained backed by China, the American monetary and financial controls of the world would collapse, and with them the possibility for United States to fund its huge trade deficit for nothing. This war has therefore become existential for the United States. No more than Russia, they cannot withdraw from the conflict, they cannot let go. This is why we are now in an endless war, in a confrontation whose outcome must be the collapse of one or the other. Todd warned that, while the United States is weakening in much of the world, its “imperial system” is “strengthening its hold on its initial protectorates”: Europe and Japan. He explained: Everywhere we see the weakening of the United States, but not in Europe and Japan because one of the effects of the retraction of the imperial system is that the United States strengthens its hold on its initial protectorates. If we read [Zbigniew] Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard), we see that the American empire was formed at the end of the Second World War by the conquest of Germany and Japan, which are still protectorates today. As the American system shrinks, it weighs more and more heavily on the local elites of the protectorates (and I include all of Europe here). The first to lose all national autonomy will be (or already are) the English and the Australians. The Internet has produced human interaction with the United States in the Anglosphere of such intensity that its academic, media and artistic elites are, so to speak, annexed. On the European continent we are somewhat protected by our national languages, but the fall in our autonomy is considerable, and rapid. As an example of a moment in recent history when Europe was more independent, Todd pointed out, “Let us remember the war in Iraq, when Chirac, Schröder and Putin held joint press conferences against the war” – referring to the former leaders of France (Jacques Chirac) and Germany (Gerhard Schröder). The interviewer at Le Figaro newspaper, Alexandre Devecchio, countered Todd asking, “Many observers point out that Russia has the GDP of Spain. Aren’t you overestimating its economic power and resilience?” Todd criticized the overreliance on GDP as a metric, calling it a “fictional measure of production” that obscures the real productive forces in an economy: War becomes a test of political economy, it is the great revealer. The GDP of Russia and Belarus represents 3.3% of Western GDP (the US, Anglosphere, Europe, Japan, South Korea), practically nothing. One can ask oneself how this insignificant GDP can cope and continue to produce missiles. The reason is that GDP is a fictional measure of production. If we take away from the American GDP half of its overbilled health spending, then the “wealth produced” by the activity of its lawyers, by the most filled prisons in the world, then by an entire economy of ill-defined services, including the “production” of its 15 to 20 thousand economists with an average salary of 120,000 dollars, we realize that an important part of this GDP is water vapor. War brings us back to the real economy, it allows us to understand what the real wealth of nations is, the capacity for production, and therefore the capacity for war. Todd noted that Russia has shown “a real capacity to adapt”. He attributed this to the “very large role for the state” in the Russian economy, in contrast to the US neoliberal economic model: If we come back to material variables, we see the Russian economy. In 2014, we put in place the first important sanctions against Russia, but then it increased its wheat production, which went from 40 to 90 million tons in 2020. Meanwhile, thanks to neoliberalism, American wheat production, between 1980 and 2020, went from 80 to 40 million tons. … Russia has therefore a real capacity to adapt. When we want to make fun of centralized economies, we emphasize their rigidity, and when we glorify capitalism, we praise its flexibility. … The Russian economy, for its part, has accepted the rules of operation of the market (it is even an obsession of Putin to preserve them), but with a very large role for the state, but it also derives its flexibility from training engineers, who allow the industrial and military adaptations. This point is similar to what economist Michael Hudson has argued – that although Moscow’s economy is no longer socialist, like that of the Soviet Union was, the Russian Federation’s state-led industrial capitalism clashes with the financialized model of neoliberal capitalism that the United States has tried to impose on the world.

Write an article about: West must support Ukraine ‘no matter what my German voters think’, says FM Baerbock. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Annalena Baerbock, Czech Republic, Forum 2000, Germany, NATO, Russia, Ukraine

Germany’s hawkish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock insisted NATO must “stand with Ukraine as long as they need us”, pledging military support “no matter what my German voters think”. Germany’s hawkish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock essentially argued that Western military support for Ukraine is more important than democracy. Baerbock insisted that European governments must continue backing Ukraine in the NATO proxy war with Russia, “no matter what my German voters think”. “We stand with Ukraine as long as they need us”, Baerbock emphasized, adding, “If I give the promise to people in Ukraine, ‘We stand with you as long as you need us’, then I want to deliver, no matter what my German voters think, but I want to deliver to the people of Ukraine”. She made these comments at the conference of the Western government-sponsored Forum 2000, which was held in the Czech Republic. Baerbock’s remarks can clearly be heard in an August 31 livestream of the meeting. The Forum 2000 conference was funded primarily by the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a notorious CIA cutout, as well as the Czech government and the Visegrad Fund, a soft-power organization funded by the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. The conference was likewise bankrolled by the European Commission, US embassy in the Czech Republic, and Taiwan. The Forum 2000 Foundation is supported by a Who’s Who of Western government-backed institutions. Germany has seen skyrocketing energy prices, largely due to Western sanctions on Russia. These rising energy costs have been a major contributor to inflation. Russia was the European Union’s biggest energy partner, and the biggest provider of both oil and gas to Germany. Germany is the industrial heart of the EU, and its manufacturing sector needs massive supplies of cheap energy to remain competitive. By cutting off its closest energy partner, Germany is fueling significant de-industrialization.

Write an article about: CNN calls indigenous Palestinians ‘settlers’ while whitewashing Israeli settler-colonialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

CNN, corporate media, Israel, media, Palestine, Trita Parsi

Top US media outlet CNN referred to indigenous Palestinians as “settlers,” in a report whitewashing Israeli settler-colonialism in Jerusalem. Top US media outlet CNN referred to indigenous Palestinians as “settlers,” in a report whitewashing Israeli settler-colonialism. The network turned reality on its head, portraying Palestinians defending their ancestral homes as aggressors, and Israeli colonialists illegally trying to take over Jerusalem as victims. On February 15, CNN published a video report titled “Israeli nationalists clash with Palestinians over Jerusalem housing settlements.” An archived version of the story shows that it had the following subtitle: “CNN’s Andrew Carey reports on the tensions, that sometimes turn violent, between Israeli nationalists and Palestinian settlers over housing in Jerusalem.” In reality, the Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem are indigenous, and the Israeli “nationalists” described by CNN are far-right extremists who are trying to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, take over their houses, and colonize their communities, in flagrant violation of international law. Analyst Trita Parsi drew attention to the scandalous report on Twitter. “UNBELIEVABLE!,” Parsi wrote. “CNN now claims that Palestinians are SETTLERS, while Israelis are nationalists.” “CNN not only doesn’t call illegal Israeli settlements ‘settlements’ (but neighborhoods), now they have even started claiming that it is the Palestinians who are the settlers,” he added. UNBELIEVABLE! CNN now claims that Palestinians are SETTLERS, while Israelis are nationalists. CNN not only doesn't call illegal Israeli settlements "settlements" (but neighborhoods), now they have even started claiming that it is the Palestinians who are the settlers… pic.twitter.com/dJrKLjx6CR — Trita Parsi (@tparsi) February 15, 2022 In response to the backlash, CNN published a correction, writing in a new subtitle, “A previous version of this incorrectly referred to Palestinian homes in Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood as settlements and Palestinians as settlers.” Even mainstream pro-Western lobby organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have acknowledged that Israel is an apartheid regime committing crimes against humanity against the indigenous Palestinian population. "Palestinians, through their resistance, in all its forms, are forcing even these liberal human rights organizations to recognize the reality" of apartheid, @AliAbunimah explained in the interviewhttps://t.co/FzORmB3UX7 — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 3, 2022

Write an article about: US wants to surround China with missiles – but can’t find Asian country to host them. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Australia, China, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand

The United States plans to spend billions of dollars to surround China with missiles. But a US military-sponsored study concluded its Pacific allies South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia are unlikely to host the offensive weapons. The United States plans to spend tens of billions of dollars to surround China with missiles. But it’s having trouble finding an Asian country willing to host the offensive weapons. The US military commissioned a study from the RAND Corporation, a Pentagon-backed research group, to assess the feasibility of deploying intermediate-range missiles to the Pacific. The study closely analyzed the US government’s relations with its five treaty allies in the region: Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand. Citing “an inability to find a willing partner,” the RAND report concluded that the chance of these nations hosting US ground-based intermediate-range missiles “is very low as long as current domestic political conditions and regional security trends hold.” The Donald Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019. This means Washington can now deploy ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, RAND noted. The study refers to these weapons as ground-based intermediate-range missiles, using the acronym GBIRMs. “Finding an ally willing to host GBIRMs is more challenging than finding allies willing to host other types of U.S. military forces, such as air bases,” RAND wrote. RAND conceded that this opposition is logical: “There are several reasons why U.S. allies could deny access to and use of their territories, including fears that hosting such systems could intensify a regional arms race with China; the risk of the deployment being seen as provocative, sparking harsh reactions from Beijing; and fears of entrapment in a conflict between the United States and China that does not directly involve the ally.” Given this reality, the RAND report suggested other possibilities for the US to militarily encircle and threaten China, including by deploying ground-based intermediate-range missiles instead to Guam, which is a US colony in the Pacific. RAND concluded that the most realistic approach would be for Washington to strengthen Japan’s military to counter China. The major Japanese media outlet Nikkei published an article on this RAND study. It noted, “In a six-year investment plan submitted to Congress in February last year, the U.S. military’s Indo-Pacific Command made it clear that ground-based weapons will be crucial in breaking through China’s defense systems.” In 2021, Nikkei exclusively obtained a copy of the “Pacific Deterrence Initiative” that US Indo-Pacific Command submitted to Congress. The strategy revealed that the US military plans on spending $27.4 billion over six years to install precision-strike missiles on the first island chain – the first chain of islands off of the coast of East Asia, which includes Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The U.S. will establish a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain as part of $27.4 billion in spending to be considered for the Indo-Pacific theater over the next six years, Nikkei has learned.https://t.co/dPdbmnlpXg pic.twitter.com/RiyCpuYPrp — Andy Sharp (@sharp_writing) March 5, 2021 The US military proposal lamented that Beijing is challenging Washington’s hegemony in the region, writing, “Without a valid and convincing conventional deterrent, China is emboldened to take action in the region and globally to supplant U.S. interests.” Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a former vice president of and lobbyist for weapons corporation Raytheon, said in 2019 that the United States sought to deploy intermediate-range missiles to the Pacific region “sooner, rather than later.” Acknowledging that the Joe Biden administration has continued Trump’s aggressive policies against China, the RAND report emphasized, “The strategic logic that underlies this thinking did not change with the transition of administrations in Washington.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a historic speech on May 26 making it clear that the US government is waging a policy of containment and siege against China, similar to the one that Washington pursued against the Soviet Union in the first cold war. The RAND report, which is titled “Ground-Based Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Indo-Pacific Assessing the Positions of U.S. Allies,” was commissioned by the US military’s Pacific Air Forces, and was written by political scientist Jeffrey W. Hornung. It analyzes Washington’s relations with its five treaty allies in the Pacific region, and explained why they are unlikely to host US ground-based intermediate-range missiles. RAND wrote, “It is highly unlikely that Thailand, the Philippines, or the Republic of Korea (ROK) would agree to host U.S. GBIRMs, and there is a small likelihood that Australia or Japan would do so, although the possibility that an agreement might be struck with Tokyo is only slightly greater.” Thailand “Thailand would be highly unlikely to accept,” the RAND study conceded. It noted that the Thai “government shows a propensity to pursue closer ties with China.” Philippines “The Philippines is extremely unlikely to accept the deployment of U.S. GBIRMs,” RAND wrote, adding that the “U.S. alliance with the Philippines is in a state of flux, although it is improving.” RAND continued: “While the Philippine public and elites generally support the United States and the alliance, President Rodrigo Duterte has pursued policies that negatively affect ties. Specifically, Duterte has advocated closer ties with Beijing while pursuing policies that weaken core pillars of the U.S.-Philippine alliance.” South Korea South Korea, officially known as the Republic of Korea (ROK), “retains a close relationship with China,” RAND cautioned. The study concluded that “a general deterioration of U.S.-ROK relations suggest that it is highly unlikely that the ROK would consent to host U.S. GBIRMs.” Australia “The U.S. alliance with Australia is strong. Australia also remains economically close to China, but their bilateral ties have been fraying,” RAND wrote. Yet “Australia’s historical reluctance to host permanent foreign bases, combined with the geographical distance of Australia from continental Asia, makes this possibility unlikely.” Japan The RAND report assessed that “Japan is the regional ally that appears most likely to host U.S. GBIRMs.” It acknowledged, however, that this possibility “remains low, heavily caveated by the challenge of accepting any increase in U.S. presence and deploying weapons that are explicitly offensive in nature.”

Write an article about: Russia strengthens ‘military-technical cooperation’ with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba amid US threats. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Cuba, Daniel Ortega, Miguel Díaz-Canel, Nicaragua, Nicolás Maduro, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Vladimir Putin

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

Write an article about: ICJ’s Israel genocide decision: Historic victory for Palestinians and Global South. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Gaza, Hague, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Israel, Palestine

The historic decision by the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel may be violating the genocide convention is a victory for the Palestinian people, and Global South as a whole, after centuries of Western colonialism. The International Court of Justice at the Hague made history on January 26 by stating that there is sufficient evidence to investigate allegations that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people. In the words of the UN News agency, the ICJ “declared that Palestinians had a right to be protected from acts of genocide, calling on Israel to ‘take all measures within its power’ to prevent such actions and allow the entry of desperately needed humanitarian aid into the war-shattered enclave”. The @CIJ_ICJ on Friday declared that Palestinians had a right to be protected from acts of genocide, calling on Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent such actions and allow the entry of desperately needed humanitarian aid into the war-shattered enclave pic.twitter.com/W0tsSPKjw9 — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) January 26, 2024 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the top legal authority of the United Nations. In December, South Africa introduced a case at the ICJ that accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian people as part of its brutal war on Gaza. In its January 26 decision (PDF here), the ICJ stated that “Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of … (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. The Hague emphasized that “Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts”, and that “Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip”. The ICJ likewise decided that “Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip”. “Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of … the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip” the Hague added. The ICJ ordered the Israeli government to submit a report in a month detailing how it is abiding by the court’s decision. South Africa had initially requested that the ICJ order an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The Hague did not do so overtly. However, in effect, the court indirectly called for a ceasefire. This is the interpretation of South Africa’s head of public diplomacy, Clayson Monyela, who wrote on Twitter, “To be clear… the ICJ has effectively ordered an immediate ceasefire and for Israel to halt military operations”. To be clear…the #ICJ has effectively ordered an immediate ceasefire & for #Israel to halt military operations. The order: "The state of Israel shall ensure WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT that its MILITARY does NOT commit any acts described in point 1. These are: a) Killing of members… pic.twitter.com/pAIVGtUiCp — Clayson Monyela (@ClaysonMonyela) January 26, 2024 However, many Western media outlets distorted the ICJ decision. The New York Times provided a case study of misleading coverage, with the headline “U.N. Court Declines to Demand Israel Stop Its Military Campaign”. Similarly, The Wall Street Journal published the ridiculously skewed title “World Court Rejects Demand for Gaza Cease-Fire”. Palestinian journalist Ali Abunimah pushed back against critics who argued that this decision was not a victory because it did not explicitly call for a ceasefire. The Hague “gave Israel a month to report back but it must halt all killing and other genocidal acts forthwith. Please don’t award Israel a victory it did not win”, Abunimah wrote. These are among the measures the ICJ ordered Israel to implement *immediately*. It gave Israel a month to report back but it must halt all killing and other genocidal acts forthwith. Please don’t award Israel a victory it did not win. https://t.co/hj9TuWElKn pic.twitter.com/Aep0wtRJhB — Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) January 26, 2024 Legal expert Heidi Matthews described the ICJ decision as “a big win for Palestinian advocates“, arguing “the fact that the Court ordered the measures it did, including directing Israel not to commit or incite genocide, indicates it has concluded that it is (a) plausible for Palestinians in Gaza to claim protection from genocide, and (b) that the need for protection is urgent”. Matthews explained on Twitter: “I think we can infer from this that at a minimum there is a serious risk that Israel will commit genocide. This is important because it puts all states on formal notice of the serious risk of genocide, which triggers states’ duty to take concrete steps to prevent genocide. Among other things, this means that in order for states to fulfill their international obligations under the Genocide Convention they must do something. For e.g., states exporting arms or military technology to Israel must stop”. The US government has continued to send billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel throughout this war. This makes it clear that Washington is complicit in Tel Aviv’s crimes. And the Hague has implicitly stated that the US must stop arming Israel. This ICJ decision was particularly important because it is exposing the hypocrisy of the Western governments that sponsor Israel and claim to support international law. Israel’s far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proudly declared in a speech before the ICJ decision, “Nobody will stop us – not The Hague”. Israel boasting that it is a rogue state that will ignore the International Court of Justice made it quite difficult for its sponsors in Washington to pretend to care about international law. This double standard was made especially ironic when the Palestinian armed group Hamas stated clearly that it would abide by a ceasefire order made by the Hague. A tale in 3 acts: pic.twitter.com/PEKG3uid8N — Omar Baddar عمر بدّار (@OmarBaddar) January 26, 2024 In short, one side – the Palestinian people, and its supporters in South Africa and most of the Global South – truly supports international law, whereas the other side – the Israeli government, and its Western sponsors – blatantly disregard and violate international law, while pretending otherwise. Responding to the decision, the US State Department blasted South Africa’s allegations of genocide against Israel as “unfounded”, despite the fact that the ICJ stated that there is sufficient evidence for them to be investigated. That means they are the opposite of unfounded. The Canadian government did the same. Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly said that “Canada supports the ICJ’s critical role in the peaceful settlement of disputes and its work in upholding the international rules-based order”. But mere seconds later, she insisted, “Our support for the ICJ does not mean that we accept the premise of the case brought by South Africa”. Joly then promptly asserted that “Canada will continue to support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself”. So Ottawa claimed to support the ICJ while rejecting the ICJ’s decision and backing Israel’s brutal military assault on Gaza, which the ICJ effectively called for an end to. Despite all of this chicanery by Western governments and the relentless pro-Israel propaganda in the corporate media, support for Tel Aviv is rapidly declining, around the world. Slightly over one-third of people in the United States agree that Israel is committing genocide, according to a poll that was published before the historic ICJ ruling. The Economist/YouGov survey found that 35% of North Americans believe that Israel is committing genocide, including 49% of people aged 18-29. Even 49% of Democrats say that Israel is committing genocide, while Democratic President Joe Biden ignores his own base and steadfastly backs Israel’s assault. Protesters have repeatedly disrupted Biden’s events, referring to him as “genocide Joe”. This may at least partially explain why Biden’s approval rating fell to an abysmal 33% in January. ???? Pew Research: Biden Job Approval Approve: 33%Disapprove: 65%—White: 30-68Black: 48-49Hispanic: 32-65Asian: 39-59Postgrad: 50-49College grad: 36-62No college: 27-71Ages 18-29: 27-71—N=5,140 | January 16-21 | MoE: ±1.7%https://t.co/n9H5XicREZ pic.twitter.com/YLA1KlGkfr — InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) January 26, 2024

Write an article about: The Arctic is the next frontier in the new cold war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Arctic, China, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, NATO, Norway, Russia, Sweden

Geostrategically located, with profitable natural resources, the Arctic is rapidly becoming a militarized zone of power politics in the new cold war, contested by the US and Europe, Russia and China. The Arctic had once been a largely peaceful zone, harboring cooperative international scientific research. But today, it is swiftly becoming one of militarized power politics. Heavily armed nations surround the melting Arctic Ocean, with its unstable environment of eroding shorelines, accessible natural resources, and contested maritime passages. This February, the U.S. launched little publicized, month-long military exercises in the Arctic, hosted by Finland and Norway. The Pentagon’s European Command described the exercises – named Arctic Forge 23, Defense Exercise North, and Joint Viking – as a way “to demonstrate readiness by deploying a combat-credible force to enhance power in NATO’s northern flank”. The exercises bring together more than 10,000 military personnel from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Norway. Actual hostilities could have potentially broken out earlier in February, when the U.S. military shot down an unidentified object over Alaska, soon after a U.S. fighter jet brought down an alleged Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic. The balloon over Alaska turned out to belong to a U.S. hobby club, but a sense of menace was maintained. One way people become aware of impending conflicts is through the entertainment industry, which is important in the process of manufacturing consent. Right now, a Danish series called “Borgen – Power & Glory” is doing just that, revealing the growing importance of the Arctic as a “geopolitical hotspot in world politics.” Borgen addresses the topic of natural resources in the Arctic, which roils up contention between the United States, Russia and China. The series centers on Greenland, a Danish possession with an independence movement that gains strength from the discovery of a vital resource. In the drama, that is oil. In reality, it is rare earth elements. In the drama, this creates tension for the Danish government, caught up in a great power struggle between the U.S., China, and Russia. In reality, Greenland is only one part of a looming conflict in the Arctic, not only about resources, but also about passage through the ocean, which has become more navigable due to accelerated climate change. The sinister presentation of China’s representative in Borgen creates the fear of China’s actual presence in the Arctic. It has a uranium and rare earths mining joint venture with Australia in southern Greenland, which allows two Chinese firms to lead in processing and marketing the materials. China is also exploring zinc, iron and oil deposits in Greenland. Not only has this activity raised concerns about competitive access to rare earths, but, in the case of Greenland, it has raised security issues for Denmark, a member of NATO. As a result, Denmark has revised its security policy, in what Foreign Policy magazine described as a new “geopolitical battlefield”. Echoing U.S. security concerns, Denmark has increased its military budget with a so-called “Arctic capacity package” to enhance surveillance with drones, satellites, and radar. Greenland is relatively autonomous from Denmark and shares a seat with the kingdom at the Arctic Council, but it does have an independence movement that could fulfill its goal with the wealth offered by the mines. This would cost Denmark its seat in the Arctic Council, and, with it, the presence of another NATO member. The Arctic Council, established in 1996, defines itself as “the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic Indigenous peoples and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues”. Thus, a bid by China to build an airport in Greenland was prevented by the Danish government. This was despite the fact that Greenland’s fishing industry was open to the marketing opportunity it presented, and to the eventual promise of independence. China, however, having its own concerns over foreign intervention in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan, is unwilling to interfere politically in Greenland. Furthermore, intervention from the U.S. was likely – as dramatized in Borgen – given the U.S. air base at Thule, which is home to the U.S. Space Force and a global network of missile warning sensors. A successful independence movement in Greenland would cause Denmark to lose its status as an Arctic State, as well as potentially threaten Washington’s continued use of the base. Besides the question of Greenland, the navigability of the Arctic Ocean, due to its thawing, has created several geopolitical issues. It now greatly shortens China’s trade route with Europe and offers a backup to the Malacca Straits, which U.S. warships could blockade in case of a conflict. Indeed, in 2012, a Chinese icebreaker made full transit through the Arctic to Iceland. And in 2023, China tested its third trip, proving its trading capability and enhancing scientific cooperation between the two countries. While China is not itself an Arctic state, it has laid out its claims in international terms in its Arctic Policy of 2018: “The Arctic situation now goes beyond its original inter-Arctic States or regional nature, having a vital bearing on the interests of States outside the region… with global implications and international impacts.” Beijing claims “rights in respect of scientific research, navigation, overflight, fishing, laying of submarine cables and pipelines in the high seas and other relevant sea areas in the Arctic Ocean, and rights to resource exploration and exploitation in the Area.” It further claims that, geographically, China’s climate system and ecological environment are affected by Arctic events, and therefore deserves to be consulted in matters of security and global governance. More assertively, China expects to play a major role in expanding the network of shipping routes in the Arctic in the form of a Polar Silk Road “to facilitate connectivity and sustainable economic and social development of the Arctic.” These ambitions have alarmed Western countries, despite China’s disclaimers of intent: respect, cooperation, win-win result, and sustainability. On the other hand, even some Western military observers validate China’s interest in and contribution to resource development and scientific cooperation in the Arctic. They assuage fears of China’s use of the right of passage through Arctic waters. Furthermore, China has yet to invest in any Russian Arctic port, and no joint naval exercises have been held in Russian Arctic waters. Finally, China’s position as an accredited observer to the Arctic Council constrains any political challenges it may mount. As a 2022 academic article published by the U.S. Air Force put it: “China Is Not a Peer Competitor in the Arctic.” The growing closeness of China and Russia, nevertheless, raises new questions about a shifting balance of power in the region. Russia’s northern border occupies over half the shoreline on the ocean, which gives it claims to offshore resources like oil. The North Sea Route, hugging the length of Russia’s northern border, offers a shipping lane for Chinese trade with Europe. Historically, Russia has seen the route as within its sphere of influence and has not accepted China’s term of a Polar Silk Road. The Ukraine war, however, has made Russia more dependent on China. Their partnership may change the balance of power in the region. As of 2021, Russia chaired the Arctic Council for a two-year term stint. But the Arctic Chiefs of Defense meetings and the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable have excluded Russia since a democratic referendum with more than 90% approval led to the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Claiming to perceive a threat, NATO has revived an old Cold War expression, referring to the “northern flank” for this area, and exploring its potentially conflictual relationship with Russia in that context. For Moscow, defense of its northern border is a prime security issue. But with the revival of Cold War tensions, the U.S. and NATO consider Russia’s militarization to be a threat, and they are remilitarizing as well. As Vijay Prashad has shown, NATO’s so-called “Centre of Excellence – Cold Weather Operations“, based in Norway, brings Western allies together for biannual military exercises in the Arctic. Should Finland and Sweden join NATO, Russia would be confronted with a phalanx of opponents on the Arctic Council and be encircled north and west by hostile forces. Consequently, the stability of the Arctic region is now endangered. In addition to its geostrategic location, the Arctic is crucial for its natural resources. 90 percent of Russia’s current gas production and 60 percent of its oil production take place in the Arctic. The region has a staggering 60 percent of Russia’s gas and oil reserves. The Russian Arctic also has large deposits of coal, petroleum, and natural gas, as well as diamonds, gold, nickel, cobalt, copper, palladium, platinum, zinc, and rare earth metals. In addition, Russia aspires to make the region more hospitable, even tourist friendly. It plans to build new cities, as well as harbors, airports, and IT equipment. These plans include ways of preventing the negative impacts of this development on climate change, to which the Arctic is highly vulnerable. Finally, the Northern Sea Route, made passable by the Russian fleet of 40 icebreakers, including four nuclear-powered ones and a new series planned, is a bone of contention in maritime law. Russia considers this a national waterway. But if foreign ships are to pass through for trade, it would have to become an international route, possibly open to hostile warships as well. The conflict in Eastern Europe, on Russia’s western border, has increased Moscow’s fear of encirclement, including in its north. Denmark, with its autonomous region Greenland, as well as Norway jockey for position in the Arctic. As members of NATO, they have participated in maneuvers they consider a form of deterrence. Should Finland and Sweden also join NATO, Russia’s northern border would face a militarized front including Canada, the United States, and Iceland. A delicate balance to avoid war has so far been maintained within the Arctic Council. However, this equilibrium is increasingly being challenged by a heightened diplomatic and military presence of the U.S. in the Arctic, which has created the position of “Ambassador-At-Large for the Arctic Region,” and is developing Army Arctic Special Operations Forces. A stated mission of these U.S. Special Forces is to leverage the specialized Arctic knowledge of Indigenous peoples for military purposes and to prevent their “vulnerability to other influences.” Given the malign neglect suffered by Alaskan and Canadian Inuit people and by Sami people in the other Arctic nation-states, this is a real concern. A 2021 U.S. Army document announced that Washington must “regain Arctic dominance” and “win” in the region. The chief of staff paper anticipated northern routes from which troops could be deployed from Alaska to points around the globe. It also recognized the importance of Arctic resources, like rare minerals needed for components of aircraft engines and advanced weapons. A new NATO Arctic Command expects to establish a formal Arctic Security Forum that includes the U.S.-led military alliance. While civilian observers acknowledge Russia’s right to defend its northern border, and urge case-by-case management of disagreements to maintain stability, the U.S. military recommends serious strategizing in the Arctic Council with its NATO allies, which may soon include Sweden and Finland. Not only is the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coast contested in maritime law but so too are the Northwest Passage in the western Arctic, adjoining Canada, Greenland, and Alaska. In this case, Canada agrees with Russia that maintaining national control is a matter of sovereign right. Other states with heavy commercial maritime traffic, however, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, claim international right of passage under the UN Convention on Law of the Sea. China could also claim this right, regarding the Northern Sea Route, though it would conflict with Russian interests. The heightened tension over the Northwest Passage has led the Canadian government to court its Inuit population, whose settlement area encompasses most of the Northwest Passage routes. The land claims agreement of 1993, however, does not give the Indigenous people authority over marine areas, only consultation. This agreement was successfully employed in the Inuit statement supporting Canada’s rebuttal to former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who bluntly denounced Ottawa’s claim over the Northwest Passage as “illegitimate.” Environmental issues and the lives of Indigenous peoples gain attention in this political whirlpool, but mainly rhetorically. The damage wrought by the fossil fuel industry and more recently by new technologies of “green” mining continue to push First Nations further off their lands, imperiling their natural foods. But they are assuming a stronger political voice in the upcoming rivalries between their respective nation-states. Both the Inuit peoples of the western Arctic and the Sami of the eastern Arctic have developed circumpolar organizations that participate in the governance of the Arctic. The states that colonized them and in which they are now minorities are taking a greater interest in maintaining their loyalty and in acquiring their knowledge of Arctic conditions in case of conflicts. The Inuit of the western region of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland total an estimated 180.000 population. 16,500 are in Alaska, organized into the Alaska Federation of Nations. The resolutions of its October 2022 annual meeting reflect resentment of many hardships: the decline in stock of fisheries threatening native food security; a drug epidemic of fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine; a high incidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, and missing and murdered people; waste and contaminants left by the military and other governmental agencies; ongoing seizure of native lands; and insufficient access to education and business. Especially poignant is a resolution “imploring the state of Alaska to end its practice of requiring tribal waivers of sovereign immunity as a condition for receiving grant funds.” The more than 70,000 Inuit in Canada are largely urbanized, due to a long history of forced assimilation. With high unemployment, low wages and substandard housing, they have significant food insecurity, a high rate of imprisonment, and youth suicide. In the 1970s, an organization of Inuit was formed to protect their individual and cultural rights, as well as land claims. It is part of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, which connects with Inuit in Alaska and Greenland, and has connections with the United Nations. The Sami are a historically nomadic herding people who once roamed freely and are now divided with approximately 20,000 in Sweden, 50,000 in Norway, 8,000 in Finland and 2,000 in Russia. In all of these states, they suffer from ongoing land grabs, which interfere with reindeer grazing routes; discrimination; and violent racism. The deliberate killing of reindeer herds have plagued the Sami in Sweden, despite government attempts at reconciliation and some funding. The Sami in Finland similarly suffer loss of land, inhibition of reindeer herding, and lack of power over access to resources on their remaining land. Finland now touts cultural tourism of the Sami. The Sami in Norway have organized against infrastructure projects that threaten even more land loss, to little avail. The Sami in Russia, the smallest group, reestablished contact with the others in 1991. Their urban conditions are not better than that of the Sami elsewhere, but their reindeer herding has a unique problem. They had been organized into cooperatives which now have difficulty readjusting to new conditions of ongoing industrialization. As elsewhere, this development continues to usurp their pasture lands. In addition, tourist fishing has reduced their food supply. Like the Inuit, the Sami have a circumpolar organization for common interests, a Sami Council consisting of three Parliaments representing the indigenous peoples of Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The Russian Sami are represented by NGOs. The war in Ukraine has created a split among the Sami. In April 2022, the Council suspended formal relations with the Russian group, which supported the Russian Federation, portending the incursion of sub-Arctic politics into the polar region. The relatively peaceful days of the Arctic are over. Its warming is turning up the geopolitical heat in the polar region, bringing to mind an old adage: “What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.”

Write an article about: Ukraine conflict ‘caused by Europeans’ love of war, hegemony’, says Malaysia’s ex leader. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Europe, Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia, NATO, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine

Malaysia’s longest-serving Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said “the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of war, of hegemony, of dominance”. He warned it “can be interpreted as the start of the Third World War”. The longest-serving prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, has stated that “the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of war, of hegemony, of dominance”. Mahathir argued that the conflict “can be interpreted as the start of the Third World War”. Moreover, Western sanctions against Russia have meant “the world has to endure shortages of supplies”, he said. Mahathir added that the United States is responsible for irresponsible “provocation” in East Asia, by giving weapons to Taiwan and by sending top US official Nancy Pelosi to the island to support separatist forces. Mahathir led Malaysia from 1981 to 2003 and then again from 2018 to 2020. He made these comments in a Twitter thread on February 24. WORLD WAR III 1. I hesitate to write this article. I may be accused of apologising for the Russians. I am not. I think the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of War, of hegemony, of dominance. — Dr Mahathir Mohamad (@chedetofficial) February 24, 2023 Mahathir has been a longtime critic of Western neoliberal economics and the “Washington consensus”. He has emphasized that imperialism is rooted in capitalism. The former Malaysian leader has also accused the United States of trying to provoke a war with China over Taiwan. His full remarks from February 24 follow below: I hesitate to write this article. I may be accused of apologising for the Russians. I am not. I think the present war between Ukraine and Russia is caused by the Europeans’ love of War, of hegemony, of dominance. Russia was the partner of the Western Europeans (including U.S. and Canada) in the war against Germany. The moment Germany was defeated, the west declared that Russia, their partner, was their new enemy. So they must prepare for war against Russia. And NATO was set up to form a military alliance against Russia. Russia then set up the Warsaw Pact. And a Cold war ensued. And the world had to choose between the west and the east. After the Russians disbanded the Warsaw Pact and allowed the countries of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to leave the bloc, NATO did not disband. Instead the countries freed from Russian hegemony were urged to join NATO as enemies of Russia. The pressure against the weakened Russia was heightened. As the former socialist republics join NATO and the threat against Russia heightened, Russia rebuilt its military capabilities and confronted the powerful western alliance. Tension increased as NATO forces carried out exercises close to Russia. Provoked, Russia pre-empted with the invasion of Ukraine. That invasion can be interpreted as the start of the Third World War. There is talk of using nuclear weapons. Already the world has to endure shortages of supplies due to sanctions against Russia and Russian retaliation. There is also provocation in the Far East. A visit by a high U.S. official to Taiwan caused an increase of tension between China and Taiwan. Both are arming and the U.S. has sold a lot of weapons to Taiwan, while China became more belligerent. Even Malaysia is experiencing shortages and inflation. It is important that the country prepares contingency plans to deal with what may be the beginning of a Third World War. US pushing war on China: Malaysia’s ex PM explains imperialism’s roots in capitalism

Write an article about: British empire killed 165 million Indians in 40 years: How colonialism inspired fascism. 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.

Britain, capitalism, colonialism, famine, fascism, genocide, India, Shashi Tharoor, UK, United Kingdom, Utsa Patnaik, Winston Churchill

A scholarly study found that British colonialism caused approximately 165 million deaths in India from 1880 to 1920, while stealing trillions of dollars of wealth. The global capitalist system was founded on European imperial genocides, which inspired Adolf Hitler and led to fascism. British colonialism caused at least 100 million deaths in India in roughly 40 years, according to an academic study. And during nearly 200 years of colonialism, the British empire stole at least $45 trillion in wealth from India, a prominent economist has calculated. The genocidal crimes committed by European empires outside of their borders inspired Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, leading to the rise of fascist regimes that carried out similar genocidal crimes within their borders. Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and his co-author Dylan Sullivan published an article in the respected academic journal World Development titled “Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century.” In the report, the scholars estimated that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920. “This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust,” they noted. They added, “Indian life expectancy did not reach the level of early modern England (35.8 years) until 1950, after decolonization.” Hickel and Sullivan summarized their research in an article in Al Jazeera, titled “How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years.” They explained: According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, extreme poverty in India increased under British rule, from 23 percent in 1810 to more than 50 percent in the mid-20th century. Real wages declined during the British colonial period, reaching a nadir in the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly. Far from benefitting the Indian people, colonialism was a human tragedy with few parallels in recorded history. Experts agree that the period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. Comprehensive population censuses carried out by the colonial regime beginning in the 1880s reveal that the death rate increased considerably during this period, from 37.2 deaths per 1,000 people in the 1880s to 44.2 in the 1910s. Life expectancy declined from 26.7 years to 21.9 years. In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades. Robust data on mortality rates in India only exists from the 1880s. If we use this as the baseline for “normal” mortality, we find that some 50 million excess deaths occurred under the aegis of British colonialism during the period from 1891 to 1920. Fifty million deaths is a staggering figure, and yet this is a conservative estimate. Data on real wages indicates that by 1880, living standards in colonial India had already declined dramatically from their previous levels. Allen and other scholars argue that prior to colonialism, Indian living standards may have been “on a par with the developing parts of Western Europe.” We do not know for sure what India’s pre-colonial mortality rate was, but if we assume it was similar to that of England in the 16th and 17th centuries (27.18 deaths per 1,000 people), we find that 165 million excess deaths occurred in India during the period from 1881 to 1920. While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia. "This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia." https://t.co/eTGQzRkTyn — Dr. Prerna Bakshi (@bprerna) December 4, 2022 This staggering figure does not include the tens of millions more Indians who died in human-made famines that were caused by the British empire. In the notorious Bengal famine in 1943, an estimated 3 million Indians starved to death, while the British government exported food and banned grain imports. Academic studies by scientists found that the 1943 Bengal famine was not a result of natural causes; it was the product of the policies of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people, when Bengal was part of British-ruled India. There was food — but Winston Churchill ordered it be exported and stockpiled in case Europe needed it as the war dragged on.https://t.co/rIs4vz1yWG pic.twitter.com/ue1H4gBkfZ — Sasha Alyson ??? Karma Colonialism (@TrojanAid) September 2, 2021 Churchill himself was a notorious racist who stated, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” In the early 1930s, Churchill also admired Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and the Italian dictator who founded fascism, Benito Mussolini. Churchill’s own scholarly supporters admitted that he “expressed admiration for Mussolini” and, “if forced to choose between Italian fascism and Italian communism, Churchill unhesitatingly would choose the former.” Genocidal colonialist Churchill "expressed admiration for Mussolini" Churchill's own hagiographers admitted, "if forced to choose between Italian fascism and Italian communism, Churchill unhesitatingly would choose the former" In 1935, Churchill praised Hitler for his "courage" https://t.co/kTkoaaOW5g — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 29, 2022 Indian politician Shashi Tharoor, who served as an under-secretary general of the United Nations, has exhaustively documented the crimes of the British empire, particularly under Churchill. “Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does,” Tharoor stressed. He pointed to “the decisions that he [Churchill] personally signed off during the Bengal famine, when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed.” Award-winning Indian economist Utsa Patnaik has estimated that the British empire drained $45 trillion of wealth from the Indian subcontinent. "Over roughly 200 years, the East India Company and the British Raj siphoned out at least £9.2 trillion (or $44.6 trillion)… To put that sum in context, Britain’s 2018 GDP estimate is about $3 trillion" https://t.co/1iyV3oXrjJ — AnnieZaidi (@anniezaidi) November 19, 2018 In a 2018 interview with the Indian news website Mint, she explained: Between 1765 and 1938, the drain amounted to £9.2 trillion (equal to $45 trillion), taking India’s export surplus earnings as the measure, and compounding it at a 5% rate of interest. Indians were never credited with their own gold and forex earnings. Instead, the local producers here were ‘paid’ the rupee equivalent out of the budget—something you’d never find in any independent country. The ‘drain’ varied between 26-36% of the central government budget. It would obviously have made an enormous difference if India’s huge international earnings had been retained within the country. India would have been far more developed, with much better health and social welfare indicators. There was virtually no increase in per capita income between 1900 and 1946, even though India registered the second largest export surplus earnings in the world for three decades before 1929. Since all the earnings were taken by Britain, such stagnation is not surprising. Ordinary people died like flies owing to under-nutrition and disease. It is shocking that Indian expectation of life at birth was just 22 years in 1911. The most telling index, however, is food grain availability. Because the purchasing power of ordinary Indians was being squeezed by high taxes, the per capita annual consumption of food grains went down from 200kg in 1900 to 157kg on the eve of World War II, and further plummeted to 137kg by 1946. No country in the world today, not even the least developed, is anywhere near the position India was in 1946. Patnaik emphasized: The modern capitalist world would not exist without colonialism and the drain. During Britain’s industrial transition, 1780 to 1820, the drain from Asia and the West Indies combined was about 6 percent of Britain’s GDP, nearly the same as its own savings rate. After the mid-19th century, Britain was running current account deficits with Continental Europe and North America, and at the same time, it was investing massively in these regions, which meant running capital account deficits too. The two deficits summed to large and rising balance of payments (BoP) deficits with these regions. How was it possible for Britain to export so much capital—which went into building railways, roads and factories in the U.S. and continental Europe? Its BoP deficits with these regions were being settled by appropriating the financial gold and forex earned by the colonies, especially India. Every unusual expense like war was also put on the Indian budget, and whatever India was not able to meet through its annual exchange earnings was shown as its indebtedness, on which interest accumulated.

Write an article about: Brazilian neo-Nazis see Ukraine as their model: Behind the fascist campaign to ‘Ukrainize’ Brazil. 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.

Azov, Brazil, fascism, Jair Bolsonaro, Nazis, Russia, Ukraine

Brazilian neo-Nazis and supporters of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro have spent years collaborating with violent fascists in Ukraine, and even launched a campaign to “Ukrainize” Brazil. (This article was first published at MintPress News, under a Creative Commons license.) SÃO PAULO – A small group of supporters of Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro became social media celebrities after they crossed the border into Ukraine this February and March to fight against Russia. These right-wing Brazilians posed with assault rifles on Instagram, reciting prayers to the special forces, sharing video monologues praising the brotherhood of people from around the world who had gathered in a training base near the Ukrainian city of Lviv to kill Russian “communists.” The group’s inexperience was demonstrated by the fact that most of their social media posts included their geo-location information. This all changed following a missile attack on the training base near the western Ukrainian city of Lviv on March 13, after which a series of more humble photos and videos began cropping up on their Twitter and Instagram feeds. From across the Polish border, Bolsonaro supporter Jefferson Kleidian posted a selfie brandishing an injured pinky finger and thanking God for one more day on Earth. Brazilian Bolsonaro supporter and former combatant Jefferson Kleidian thanks God for one more day on Earth from a safe place in Poland Another right-wing influencer, Andre Hack, posted that he had lost friends at the base. 28-year-old shooting-range instructor and Bolsonaro fanatic Tiago Rossi tweeted a video saying he had fled the base immediately before the missile strike. “Our entire legion was destroyed, the information I have is that everyone died. You don’t understand what it’s like to have a fighter jet fire a missile at you. I didn’t think it was a real war,” Rossi said. "You guys don't understand what it's like to have a jet shoot a missile at you."So war isn't a movie or a video game.Brazilian describes what happened when Russians missiles hit the base where the foreign legion was deployed.Thanks to @BrianMteleSUR for translation. https://t.co/1HFcXi6zby pic.twitter.com/DZRPDQmiDP — Margaret Kimberley (@freedomrideblog) March 14, 2022 What were these Brazilians doing in Ukraine in the first place? In order to answer that question, one has to look back at the resurgence of Nazi ideology in Brazil and the deepening relationship between Brazil’s neo-Nazi groups, which have grown by a staggering 270% since Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019, and Ukrainian neo-Nazi organizations like Azov. During the 1930s, Brazil was home to the largest German Nazi party outside of Europe and had a much larger local fascist movement, called the integralistas, that tried to enact a coup in 1938. The coup was crushed, but the ideology lived on in a country that already suffered from severe structural racism as the last place in the Americas to eradicate slavery. Brazil’s current president, Jair Bolsonaro, made it into power only after a joint operation by the US Department of Justice and Brazilian public prosecutors to jail the leading 2018 presidential candidate, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, on false charges. Bolsonaro began his career as an army captain during a sub-fascist military dictatorship, which employed Gestapo tactics like death squads and torture against labor union leaders, intellectuals, and communists. As a congressman in 2004, Bolsonaro wrote a series of letters to neo-Nazi websites, saying things like “you guys are the reason I am in politics.” Grounded on a platform of anti-communist hate speech, his presidency unleashed a flood of public support for fascism, which had been latent since the end of the dictatorship. According to Brazilian law, Nazi organizations are illegal, but according to anthropology professor and anti-Nazi researcher Adriana Dias, there are currently 530 neo-Nazi cells operating in Brazil. Since 2012, these organizations have had increasing interactions with Ukrainian Nazi organizations, which have resulted in Brazilian Nazis gaining combat experience with Azov in Donbas. This has also led to a campaign to “Ukraine Brazil,” run by a right-wing extremist faction of Bolsonaro supporters. Sara Fernanda Giromini was a teenager involved in Nazi skinhead gangs in Sao Paulo when she opened a VK account, made friends with Russian and Ukrainian neo-Nazis, and learned about FEMEN, after reading about it on Facebook. VK is a popular Russian social media platform. Giromini first visited Ukraine in 2011, where she met and trained with FEMEN leaders and other actors from the Ukrainian far-right. After returning to Brazil in 2012, she started calling herself Sarah Winter in homage to the English fascist of the 1920s. A series of topless protests transformed Giromini into a celebrity, but FEMEN Brazil imploded in less than a year. Bruna Themis, number two in the organization, resigned and gave a series of whistleblowing interviews, saying that the Ukrainians demanded they kick out any Brazilian woman who didn’t meet their sexist physical appearance and weight standards; that the real leader of the group was a minor far-right politician named Andrey Cuia, who frequently traveled back and forth to Ukraine; and that Cuia and Giromini were ripping off donors and keeping the money for themselves. After posing with guns and threatening violence against Supreme Court ministers, Brazilian fascist “Sara Winter (Sara Giromini) was put under house arrest Shortly afterward, FEMEN Ukraine announced that FEMEN Brazil had nothing to do with them, despite the fact that Giromini was arrested during a FEMEN protest in Kiev in 2012. Giromini now says that during her time in FEMEN, they paid her $2,000 per protest. According to Adriana Dias, the anti-Nazi researcher, after FEMEN folded, Giromini began inviting Ukrainian neo-Nazis to Brazil. She remains friends with several leaders of Azov and the Phoenix Battalion on her VK account to this day. In 2016, civil police in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, home to several waves of German and Italian immigration and a long fascist tradition of its own, carried out an investigation into neo-Nazi groups that were planning violent attacks against Afro-Brazilians, Jews, and LGBT+ people. They discovered that a Ukrainian neo-Nazi militia, Misanthropic Division, was recruiting Brazilian Nazis in seven cities in the state to serve as volunteer combatants with Azov in the Donbas region. The investigation, which was dubbed “Operation Azov,” received ample coverage in the Brazilian and Israeli press at the time. After leading candidate Lula da Silva was arbitrarily imprisoned during the 2018 election campaign, Bolsonaro was swept into office on a wave of Nazi-influenced anti-communist propaganda that led him to label any person or organization that ever criticized him as a communist. At one point he even called the oldest conservative magazine in the world, The Economist, “The Communist.” Giromini, by this time a vocal member of the anti-abortion movement, campaigned heavily for Bolsonaro. After he took office in 2019, she began a public call to “Ukrainize Brazil.” Many of the most reactionary public figures associated with Bolsonaro, like openly fascist Rio de Janeiro lawmaker Daniel Silveira, joined the campaign. Dias says, “Azov’s tactic has always been to bring a group of 300 people to a city and, through training activities with locals, start a right-wing extremist movement.” Giromini relocated to the capital Brasilia and started an organization called the “Group of 300” to help build support for the Ukrainization of Brazil. In 2020, after the Brazilian Supreme Court blocked one of Bolsonaro’s attempts to bypass the constitution, Giromini’s Group of 300 camped out on the national esplanade, held a series of tiki torch-wielding protests in front of the court building, and shot fireworks at it. Posing for selfies with guns, Giromini called for violence against Supreme Court ministers. On July 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered her arrest. After two weeks in jail, she was given an ankle bracelet, transferred to house arrest, and ordered to stay off social media. She has been there ever since. Brazilian fascist Sara Winter (Sara Giromini) leading a “Group of 300” protest in front of the Supreme Court Sara Giromini AKA Winter, leading a protest in front of the Supreme Court Meanwhile, Ukrainian flags and symbols of the Ukrainian far-right became more and more popular at pro-Bolsonaro rallies. In 2020, a former soldier and security consultant named Alex Silva, who has been living in Kiev since 2014 and says he is a member of an “auxiliary volunteer police force” there, triggered a media controversy that led to an official disclaimer from the Ukrainian Embassy when he hoisted a red-and-black Right Sector flag onto a sound truck at a Bolsonaro rally and was photographed walking through the crowd wearing it like a cape. Silva, now back in Kiev, has become another internet celebrity to the Brazilian far-right, posting videos of his armed voluntary patrols of Kiev as recently as this March. Far-right Brazilian influencer Alex Silva, a former soldier and “voluntary auxiliary policeman” in Kiev, draped in a Right Sector flag at a 2020 protest in Sao Paulo Leonel Radde is a Porto Alegre city councilor who spends a lot of his time investigating neo-Nazi groups in Rio Grande do Sul. Asked about connections between Brazilian and Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups, he said: We see clearly that the majority of Nazi groups here use Ukrainian design elements. They are using the same symbols – mainly the black sun — and they all use this discourse of Ukrainizing Brazil. They also talk among themselves about adapting Ukrainian tactics for setting up camps and occupying public squares and things like that. They are definitely trying to copy what happened in Ukraine in 2014. We are trying to figure out how much they are just copying things they see on the internet or if they are being financed from the Ukraine, although Sarah Winter spent time near Porto Alegre doing organizing work and she started this whole thing.” Meanwhile, far-right social media influencers like Alex Silva are still sending reports from Ukraine. This March the Ukrainian Embassy in Brasilia said it received 100 requests from Brazilians asking to volunteer for the Ukrainian army, and UOL reports that analysis of pro-Bolsonaro social media groups shows that 500 others are planning to go. Whether the missile attack near Lviv and reports coming in from scared-looking former Brazilian combatants who have escaped to Poland will change any of that has yet to be seen. Regardless, it is clear that political indoctrination by Ukrainian Nazis has taken hold among Brazil’s growing far-right, and will be a factor in the 2022 presidential election season.

Write an article about: Ukraine is burning left-wing books as Russian military advances. 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.

Azov, Nazis, Russia, Ukraine

Ukrainian fighters are filling tires with left-wing Soviet-era books and burning them in the streets of the capital Kiev as Russian troops advance. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Ukrainian fighters are burning left-wing books in the capital Kiev, as Russian troops advance. The chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, Richard Engel, is reporting inside Ukraine, after Russia invaded the country on February 24. Engel does not hide his bias; he is extremely supportive of the Ukrainian government and its Western-backed forces, and has helped spread propaganda from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. But even Engel has had to sometimes acknowledge the grim reality on the ground in Ukraine. On March 7, the NBC correspondent tweeted a photo of tires full of books, on a street in Kiev. He said many of the texts were “about communism and political theory in the USSR.” A local commander told Engel that the Ukrainian militants were planning on setting fire to the books and tires as Russian soldiers move on the capital. The Ukrainian commander said, “We don’t need them.” Checkpoint in kyiv stuffed with Soviet-era books. Many about communism and political theory in the USSR. A local commander said they’ll be used to light the tires on fire as Russians advance. “We don’t need them,” he said. pic.twitter.com/H1KxektzYJ — Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) March 7, 2022 Ukraine has a systematic problem with Nazi infiltration of the government. Far-right neo-fascist groups played a key role in a violent US-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. After the putsch, neo-Nazi militias like the Azov Battalion were directly incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard. These Ukrainian neo-Nazis have been supported by Western governments, including the United States and Canada. In the back of this photo, you can also see a Canadian officer, alongside US military officers, meeting with Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which uses Nazi-era symbols.https://t.co/8tOZ9A7YGK pic.twitter.com/dAZBeFaHdU — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 16, 2018

Write an article about: German lawmaker denounces Ukraine ‘proxy war’ and US ‘terrorist attack’ on Nord Stream pipelines. 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.

Annalena Baerbock, Antony Blinken, Boris Pistorius, energy, EU, Europe, European Union, gas, Germany, Global South, Joe Biden, Mark Milley, Munich Security Conference, oil, Olaf Scholz, Russia, Sahra Wagenknecht, sanctions, Sevim Dagdelen, Ukraine

In this interview, German Member of Parliament Sevim Dağdelen, of the Left Party, Die Linke, condemned the NATO “proxy war” in Ukraine, saying EU members are acting as US “vassal states”. She also denounced the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines as a “terrorist attack”. Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton interviewed German Member of Parliament Sevim Dağdelen, of Die Linke, the Left Party. She condemned the conflict in Ukraine as a NATO “proxy war” against Russia, warning that the leaders of the European Union are acting as Washington’s “vassals”. “A massive shift is taking place in favor of the United States, which is attacking Europe as a center of industry, with its multi-billion-dollar program of industrial subsidies”, Dağdelen explained. “So we need Germany actually to be emancipated at last and Europe finally to assert itself, ending the nonsensical economic war, and launching a European diplomatic initiative to end the war in Ukraine”, the German lawmaker urged. Referencing a report by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that the United States and NATO member Norway destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, Dağdelen lamented, “The German government’s refusal to get to the bottom of the terrorist attacks on the German-Russian Nord Stream pipelines is the highlight so far of Germany’s vassalage to the United States”. INTRODUCTION: Hi, everyone. I’m Ben Norton, and this is Geopolitical Economy Report. I had the pleasure of doing an interview with one of the few politicians in Europe who is publicly speaking out against the war in Ukraine and calling for peace talks to end the conflict, instead of fueling it further with arms shipments. Her name is Sevim Dağdelen. She has been a member of the German parliament, the Bundestag, since 2005, and she is a leader of the Die Linke party, the Left Party. She is part of the Bundestag’s committee on foreign affairs, a deputy member of the defense committee, and spokeswoman for international policy and disarmament. In our discussion, she criticized the policy of the current German government and the European Union. She said that they’re acting as “vassals” of the United States. And she called for Europe to have an independent foreign policy. She called for peace talks to end this war, instead of fueling it with more arms shipments. She also criticized the United States for, according to a report by journalist Seymour Hersh, destroying the Nord Stream pipelines. She referred to this as an act of “terrorism” against German civilian infrastructure. And she said that Germany is committing economic “suicide” on behalf of the United States. Sevim represents one of the few politicians in Europe who is calling for Europe to reconsider its foreign policy, to be independent, and calling for peace instead of more war. So this is my interview with Sevim Dağdelen. BEN NORTON: Thank you, Sevim. It’s a real pleasure. At the Council of Europe in January, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock declared, “We are fighting a war against Russia”. She called for Europe to unite, and she said, “We can fight this war only together”. “We are fighting a war against Russia”, Germany's Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told the Council of Europe. “We can fight this war only together” she said, calling to send tanks and more weapons to Ukraine, to escalate the NATO proxy war. More here: https://t.co/TBa3bNmhAk pic.twitter.com/NJWzybl5Qo — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 26, 2023 Now, this may be a surprise to the German people. There was never a vote in Germany to declare war on Russia. What do the people in Germany think about this fact that the German government has said it is at war with Russia? Do the German people want war with Russia? SEVIM DAĞDELEN: Well, first of all, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s statement has once again confirmed what over the past year has become increasingly obvious. The war in Ukraine is a proxy war between NATO and the West and Russia. This is clear from the massive military, intelligence, and financial support for Ukraine from the West, through which the NATO states are making themselves de facto conflict parties, as well as the unprecedented economic war against Russia. Even the NATO general secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, has repeatedly and publicly stated that NATO’s fate depends on Ukraine’s victory. So a few days ago, at the Munich Security Conference, Stoltenberg moreover said that the war had started not in February last year, but in 2014, and that the NATO allies had been providing military support to Ukraine with training and equipment since then, since 2014. These are, of course, very serious confessions by the NATO secretary general. And they sound, with the admission of the breach of international law by former federal German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the former French President Francois Hollande, about only having concluded the Minsk agreement to gain time to arm Ukraine. So, without thereby legitimizing Russia’s attack, of course, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we must nevertheless note that NATO and especially the United States, share some of the blame for this war. Furthermore, with its war aim of militarily defeating Russia, and its blocking of negotiations, the West is also making itself partly responsible for extending the war. You asked about the people and the population in Germany. In contradiction to the interests of the German population, the German government, as the statement of Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has illustrated, is completely bowing down to the West’s strategy of betting on a military victory, which I believe is unrealistic and extremely dangerous. It’s unrealistic because a nuclear-armed Russia will hardly be prepared to unconditionally give up in a conflict it is engaged in, from its point of view, to protect its very existence – because Russia always said it’s an existential question for them, the question of Ukraine and its membership in NATO. And it’s dangerous because, every passing day and every additional weapon delivery, increases the risk of the conflict expanding into a third world war. As you can remember, last year, in November, the missile incident in Poland gave us an insight into the danger, when Ukraine’s President Zelensky tried, despite knowing better from the intelligence from the NATO states, to declare NATO’s state of defense, and thereby potentially risk his way into a third world war. So, not without reasons, surveys suggest that around three-in-four people in Germany are afraid of the war in Ukraine spreading and having a massive escalation potential. The majority in parliament, the German parliament, the German Bundestag, completely ignores this. So the governing parties of the Social Democrats, the Liberals, and the Greens, together with the conservative party, the Christian Democratic Party, and the right-wingers, they vote for every new arm delivery to Ukraine. And now the leading neo-Nazi organization, Third Way, Der Dritte Weg, for example, is also in favor of arms deliveries, and stands closely alongside the Azov Battalion and is in favor of the delivery of the battle tanks, Leopard 2, for example. So the German fascists even deliver goods themselves to the Ukrainian fascist allies. But nevertheless, we have to say, a majority in Germany, want the West, the Western community, to launch negotiations on bringing the war to an end. BEN NORTON: Why do you think Germany and the European Union leadership are so invested in this war? In the case of Germany, Russia had been the largest supplier of both oil and gas to Germany. And we’ve seen major economic consequences in Europe. We’ve seen large rates of inflation, extremely high energy costs. And this is fueling deindustrialization. We see German companies are leaving and going to the United States and other countries. This is causing unemployment and economic difficulties. We see that even Britain’s economy is expected to shrink this year; it’s going to be in a recession. So why is Europe so invested in this war? SEVIM DAĞDELEN: Well, the European Union, and first and foremost the German government, as you said Ben, acts as an obedient vassal to the U.S. administration. So this applies to the time following the end of the Cold War, when we failed to build a security order in Europe that would include Russia. Instead, Germany went along with the U.S.-led NATO policy of expansion and confrontation, allowed the United States to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe. The German government’s inability to pursue its own interests is clearly also being demonstrated today by its participation in the West’s suicidal economic war against Russia. I mean, the German government actions are, you know, from your perspective, it must be utterly absurd how the German government is acting at the moment. And for the most of the population in Germany and Europe as well. So the sanctions are failing in their purpose of hampering Russia’s military operation. And this is something the German government has confirmed, in a very formal, official reply to my parliamentary question. And at any rate, the Russian economy is taking the hit of the sanctions better than expected, and will, in the assessment of the International Monetary Fund, IMF, grow more this year than Germany’s. So while we now depend on enormously expensive supplies of fracking gas from the United States, the high energy prices are pushing many sectors of German industry to the brink of collapse. The workers are footing the bill, suffering their greatest loss in real earnings – it’s about 5%, 4.7% in 2022 – since the Second World War, since 1945. And anyone who has accumulated savings has lost about 10% of their value, due to inflation in Germany. So if we can take the sound defense of one’s own population as a measure of political intelligence, then we in Germany have the most stupid, the dumbest government, for it is consciously harming the interests of its own population and accepting the downfall of the German economy, as the price of – well, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated the objective, she said: ruining Russia. That is what she wants, as the price for that. And within the Western alliance, too, a massive shift is taking place in favor of the United States, which is attacking Europe as a center of industry, with its multi-billion-dollar program of industrial subsidies, like the Inflation Reduction Act, by the U.S. administration. So we need Germany actually to be emancipated at last and Europe finally to assert itself, ending the nonsensical economic war, and launching a European diplomatic initiative to end the war in Ukraine. This would be the start to emancipate themselves from the U.S. administration, and not being a vassel state of the United States anymore. BEN NORTON: And what happened with the European left? You, Sevim, are from Die Linke, the Left Party, in Germany. You’re a leader of the left in Germany. And you and some of your colleagues have been very outspoken against the war. But across the European left, we do see very few voices willing to challenge this war. Maybe in France, there is Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. Why are so many kind of center-left parties in Europe, like the SPD, which is currently in power in Berlin, why are they supporting war? Historically, the left has supported peace. Do you think this is a moment similar to 1914, at the breakout of World War One, where the left was divided and there were parts of the left that supported the war? SEVIM DAĞDELEN: Well, to some degree, yes, Ben. One cannot avoid getting the impression, at least what was the approval of war credits in the First World War is today the approval of the delivery of arms, battle tanks, and everything else as weapon deliveries. So also, as far as the justification of ever greater participation in the war is concerned, 100 years only seem like a day, sometimes. What was then the alleged “defense of war against the barbarism of the Russian czar” is today the “victory over the oligarch capitalist system of the Russian President Vladimir Putin”. And this is a little bit funny because the oligarch system is not a genius Russian system. I mean, we do have oligarchs in Ukraine. We do have an oligarchic capitalist system in the United States also. But it is frightening to see how well this war propaganda is working. In 1914, even parts of the left wing of social democracy had campaigned for the World War, since it was supposedly against a “despot”, like the Russian czar. And in 2023, even parts of the left and the Left Party are calling for the delivery of German battle tanks, and openly risking German participation in the war, attracted by the argument that Ukraine is about a war against an “autocracy”, an “authoritarian regime” like in Russia. But it seems that parts of the left have forgotten to take into account the geopolitical realities. I mean, even the the Joint Chief of Staff chairman, General Mark Milley in the United States, the highest ranking officer of the U.S. military, has repeatedly pointed out, most recently at the NATO meeting in Ramstein in January, that military victory is extremely unlikely for either side, in Ukraine. So he warns of a war of attrition, claiming many casualties that will end up giving way to a diplomatic agreement anyway. And since Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, more than 200,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians have died. Millions of people had to flee. Populations in both the West and the Global South are suffering, massively, from the effects of the war and Western economic sanctions, with high, skyrocketing prices, food prices, energy prices. And so the West’s strategy of sending more and heavier arms and weaponry to Ukraine will not end the war, but rather bears the risk of further escalation, even nuclear escalation with Russia. So the historical task of the left and the peace movement in Europe, as well as in the United States, is to counter this war propaganda. So we need to make it clear: the only way to end this war, and to prevent a possible escalation up to a third world war, will be through negotiations. And there have to be negotiations, without preconditions, for a ceasefire now. BEN NORTON: At the Munich Security Conference this February, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock insisted that, in this proxy war in Ukraine, “Neutrality is not an option“. And then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed her comments, and he said that you “can’t be neutral”, and “there is no neutral position”. Clearly those comments were directed at the Global South. The vast majority of the global population is in the Global South, in countries that have been neutral. Countries that have imposed sanctions on Russia 87% of the global population lives in countries that have not imposed sanctions on Russia over the war in Ukraine. So what is your response to Baerbock’s insistence that neutrality is not possible? SEVIM DAĞDELEN: Well, the reality shows that she’s wrong. Since the beginning of the war, the West has been trying to enlist these countries’ support to isolate and weaken Russia, in order to preserve its absolute global predominance, led by the United States. But this strategy has failed completely, as the numbers you mentioned demonstrate. On the contrary, large countries like China and India are currently intensifying their economic relations with Russia. And the West is further isolating itself and losing its credibility even more. So the failure to make Russia a pariah state shows the limits of the Western drive for hegemony in an increasingly multipolar world. So it makes perfect sense that the countries of the Global South do not want to be dragged onto the side of the West in the proxy war in Ukraine. And this is my personal experience as well. I mean, in the last year, I’ve been in many countries in the Global South, especially in Africa, but also in Asia. And most counterparts, they told me, “We are trying to survive. We do not want to be on one side. We we want to survive here, in this situation. We are also affected by the sanctions of the West”. So they they clearly see the invasion was started by Russians. But the reaction of the West to this invasion, through the energy sanctions, they are affecting the Global South, not the invasion by the Russians. This was not affecting them. But the sanctions, the energy sanctions through the Western countries like the United States and the European Union, they are affecting them, and they are causing these skyrocketing prices in energy and food. So this is the reason why they say, “We want to survive. We have our own battles. And we do not want to be in the middle of this war of the West versus Russia”. And, understandably, they point to the West’s double standards policy as well, and the innumerable illegal wars of aggression waged by the U.S. and its allies, which did not lead to similar responses. So, they always say, “We don’t forget the invasion of Iraq. We don’t forget the invasion of Libya. We don’t forget the invasion of Afghanistan, and all the crimes done by the Western countries, with no response at all, and no responsibilities taken by these countries”. So the West is totally ignoring the Global South’s interest in a swift end to the war by diplomatic negotiations. And on the contrary, with its economic war against Russia, the West is holding the countries of the Global South hostage, since they are suffering because of the rising food and energy prices, the spread of hunger and poverty. This is another reason why the Global South actually wants to end this war through negotiations as soon as possible, because they are suffering over this, and having more poverty and more hunger in the countries of the Global South. Also, in view of the fatal effects of a prolonged war on the Global South, it must be ended immediately through diplomacy, they say. For example, the initiative of the new president, the re-elected president in Brazil, President Lula, or the recently announced initiative of China, they are supporting these initiatives. And I think it’s a very good initiative, which has to be supported by the West itself. But I think they can only be successful if the West also supports a diplomatic solution, rather than pursuing its war goal of winning against Russia. And in this respect, I can absolutely understand the stance and the position of the majority of the Global South. BEN NORTON: The Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, one of the most renowned investigative journalists in the world, reported that the United States destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, with the help of NATO member Norway. And we should keep in mind that the Nord Stream pipelines were not simply a Russian project; there was significant investment by German companies, also French companies, and other European companies. You yourself, Sevim, raised this issue in the German parliament, the Bundestag. Why is there no outrage in Berlin and Brussels over this attack? What does this say about the fact that the United States is willing to attack the critical infrastructure of a country that it considers its “ally”? SEVIM DAĞDELEN: Well, as you said, Ben, it’s very shocking how little attention the German public paid to the revelations of the deserving U.S. investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. And one has to imagine this for a moment. This is a terrorist attack on German and European energy security, presumably committed by NATO allies, the United States of America and Norway. And this should have resulted in a huge outcry. In my opinion, the German government’s refusal to get to the bottom of the terrorist attacks on the German-Russian Nord Stream pipelines is the highlight so far of Germany’s vassalage to the United States. It’s nothing else. So until today, the German government has been stonewalling and refusing to keep even parliament and parliamentarians informed on the investigations. Instead of leaving no stone unturned in the investigation of a terrorist attack apparently carried out by the United States and Norway, its allies within NATO, the federal government stays very silent about the accusation, and carries on with business as usual. So the same applies to the German media. Instead of taking the revelations of such a well known investigative journalist, a journalist legend, as an opportunity to do their own research and to put pressure on the German government to finally clarify the terrorist attacks, they are either ignoring or trying to defame and delegitimize the journalist Seymour Hersh. So most of them are not even interested in finding out who is behind the terrorist attack and who is not. So the fact that the United States involvement is ruled out from the outset is absurd, if only since President Biden announced in February 2022, in a common press conference with the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, that Nord Stream will be terminated in the event of a Russian invasion, even against Germany’s as well. So we are currently experiencing a collective cognitive dissonance in the German public. This also applies to the whole issue of peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. For example, as Israel’s former Prime Minister Bennett has confirmed, Boris Johnson and the United States prevented the peace talks last spring in 2022. So in the mistaken belief that they could win a military victory over Russia, they swept a de facto, finished negotiation result off the table. But German media is almost not covering this. They are ignoring this as well. And I remember how my friend, the journalist Julian Assange, who is facing up to 175 years in prison in the U.S. only for publishing the truth about U.S. war crimes, once said, “If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth”. And I do believe he is right in this. Tat’s why I’m very much fighting for the truth. BEN NORTON: Well, to end on a slightly more optimistic note, we do see a growing peace movement in Germany and Europe, led by you and some of your colleagues. A fellow member of the Die Linke, Left Party, Sahra Wagenknecht, created a petition that has around 600,000 signatures demanding that the German government stop sending weapons to Ukraine and instead push for peace negotiations to end this war. Großartig: Eine halbe Million Unterschriften für das #ManifestfuerFrieden nach einer Woche! Herzlichen Dank & gerne weiter verbreiten: https://t.co/uC3H0FBZix Und kommt zur #Friedenskundgebung am 25.02. um 14 Uhr vor dem Brandenburger Tor in Berlin! https://t.co/2jxKTNGNpH pic.twitter.com/WWXWoV9NlD — Sahra Wagenknecht (@SWagenknecht) February 18, 2023 How do you think the people of Europe can bring about an end to this conflict? And how do you see a peaceful resolution coming about? SEVIM DAĞDELEN: Well, we have to say it’s about three 600,000 signatures within about a week. So it’s a very huge support for the Manifesto for Peace, which was initiated by my colleague, Sahra Wagenknecht, and initially signed by 69 intellectuals and respected public figures. This support is proof of the growing support for ending the war through negotiations. So in Germany, there is a vast difference between public and published opinion. Large sections of the mainstream media have given themselves over to entirely uncritical and US compliant war propaganda, and in politics and in the media, the tone is set by hawks, who in their mania demand ever more weapons and more heavy weapon deliveries, and horrifically defame anyone who calls for diplomacy and negotiation. And the huge support for this petition, as well as for the protest against the [Munich] Security Conference last weekend, where I spoke at the rally, at a big rally against the Munich Security Conference, are hopeful signs, and emblematic of the fact that large swaths of the public no longer want to be part of what the war-obsessed ruling elite are doing. And despite its hesitation and a certain rhetorical restraint in the case of the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, the German government is de facto submitting to the U.S. its declared war goal of counting on a military victory for Ukraine against Russia. So the new German defense minister, for example, Boris Pistorius, has now, in Munich at the Munich Security Conference, even stated quite openly at the conference that he also shares the line of the United States for the goal of counting on a military victory for Ukraine against Russia. And I really share the assessment of U.S. General Chief of Staff Mark Milley and, for example, the very conservative RAND Corporation, that this strategy is very unrealistic and dangerous, as it would imply, to protect it, a costly war of attrition, and would carry the real danger of an expansion of the war to the point of nuclear escalation. So I think the Chinese announcement at the Munich Security Conference that it wants to advocate a peace initiative is very important. Those who like the German Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock make a complete withdrawal of Russian troops a condition obviously have no interest in ending the war, because this is not a serious condition, because it’s very unrealistic. A quick ceasefire must have top priority now. And this requires negotiations without precondition. Therefore, on the one year anniversary of the dreadful war, a broad coalition in Germany is mobilizing really big protests in Berlin on the 25th of February. But all over Germany on the 24th and 25th, there will be protests going on, and we will be calling for the German government to finally take the public’s desire for diplomacy rather than escalation seriously. And I think not only in Germany. So as far as I know, in London, in many countries in Europe, in the capital cities, and even in the United States, in March, there will be on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, there will be a big demonstration as well. I think we do need a coordination and networking of freedom- and peace-loving people worldwide. My impression – not only my impression, it’s my observation as well, and experience – the warmongers in trans-Atlantic relations, in trans-Atlantic think tanks like the Atlantic Council, the Atlantic Bridge, and some others, they are very much and very, very strongly bonded and are in networks, and we do need an alternative to them. We do left trans-Atlanticism, with the peace-loving people in the United States, together with the peace-loving people in Europe, to show an alternative to the relation between the U.S. administration and the German government, which is a relation which is not founded on respect and cooperation, which has a disbalance, where you have hegemony like the United States, and vessel states, like the German government. So we do need an alternative to this, and we have to work on this alternative together, as peace- and freedom-loving people. BEN NORTON: Sevim Dağdelen is a member of the German parliament, the Bundestag. She has been since 2005. She is a member of the parliamentary group of the Left Party, Die Linke, a deputy member of the defense committee, and a spokeswoman for international policy and disarmament. Sevim, thank you so much for joining us today. SEVIM DAĞDELEN: Thanks for having me, Ben. It was a pleasure.

Write an article about: US now world’s top LNG exporter, as Europe boycotts cheaper Russian gas. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

energy, Europe, gas, LNG, Russia, Ukraine

The USA has rapidly become the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), tied with Qatar. Europe replaced Asia as the top market for US LNG in 2022, boycotting cheaper Russian energy over the proxy war in Ukraine. The United States has rapidly become the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), tied with Qatar. A significant reason for this meteoric increase is because Europe replaced Asia as the top market for US LNG in 2022, as Brussels pledged to boycott Russian energy over the proxy war in Ukraine. Among the principal importers of US LNG are France, Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, and Italy. Europe is now paying significantly more for expensive US LNG than it had previously for Russian pipeline gas. As of 2022, Europe had the highest energy prices on the planet. This was a key factor in fueling an inflation crisis that spread worldwide, and hit Europe especially hard. Bloomberg reported that the “US tied Qatar as the world’s top exporter of liquefied natural gas” in 2022, calling it “a milestone for the meteoric rise of America as a major supplier of the fuel.” The outlet added that the United States, “which only began exporting LNG from the lower-48 states in 2016 and has seemingly overnight become a dominant force in the industry.” A graph from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) illustrates the monumental shift in US LNG exports in just six years. S&P Global reported in September 2022 that European imports of LNG made up the “lion’s share” of US exports in the first six months of 2022. Global imports of US LNG nearly doubled from $10.8 billion in the first half of 2021 to $21.2 billion in same period in 2022. “Many U.S. LNG export cargoes departed for Europe in the first half of 2022 as the war in Ukraine prompted a scramble for LNG supplies,” S&P Global wrote, adding that “LNG market experts have warned that shipments of LNG cannot quickly replace curtailed pipeline imports from Russia and that the region’s need for significant LNG volumes will remain strong.” The market intelligence unit stressed that Europe has the highest gas prices on Earth. Its benchmark energy price hit a historic high of roughly €320 per megawatt hour in August. S&P Global followed up with another report in November, stating that the “European energy crisis has put US natural gas in high demand and in a position of acute geopolitical relevance.” The financial information firm used the same language, that the “lion’s share headed to Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February” and the escalation of the NATO-Russia proxy war. The industry monitor LNGPrime reported that France, Spain, the Netherlands, Japan, and Italy bought nearly half (46.4%) of total US LNG exports in May 2022. Reuters noted in December 2022 that US LNG prices had approximately doubled in the previous year. It added that US LNG exports to Europe increased by a staggering 137% in the first 11 months of 2022, compared to 2021. The news wire added that “the United States will remain the primary supplier of LNG to Europe for at least 2023. This will likely generate even greater revenue for U.S exporters after a record 2022, which totaled $35 billion through September, compared to $8.3 billion over the same period in 2021.” This massive spike in energy prices is causing economic chaos in Europe. Politico published an article in November 2022 titled “Why cheap US gas costs a fortune in Europe.” It pointed out that US LNG is almost four times more expensive in Europe. And it is not just North American corporations that are profiting from this substantial markup, but also European importers and resellers. Even France’s right-wing President Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker, complained to French industrial executes, “In today’s geopolitical context, among countries that support Ukraine there are two categories being created in the gas market: those who are paying dearly and those who are selling at very high prices… The United States is a producer of cheap gas that they are selling us at a high price… I don’t think that’s friendly.” Politico added, “Macron’s dig conveniently ignored that the largest European holder of long-term U.S. gas contracts is none other than France’s own TotalEnergies.” In 2018, the CEO of Austrian fossil fuel company OMV estimated that Russian pipeline gas was 50% cheaper than US LNG. The corporate executive, Rainer Seele, said, “I think it is about 50% difference between LNG and Russian gas.”

Write an article about: EEUU prometió terminar la guerra en Yemen, pero el bombardeo a civiles empeora. 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.

Arabia Saudita, Joe Biden, Yemen

El presidente Biden afirmó que pondría fin a la guerra en Yemen, pero los bombardeos saudíes respaldados por EEUU se han intensificado. En promedio, cada hora un civil yemení es asesinado o herido. Es el nivel de víctimas más alto desde 2018. (You can read this article in English here.) El presidente de Estados Unidos, Joe Biden, afirmó repetidamente que pondría fin a la guerra en Yemen, que ha creado la mayor crisis humanitaria en la Tierra. Pero en realidad, el bombardeo saudí respaldado por EEUU contra el país más pobre de Asia Occidental ha alcanzado el nivel más alto en varios años, bajo la supervisión de la administración Biden. Los civiles yemeníes están pagando el precio, con un muerto o herido cada hora, según un análisis del grupo Save the Children. La organización humanitaria dijo que enero de 2022 fue el mes más mortífero en Yemen desde 2018. Del 6 de enero al 2 de febrero, más de 200 adultos y 15 niños fueron asesinados en Yemen. Otros 354 adultos y 30 niños resultaron heridos. Save the Children reconoció que esta es sólo una estimación conservadora y es probable que la cifra real de víctimas sea mayor. Oxfam informó que al menos 43 ataques aéreos saudíes respaldados por EEUU acertaron objetivos civiles en Yemen en enero de 2022. “La mayoría de estos fueron en casas y granjas, destruyendo hogares y negocios que llevará muchos años reconstruir”, escribió la organización. Casi un civil cada hora murió o resultó herido en enero en #Yemen, hecho que lo convierte en el mes más mortífero desde 2018. Esta nueva escalada está agravando la difícil situación de una población ya exhausta a pocas semanas de que se cumplen 7 años del inicio de la guerra. pic.twitter.com/zPocse0xgD — Save the Children Es (@SaveChildrenEs) February 11, 2022 Marzo de 2022 marcará el séptimo aniversario de la guerra contra Yemen, librada por Arabia Saudita con el apoyo de Estados Unidos. Durante su campaña presidencial de 2020, Joe Biden prometió que terminaría con este conflicto. Luego, en febrero de 2021, el presidente recién inaugurado afirmó que estaba terminando el apoyo de EEUU a las operaciones “ofensivas” saudíes en Yemen. Biden no mencionó que la guerra es ofensiva por su propia naturaleza, dado que Riad la inició en marzo de 2015 lanzando una campaña de bombardeos contra su vecino del sur. Es ampliamente reconocido que Arabia Saudita no podría librar esta guerra contra Yemen si no fuera por el apoyo militar, político y logístico que recibe de EEUU y Reino Unido, sin mencionar los muchos miles de millones de dólares en aviones, misiles, bombas y otras armas que estos dos países han vendido a la monarquía del Golfo. Incluso los grupos de expertos centristas con sede en Washington, DC que están estrechamente vinculados al estado de seguridad nacional de EEUU, como la Institución Brookings, han hablado abiertamente de “la promesa incumplida de Biden sobre Yemen”. La administración Biden ha seguido vendiendo tecnología militar a Arabia Saudita mientras asesina a civiles yemeníes. En enero, Arabia Saudita atacó un centro de detención en Yemen con una bomba guiada por láser de la empresa norteamericana Raytheon, matando al menos a 91 personas e hiriendo a 236 más. Arabia Saudita atacó un centro de detención en Yemen con una bomba fabricada por la empresa estadounidense Raytheon, matando a 91 personas e hiriendo a 236 más. El presidente Joe Biden afirmó que terminaría al apoyo de EEUU a esta guerra, pero no lo hizo.https://t.co/VwZOUWdB91 — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) January 31, 2022 Mientras tanto, las instituciones internacionales están haciendo poco o nada para tratar de detener el derramamiento de sangre en Yemen. El Consejo Noruego para los Refugiados advirtió que el número de civiles muertos o heridos en Yemen casi se ha duplicado desde que el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU votó para poner fin a su seguimiento del conflicto en octubre de 2021. “En los cuatro meses anteriores al final de la vigilancia de los derechos humanos, 823 civiles resultaron heridos o muertos en la guerra. En los cuatro meses que siguieron, fueron 1.535 civiles”, informó el consejo de refugiados, citando datos del Proyecto de Monitoreo de Impacto Civil. En este período, el número de víctimas civiles causadas por los ataques aéreos saudíes se multiplicó por 39. En lugar de presionar a su aliado Arabia Saudita para que ponga fin a la guerra, la administración Biden está considerando volver a las políticas de Donald Trump, golpeando al grupo de resistencia indígena yemení Ansarallah, conocido popularmente como los hutíes, con la designación de “terrorista”.

Write an article about: Yemen suffers ‘largest humanitarian crisis in world’, UN warns repeatedly. 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.

Saudi Arabia, United Nations, Yemen

Yemen is going through “one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises,” the United Nations has repeatedly warned, as Saudi Arabia bombs civilian areas with US support. The United Nations under secretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Stephen O’Brien, once again reported that Yemen is going through the “largest humanitarian crisis in the world”, after two years of brutal US-backed Saudi war and blockade. #Yemen: largest humanitarian crisis in the world, 2/3 of population – 18.8M people – need aid. — Martin Griffiths (@UNReliefChief) March 10, 2017 O’Brien said at the UN Security Council on 10 January that aid is needed by 18.8 million people, more than two-thirds of Yemen’s population. A staggering 7 million Yemenis are hungry and do not know where they will get their next meal — a figure that doubled since January. The top UN official also warned the global community is “facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations”, at the end of World War II in 1945. Yemen is going through “one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises,” the United Nations once again reiterated on January 9, through the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). “People’s access to food is rapidly worsening and urgent action is needed,” added Salah Hajj Hassan, the FAO representative in Yemen. That is to say, things are getting worse, not better. In September, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) likewise warned, “The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is one of the worst in the world.” And even months before that, in June, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Yemen, Jamie McGoldrick, spoke of “the huge magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.” He continued, “This is one of the worst crises in the world and is continuing to get worse.” Some humanitarian groups even go a step further. In a report in December, the international NGO Save the Children reported that “Yemen is in the grip of the largest humanitarian catastrophe in the world.” It added, “Yemen’s children are at the heart of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.” Moreover, as I noted in this article, a prominent famine monitor created by the US government acknowledged in December that the US-backed war in Yemen has fueled the “largest food security emergency in the world.” And according to its analysis as well, that food security emergency is getting worse. The Saudi war on Yemen, which could not be waged without US support, continues to destroy the poorest country in the Middle East, killing thousands of Yemenis and plunging millions more into hunger and desperation. However, unlike wars like that in, say, Syria, Yemen gets virtually no attention in the US corporate media — yet alone in US politics, where it was not mentioned in an entire presidential campaign. In Syria, Western enemies (the Syrian government, Russia, Iran) can be demonized; in Yemen, it is Saudi Arabia dropping the bombs — bombs made in the US and UK, with refueling provided by the US and direct assistance from the American and British militaries.

Write an article about: Europe pays more for banned Russian oil, resold by India – as EU wages fall. 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.

China, de-dollarization, India, inflation, oil, ruble, Russia, sanctions, wages

The EU sanctioned Russia and boycotted its oil, yet is still buying it indirectly from India, at a higher price. This is fueling both de-dollarization and inflation in the Eurozone, where workers’ real wages dropped 6.5% from 2020 to 2022. The European Union heavily sanctioned Russia and pledged to boycott its oil, yet continues to buy it, and at an even higher price, albeit indirectly. India is importing record levels of discounted Russian crude, purchasing it in currencies other than the dollar. India then refines the Russian oil and exports fuel to Europe at a profit. Meanwhile, increasing energy costs in Europe have stoked inflation, causing workers’ wages to significantly decline. The real wages of workers in the Eurozone fell by 6.5% between 2020 and 2022. As of April, Bloomberg reported, European imports of refined fuel from India are approaching 360,000 barrels per day. This means that India is expected to soon surpass Saudi Arabia as the largest exporter of refined fuel to Europe. At the same time, India is importing 44% of its oil from Russia, at an all-time high of approximately 2 million barrels per day, according to Bloomberg. New Delhi is purchasing this crude at a significant discount. India is on track to become Europe’s largest supplier of refined fuels this month while simultaneously buying record amounts of Russian crude https://t.co/VDxpiwPnIZ via @iamsharoncho pic.twitter.com/yM0G79TYdV — Stuart Wallace (@StuartLWallace) April 28, 2023 In 2022, the G7 vowed to ban Russian energy. In December, the bloc of Western countries and Japan implemented a price cap on Russian oil of $60 per barrel. The European Union agreed to the same price cap, before updating it in February with a $45 limit on petroleum products traded at a discount to crude and $100 for petroleum products traded at a premium to crude. The Western economic war has led to a slight decrease in Moscow’s oil revenue, but has simultaneously pushed Russia to deepen its integration with Asia. An April report by the Kyiv School of Economics, “Russian Oil Exports Under International Sanctions“, analyzed the effects of the G7 and EU price caps in the first quarter of 2023. This study was sponsored by the Yermak-McFaul Expert Group on Russian Sanctions, which is supported by the Ukrainian and US governments and co-chaired by Andriy Yermak, the head of the office of the president of Ukraine, and Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia. It found that Russian oil revenue did decrease by 29%, dropping from $54.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 2022 to $38.8 billion in the first quarter of 2023, for a total loss of $15.7 billion. However, in the same period, global oil prices fell. The report estimated that $4.2 billion (27%) of Russia’s loss in oil revenue was due to the decline in international prices. In fact, the study only attributed $6.1 billion (39%) in the loss in Russia’s oil export revenue directly to the sanctions, with an additional $5.2 billion (33%) lost in the discounts that Moscow gave to customers like India. This is not nearly as much as many Western governments had hoped. And it led to some other, unexpected consequences. Russia’s oil export earnings are now at around the same levels they were at in 2021, before Moscow’s February 2022 invasion and the escalation of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine. At the same time, the volume of Russia’s crude exports has stayed rather consistent. What has significantly changed is not the amount of oil produced by Russia, but rather the customers buying that crude. The Kyiv School of Economics study showed that the vast majority of Russian oil exports now goes to Asia, primarily to China and India. The report wrote: European countries, previously the largest buyers, now play a negligible role and have been replaced almost entirely by China and India, with the latter appearing as the key “new” buyer over the past twelve months. In 2023Q1, the two countries together accounted for close to 75% of total Russian crude oil exports. For years, and even throughout much of 2022, Russia had been Europe’s biggest energy supplier. Today, Moscow is looking east. This transition reflects Russia’s increasing economic and political integration with Asia, and its move away from the West. As an example of the sudden shift, the Financial Times noted that Russia’s northwestern port of Primorsk, on the Baltic Sea, had previously been used to send oil to Europe, but in the first quarter of 2023, India bought that crude instead, at a neat discount of just $43.9 per barrel. The EU boycott of Russian energy has also contributed to further de-dollarization. India is largely purchasing Russian oil in currencies other than the US dollar, including the ruble and the UAE’s dirham. “U.S.-led international sanctions on Russia have begun to erode the dollar’s decades-old dominance of international oil trade as most deals with India – Russia’s top outlet for seaborne crude – have been settled in other currencies”, Reuters reported. U.S.-led international sanctions on Russia have begun to erode the dollar's decades-old dominance of international oil trade as most deals with India – Russia's top outlet for seaborne crude – have been settled in other currencies https://t.co/99gykVJBm1 — Reuters (@Reuters) March 8, 2023 While Europe buys more expensive Russian energy from India, workers at home are suffering from increasing energy costs. “Households across Europe are facing a persistent pinch from one of the worst cost of living crises since the second world war, despite inflation falling almost as quickly as it rose”, the Financial Times reported in April. The newspaper estimated that real wages in the Eurozone dropped by 6.5% between 2020 and 2022. (Real wages are workers’ compensation that has been adjusted for inflation.) In the EU, real wages are expected to stay 6% below 2020 levels until the end of 2024, the Financial Times said. Inflation may be transitory, but the pain is set to last: “Households across Europe are facing a persistent pinch from one of the worst cost of living crises since the second world war, despite inflation falling almost as quickly as it rose.” pic.twitter.com/WWUg2KfIic — Isabella M. Weber (@IsabellaMWeber) April 30, 2023 Workers in countries in the south of the Eurozone, like Greece, Spain, and Italy, have been especially hard hit, with their real wages falling by nearly 7%, 4.5%, and 3% in 2022, respectively. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility “estimates that the period from the spring of 2022 to the spring of 2024 will mark the steepest decline in people’s real disposable incomes since records began in the 1950s”, the Financial Times wrote. The newspaper warned: “Poorer people, who spend a bigger chunk of their income on essentials, have been most exposed to the rise in prices. They will continue to feel the squeeze hardest, with food costs continuing to soar even as energy prices fall”. The Financial Times attributed this rapid decline in real wages to skyrocketing energy and food costs – which have been greatly exacerbated by Western sanctions on Russia. Rising grocery bills are also a product of rampant price gouging by monopolistic corporations. This highly profitable practice is a growing problem that has been referred to as “greedflation”. While real wages are declining across the West, the profit share of companies in the Eurozone is at a record high. Bloomberg reported in 2022 that US corporate profits grew to their widest margins since 1950, “suggesting that the prices charged by businesses are outpacing their increased costs for production and labor”.

Write an article about: Ukraine President Poroshenko whitewashes Nazi Holocaust crime, falsely blaming USSR. 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.

fascism, Holocaust, Nazis, Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine

Ukraine’s right-wing, Western-backed President Petro Poroshenko shared a photo of Nazis marching Jews to a death camp and falsely blamed it on the Soviet Union. It’s part of a pattern of Eastern European Holocaust revisionism. Ukraine’s right-wing, NATO-allied government is rewriting history to portray the communists who defeated the Nazis as the real villains. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko tweeted a photo on October 20 and wrote, “Today, the 70th anniversary of mass deportation of the population of Western Ukraine to Siberia and the northern regions of the former USSR. Remember.” Poroshenko falsely implied that this was a photo from the Soviet Union. The watchdog group Defending History exposed the Ukrainian president’s lies, tweeting, “Dear @poroshenko Photo you shared isn’t 1947 #Ukraine Siberia deportations, but Jews from Lodz ghetto being marched to death camp in 1942!” Dear @poroshenko Photo you shared isn't 1947 #Ukraine Siberia deportations, but Jews from Lodz ghetto being marched to death camp in 1942! pic.twitter.com/IlXsI4M9os — Defending History (@DefendingHistor) October 24, 2017 The Ukrainian president had actually shared a photo of a Nazi crime against humanity from the middle of the Holocaust. The image is archived at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which notes the photo is actually from Lodz, Poland in 1942. It is captioned: “Elderly women carrying young children and bundles of personal belongings trudge along a street in the Lodz ghetto toward the assembly point for deportations to Chelmno.” These were victims of the Third Reich, not of the Soviet Union – which crushed the Nazi regime. The Ukrainian government is erasing Nazi Holocaust crimes in order to demonize the communists who defeated fascism in World War II. After journalists highlighted Poroshenko’s outlandish propaganda, the Ukrainian president deleted his tweet. (It is archived here.) Blatant anti-communist lies like these are far from new. This is one example of a much longer pattern of right-wing forces helping fascists whitewash their history and even rebrand in an effort to create anti-communist propaganda. This July, NATO published a highly produced film that celebrates Baltic Nazi collaborators who murdered Jews in the Holocaust, lionizing the so-called Forest Brothers, many of whom had previously fought in the Waffen SS, as heroes for taking up arms against the Soviets. This is a particularly common phenomenon in Ukraine, where the fascist leader Stepan Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust, enjoys widespread support. Fascists occupy some of the highest positions in the Ukrainian government. Andriy Parubiy, the chair of Ukraine’s parliament the Rada, in fact, is a white supremacist fascist who previously founded a Nazi-style party. Defending History is a research group led by European Jewish scholars dedicated to countering the fascist assault on history, and says it helps lead: opposition to attempts to prosecute Holocaust survivors; opposition to the Prague Declaration; opposition to elitist antisemitism and  state-sanctioned city center neo-Nazi marches; opposition to attempts to glorify the local perpetrators and collaborators, and institutions engaged in such efforts; opposition to the Double Genocide movement emanating particularly from the eastern regions of the European Union.

Write an article about: Is a huge war coming? US bombs Yemen, Iraq & Syria. Israel bombs Gaza & Lebanon. Both threaten Iran.. 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.

Ansarallah, Donald Trump, Gaza, Houthis, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Joe Biden, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Yemen

The US military is attacking Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, while Israel bombs Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. Both are threatening Iran. Is a large Middle East (West Asia) war coming? The brutal war that Israel is waging on Gaza is increasingly becoming a regional conflict. Since October, the United States and Israel have bombed not only Gaza, but also Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Now, the U.S. government is even threatening Iran with war. President Joe Biden sent the Iranian government a private message while the U.S. military was bombing Yemen on January 13. He said threateningly, “We’re confident, we’re well prepared”. While this is happening, South Africa has introduced a case in the International Court of Justice, the top United Nations judicial authority, which accuses Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian people. South Africa’s case has garnered support from dozens of countries across the Global South. This case has frightened Israel and its sponsors in Washington. They are apparently seeking to expand the conflict into a regional war, to try to win more sympathy and to turn attention away from what South Africa and many countries have referred to as a genocide in Gaza. In fact, top UN experts have been warning precisely this for months: that the Palestinian people face “the risk of genocide in Gaza”, and that there has been a “failure of the international system to mobilise to prevent genocide”. The Financial Times reported in December that, in just two months of Israeli bombing, Gaza had become one of the most heavily bombed areas in human history. Israel's genocidal war has made Gaza one of the most heavily bombed areas in human history.https://t.co/jd4D7e32tM — Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) January 19, 2024 Now that Israel faces formal charges of genocide at the Hague, many officials in Washington are concerned, because the U.S. is directly complicit in the war crimes that Israel is committing. The Joe Biden administration has sent billions of dollars of weapons and military aid to Israel. In fact, the US State Department has bypassed Congress two times, using emergency measures to send weapons to Israel. This is rather strange, because Congress is full of people who strongly support Israel, and would without a doubt have approved these arms shipments. This appears to indicate that the US government does not even want a debate about these arms shipments. Washington is concerned about people focusing their attention on its complicity in arming Israel. So it is simply choosing to do so quietly, without Congress’ approval. And the U.S. is involved in these conflicts in many other ways, not simply by arming Israel. In fact, the U.S. military has 57,000 personnel stationed all across the so-called Middle East, or more accurately, West Asia. These are just the U.S. military personnel that are publicly disclosed. It is likely that the U.S. also has covert special operations forces that are not accounted for among this 57,000. The U.S. has more than 57,000 personnel in the Middle East. Eastern Mediterranean: 12.500Jordan: 3.500Egypt: 500Syria: 900Iraq: 2.000Israel: 100Saudi Arabia: 2.500Kuwait: 10.000Bahrain: 4.500Qatar: 10.000UAE: 5.000Red Sea: 4.500 Source: FT pic.twitter.com/4vpeVx9xzy — Clash Report (@clashreport) January 12, 2024 In just a few months, the U.S. has bombed Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. On January 11, the United States launched airstrikes against dozens of targets in Yemen. The New York Times referred to these as US attacks on the so-called “Houthi militia” in Yemen. But this is very misleading. The “Houthis”, which are officially known as Ansarullah, represent the government for the majority of the Yemeni population. This was acknowledged even by the mainstream Washington, DC-based think tank the Brookings Institution. It published an article in 2023 by a former CIA analyst, Bruce Riedel, who admitted that “the Houthis have created a functioning government”, one that “includes representatives of other groups”. “Some 70 to 80% of Yemenis live under the Houthis’ control”, Riedel wrote. He conceded that Ansarullah had its origins in the grassroots in Yemen, opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Washington’s subsequent wars and interventionist policies across West Asia. At Brookings, the former CIA analyst likewise confessed that the United States had spent six years supporting a scorched-earth “war led by a neighbor most Yemenis hate”, that is to say, Saudi Arabia. He added, “Air strikes, blockades, and intentional mass starvation are the characteristics of a war the United States has supported”. The United Nations estimated that this U.S.-Saudi war killed at least 377,000 Yemenis from 2015 to the end of 2021. So when the United States launched dozens of attacks inside Yemen this January, Washington was continuing a war that it has waged against the de facto Yemeni government for nearly nine years. The so-called “Houthis” are not just a “militia”; they are leading the government. And while it was previously Saudi Arabia that was relentlessly bombing civilian areas in Yemen (using U.S.-made planes and bombs, with intelligence and targeting assistance from the Pentagon), now it is the United States that is cutting out the middle man and attacking Yemen directly. Moreover, the New York Times acknowledged in its report on the Biden administration’s airstrikes that Ansarullah has “greeted the prospect of war with the United States with open delight”. One of Ansarullah’s most important leaders said in a televised speech, “We, the Yemeni people, are not among those who are afraid of America. We are comfortable with a direct confrontation with the Americans”. As if that weren’t enough, after this prominent Yemeni leader said publicly that his country is prepared to fight against the United States, a day later, on January 12, the U.S. again launched airstrikes against Yemen. Reporting on the second US attack, the New York Times commented, “The strikes come amid fears of a wider escalation of the conflict in the Middle East”. This description is quite euphemistic. In reality, the U.S. is creating a wider conflict in the region by expanding the war, and attacking not only Yemen, but also Iraq and Syria. On January 4, the Biden administration carried out an act of war against Iraq. The New York Times reported that the U.S. launched a drone strike in the capital Baghdad. An Iraqi government spokesman referred to this as a “flagrant violation of the sovereignty and security of Iraq”. He characterized the U.S. attack as “no different from a terrorist act”. The U.S. targeted an Iraqi militia known as Harakat al-Nujaba. This organization is part of the Iraqi government, the New York Times conceded, writing that “it remains part of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, a security organization that is in turn part of the government’s broader security forces”. So the U.S. was attacking Iraq’s security forces. However, in 2019, the Donald Trump administration had declared this Iraqi state institution to be a so-called “terrorist” organization. And now the Biden administration is continuing Trump’s policy of attacking the Iraqi government. In response to Washington’s assault on his country, Iraq’s prime minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, publicly called for the U.S.-led foreign troops in his country to leave. U.S. troops have consistently occupied Iraq since the illegal invasion of 2003. The U.S. war has gone through phases, but it has basically never ended. It should be emphasized that al-Sudani is by no means an anti-U.S. leader. In Iraqi politics, there are many anti-U.S. figures; he is not one of them. But even he is now publicly stating that Washington needs to stop occupying and attacking his country, and that its troops need to leave. Nevertheless, the website Breaking Defense, which is close to the Pentagon, responded to al-Sudani’s comments reporting: “Despite Iraqi PM’s call, US troops won’t likely leave Iraq anytime soon”. It cited U.S. analysts with internal access. So this is essentially acknowledgment that the U.S. maintains a neo-colonial occupation of Iraq. This is not the first time that this has happened. Back in January 2020, Donald Trump ordered the assassination of the top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and the senior Iraqi security official Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis. The latter was a commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces, which are officially part of the Iraqi government, and which were absolutely instrumental in the war against ISIS. These leaders, Soleimani and al-Muhandis, were two of the most important people in the fight to defeat ISIS. Trump assassinated both of them in a blatant act of war, not only against Iran, but also against Iraq. In response to this U.S. act of war, Iraq’s democratically elected parliament (which was ironically created by the United States) voted to expel the U.S. troops occupying the country. Trump say no, refusing to leave. The far-right U.S. president then threatened to impose sanctions on Iraq. Despite the U.S. government’s flagrantly neo-colonial policies, the Western media’s coverage of Iraq essentially portrays the situation as if Iran were secretly in control of the country. When the U.S. carries out acts of war against Iraq, killing Iraqi officials who are part of the Iraqi state’s security apparatus, the Western media misleadingly describes these murdered Iraqi officials as “pro-Iran military commanders”. This propagandistic rhetoric is reminiscent of how the Western media invariably refers to Yemen’s so-called Houthis, Ansarullah, as “Iran- backed”, trying to depict them as Iranian proxies. The same is true for Lebanon’s indigenous resistance group Hezbollah. This is part and parcel of a Western media propaganda narrative that seeks to justify U.S. acts of war and neo-colonial policies against sovereign governments across West Asia. Another clear example of this is recent U.S. attacks in Syria. In November, the U.S. military launched airstrikes in sovereign Syrian territory. The BBC reported on this illegal U.S. act of war writing, “US airstrikes target more Iran-backed bases in Syria”. The double standard is quite clear when one considers how these same Western media outlets would never dare to refer to attacks by Palestinian groups on Israeli military forces as strikes on “pro-U.S. forces” in “U.S.-backed bases”. In fact, as Geopolitical Economy Report has documented, the U.S. is maintaining an illegal military occupation of Syria, and in particular of the nation’s oil-rich territory, where much of its wheat is also produced. The stated policy of U.S. officials is to starve the Syrian government of revenue that it needs to rebuild after a decade of war fueled by the United States devastated the country. In December, there was a resolution introduced in the Senate calling to withdraw the U.S. troops occupying Syria’s oil fields. It failed to pass in a vote of 13 to 84. The US military has illegally occupied Syrian sovereign territory since 2014, preventing Damascus from accessing its own oil and wheat fields. The Senate voted 13-84, rejecting a resolution to withdraw US troops.https://t.co/RC27DFnleC — Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) January 5, 2024 While the U.S. is bombing Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, Israel is also attacking multiple countries in the region. In October, Israel repeatedly bombed airports in Syria, in both Aleppo and Damascus, killing Syrian troops. In January, Israel launched many more attacks on Syria. And once again, the Western media misleadingly portrayed these Israeli acts of war as “strikes on Iran-linked targets in Syria”. The Western media seeks to make everything about Iran, implying that Tehran controls all of these governments, when in reality it is the U.S. and Israel that are at war with many sovereign states in the region. Israel has also been repeatedly assaulting its neighbor, Lebanon. Amnesty International acknowledged that Israel has attacked southern Lebanon with white phosphorus, a horrific weapon that is banned by many countries. Amnesty International emphasized that Israel has been killing Lebanese civilians in illegal, “indiscriminate” attacks. But Israel is not only attacking southern Lebanon; it has also carried out drone strikes inside Beirut, the capital of the country. Lebanon’s resistance group Hezbollah has long defended the country’s sovereignty, expelling Israel in 2000 after the colonial regime carried out an illegal military occupation of Lebanon for 15 years. Hezbollah has said Israel’s attacks in the capital Beirut cross a red line and are risking a wider regional war. While the Western media warns that U.S. and Israeli attacks on countries in the region “raise the specter of a wider regional war”, the reality is that Washington and Tel Aviv are already at war with Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It is obvious that the main target of U.S. and Israeli neo-colonial wars in West Asia is Iran. This was confirmed by a former top U.S. military general and NATO commander, Wesley Clark, who revealed back in 2007 that, after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Washington made plans to overthrow the governments of seven countries in the region in five years. In an interview with Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, Clark said that the U.S. had plans “to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”. In late 2023 and early 2024, the U.S. government has made this link clearly in public statements. Washington publicly blamed Iran for Ansarullah in Yemen launching attacks on ships in the Red Sea that are traveling to Israel, that are providing support to Tel Aviv as it carries out war crimes and faces charges of genocide at the Hague. A top U.S. official claimed, “Iran is a primary, if not the primary enabler or supporter or sponsor of the Houthis”, and the U.S. government claimed that Iran is “involved in every phase” of what Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called “illegal, dangerous and destabilizing attacks against U.S. and international vessels and commercial vessels”. War hawks in Washington are using this as an opportunity to openly call for a U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. John Bolton, the neoconservative extremist who served as Donald Trump’s national security adviser and was an architect of the Iraq War under former President George W Bush, published an article in the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph titled “The West may now have no option but to attack Iran”. Bolton released that call for war on Iran on December 28. He likely coordinated it with Israel’s former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, who on the same day published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled “The U.S. and Israel Need to Take Iran on Directly”. In his article, Bennett boasted that when he was prime minister, Israel carried out numerous attacks on Iranian soil. He also admitted that Tel Aviv assassinated Iranian officials. Bennett called to “empower domestic opposition [in Iran], ensure internet continuity during riots against the regime, strengthen its enemies, increase sanctions and economic pressures”. In his last paragraph, Naftali Bennett said in no uncertain terms, “The U.S. and Israel must set the clear goal of bringing down Iran’s evil regime”. Using colonial language, the former Israeli prime minister declared that the so-called “civilized world” must overthrow Iran’s government. This is clearly what all of this is heading toward: Some bellicose officials in the U.S. and Israeli governments want not only a wider regional war, but more specifically a full-out war against Iran. Many of these hard-line imperialists in Washington have salivated for many years at the idea of war with Tehran. Back in 2015, Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times straightforwardly titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”. In fact, Michael Freund, a former spokesman for Israel’s current far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, published an op-ed this January in the Jerusalem Post titled “Iran is already at war with Israel and the US”. In this piece, he insisted that “Israel and America must act now”, calling for war with Tehran. Freund’s bio conspicuously noted that he was previously “deputy communications director under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”. It is quite possible that he coordinated this article with Netanyahu himself. On January 3, there was a terror attack on civilians in the Iranian city of Kerman. More than 90 Iranians were killed, at an event that was commemorating the anniversary of the Trump administration’s assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the top Iranian general. Western media outlets claimed that “ISIS” carried out this attack. Iranian intelligence officials said one of the terrorists who planted the bombs that killed at least 94 civilians had Israeli nationality.

Write an article about: CIA veteran calls for US war on China and Russia, threatening nuclear strikes, in elite Foreign Policy magazine. 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.

Atlantic Council, China, CIA, Cold War Two, Foreign Policy magazine, Iran, Matthew Kroenig, media, MEK, NATO, new cold war, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine

A CIA and Pentagon veteran who helps run NATO’s powerful think tank the Atlantic Council, Matthew Kroenig, published an article in elite Foreign Policy magazine calling for US war on both China and Russia, including “threatening nonstrategic nuclear strikes” and a new arms race. He has also advocated military attacks on Iran. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) A veteran of the CIA and Pentagon who now helps to run one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington, Matthew Kroenig, has published an article in highly influential Foreign Policy magazine calling for the United States to prepare to wage war on China and Russia. Kroenig served in important national security state roles in the George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump administrations, and has significant sway in DC foreign-policy circles. Kroenig insisted that the US military should “threaten nonstrategic nuclear strikes” on China over Taiwan and Russia over Europe. Referring to Washington’s conflict with Beijing and Moscow as a “new cold war,” he also called for boosting the $768 billion annual US military budget even further, maintaining that “the United States can afford to outspend Russia and China at the same time.” The CIA and Pentagon veteran emphasized that Washington must take on both Eurasian superpowers, simultaneously, in order to maintain US unipolar hegemony, which he acknowledged is in decline. Kroenig made these arguments in a widely circulated February 18 article in the elite Foreign Policy magazine, titled “Washington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China.” Matthew Kroenig currently serves as deputy director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council, the de facto think tank of the US-led NATO military alliance. The Atlantic Council, which is funded by the US government, other Western governments, NATO, and the weapons industry, has massive influence in Washington, helping to craft foreign policy for every administration. In addition to his work for the CIA and Defense Department in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations, Kroenig was a national security adviser for the presidential campaigns of Republicans Mitt Romney, in 2012, and Marco Rubio, in 2016. He is also a life member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations, and a tenured professor of government and foreign service at Washington’s prestigious Georgetown University. In short, Kroenig is a highly influential figure in US foreign-policy circles with impeccable credentials, and his extremely hawkish views calling for simultaneous US war on China and Russia reflect the opinions of many of his colleagues in Washington. Matthew Kroenig encapsulated the view of many Washington foreign-policy elites that the United States must wage war in order to maintain its unchallenged hegemonic control over the planet, writing: The United States remains the world’s leading power with global interests, and it cannot afford to choose between Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Instead, Washington and its allies should develop a defense strategy capable of deterring and, if necessary, defeating Russia and China at the same time. One of the tactics the United States could use to maintain its unipolar hegemony, Kroenig argued, is the threat of nuclear war: Finally, if necessary, Washington could always take a page from its Cold War playbook and rely more heavily on nuclear weapons to offset the local, conventional advantages of its rivals. The presence of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe helped deter the massive Soviet Red Army for decades. Similarly, the United States could rely on threatening nonstrategic nuclear strikes to deter and, as a last resort, thwart a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan or a Russian tank incursion into Europe. To be sure, there are risks associated with nuclear deterrence, but nuclear weapons have played a foundational role in U.S. defense strategy for three-quarters of a century—and will likely continue to do so for decades to come. Warning that “Moscow and Beijing are forging a closer strategic partnership, including on military matters,” Kroenig insisted that the United States must drastically increase military spending, to “outspend Russia and China at the same time”: First, Washington should increase defense spending. Contrary to those who claim that constrained resources will force tough choices, the United States can afford to outspend Russia and China at the same time. The United States possesses 24 percent of global GDP compared to a combined 19 percent in China and Russia. This year, the United States will spend $778 billion on defense compared to only $310 billion in Russia and China. Moreover, the United States could go so far as to double defense spending (currently 2.8 percent of GDP) and still remain below its Cold War average (close to 7 percent of GDP). Indeed, given that this new Cold War is every bit as dangerous as the last one, a meaningful increase in defense spending, focused on the 21st century’s emerging defense technologies, is in order. … In short, even if this new strategic competition becomes a two-versus-one arms race, Washington is likely to prevail. He called for US allies to significantly increase their military spending as well, writing, “European allies should invest in armor and artillery while Asian allies buy naval mines, harpoon missiles, and submarines.” Kroenig noted that the Joe Biden administration is soon expected to publish a new US National Defense Strategy, which will essentially call for Washington to focus exclusively on containing China, not Russia. But this strategy was allegedly delayed because of the Ukraine crisis. Some US policymakers have called for easing tensions with Moscow and trying to form an alliance with Russia against China, but Kroenig argued this is “not realistic.” This is by no means the first time Matthew Kroenig has advocated for a US war. In 2012, he published an article in Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the elite Council on Foreign Relations, calling for the US military to launch attacks on Iran. In 2021, Kroenig spoke at an anti-Iran conference organized by the extremist Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) cult, which many hawkish figures in Washington have supported to try to bring about regime change in Tehran. He praised MEK front the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) for supposed intelligence it has gathered on Tehran’s alleged nuclear program. Matthew Kroenig is certainly not the only US intelligence official calling for war on China. In November 2021, another CIA veteran, David Sauer, published an op-ed in The Hill titled “America must prepare for war with China over Taiwan.” “To deter China, the United States must rapidly build up its forces in the Pacific, continue to strengthen military alliances in the region to ensure access to bases in time of conflict, and accelerate deliveries of purchased military equipment to Taiwan,” Sauer wrote.

Write an article about: NATO expanding into Asia-Pacific to militarily encircle China as well as Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Australia, China, Japan, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea

While it wages a proxy war on Russia in Ukraine, the US-led NATO military alliance plans to encircle China and expand into the Asia-Pacific region, collaborating with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. The deceptively named North Atlantic Treaty Organization is expanding into the Asia-Pacific region. NATO has waged wars on Libya, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavia. Now the US-led military alliance has its crosshairs set on both Russia and China. Former top State Department officials have admitted that the “United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a proxy war with Russia” in Ukraine. While it is flooding Ukraine with weapons and training far-right fighters to kill Russians, NATO is simultaneously threatening China, and expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific in hopes of containing Beijing. In a press conference on April 5, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that the Western powers plan to “deepen NATO’s cooperation with our Asia-Pacific partners, including in areas such as arms control, cyber, hybrid, and technology.” Stoltenberg complained that “China has been unwilling to condemn Russia” over its war in Ukraine, and made it clear that Beijing is NATO’s next target. NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg announced the Western powers plan to “deepen NATO’s cooperation with our Asia-Pacific partners, including in areas such as arms control, cyber, hybrid and technology” Their goal is to militarily encircle China Read more here: https://t.co/PE3LAJpQVz pic.twitter.com/QUkjtpaPVQ — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 9, 2022 NATO held a meeting of the foreign ministers of its member states at its headquarters in Brussels on April 6 and 7, where they pledged to increase their military support for Ukraine and escalate the proxy war on Russia. This gathering featured representatives from several European states that are not NATO members, including Georgia, Finland, and Sweden. But even more noteworthy was the presence of numerous Asian-Pacific countries at the NATO meeting in Brussels: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. It goes without saying that these Asian-Pacific nations are far from the North Atlantic region. Government representatives from Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea at the NATO meeting on Ukraine in Brussels on April 7 Ronald Reagan designated Japan, South Korea, and Australia “major non-NATO allies” of the United States back in 1987. Japan and Australia are members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad, an anti-China alliance created by Washington to try to isolate and destabilize China. The US military still has 55,000 troops stationed in Japan, where they have been since the end of World War II. Washington also has 28,000 troops in South Korea, which have remained there since the early 1950s. Japan and South Korea joined the Western powers in imposing sanctions on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine. As the United States escalates its new cold war on China, NATO is expanding its military cooperation with these Asian-Pacific powers. Just as NATO repeatedly violated its promises and expanded onto Russia’s borders, militarily encircling Moscow, Washington’s goal is to surround Beijing with antagonistic military forces. In 2021 the major Japanese media outlet Nikkei revealed that US Indo-Pacific Command is spending $27.4 billion over six years to militarize the region, including by “establishing a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain.” In a huge escalation of Washington's new cold war on China, the US military is building a network of precision-strike "anti-China" missiles along the islands surrounding China. This massive act of aggression will cost $27.4 billion over the next six years https://t.co/nW9kfW3G9J pic.twitter.com/azKxBQrWbs — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 7, 2021 Nikkei explained, “The first island chain consists of a group of islands including Taiwan, Okinawa and the Philippines, which China sees as the first line of defense.” US Indo-Pacific Command wrote clearly in its “Pacific Deterrence Initiative” that its goal is to “focus resources on vital military capabilities to deter China.” In other words, this is a US plan to encircle China, threatening it at any moment with a massive missile installation. NATO is going to play an increasingly important role in this plan to militarily surround and threaten Beijing. The US-led military cartel boasts on its website of its close alliance with Japan. And Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi has stated openly that the East Asian country is cooperating with NATO over Ukraine. In July 2021, a top South Korean government official traveled to Brussels “for talks on common security challenges and NATO’s partnership with Seoul.” The military cartel disclosed that they discussed “China’s rise, as well as opportunities for stronger cooperation between NATO and the Republic of Korea, including in the areas of cyber defence and arms control.” Then in October, South Korea’s first vice minister of foreign affairs visited NATO headquarters as well. After a meeting of the heads of state of NATO’s 30 members in Brussels in June 2021, the US-led military cartel published a joint declaration clearly revealing that it sees China as a threat. “China’s growing influence and international policies can present challenges that we need to address together as an Alliance,” NATO wrote. The military cartel claimed China and its cooperation with Russia “present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security.” This statement was released eight months before Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO has planned on targeting China for years, and is now only using Beijing’s refusal to condemn its major strategic partner Moscow as an excuse to continue escalating an aggressive campaign of military encirclement that it had planned long before.

Write an article about: Iran at UN: ISIS would be Europe’s neighbor if not for Iran, Syria, Iraq. 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.

Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Ebrahim Raisi, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Qasem Soleimani, sanctions, Syria, UN, United Nations

At the United Nations, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi called US intervention “the biggest hindrance” to peace and stability, denouncing murderous American sanctions and the new cold war. In the Western press, Iran is often portrayed as an irrational actor. Media propaganda depicts Iranians — like North Koreans, Syrians, Chinese, and people in any other Official Enemy country targeted by the United States for regime change — as crazy barbarians, using racist, colonial-esque tropes. But if you listen to the speech Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi delivered to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, you see the exact opposite is true: Iran is the nation promoting international law, peace, and stability; whereas it is the United States that is waging war around the world and overthrowing any government that refuses to obey it. Raisi sent a message of cooperation. While stressing the commonalities shared by Abrahamic religions and calling for coexistence, the Iranian president condemned the United States for fueling disharmony, extremism, and terrorism. If Washington had had its way, were it not for the resistance led by Iran, Syria, and Iraq, “ISIS would be the Mediterranean neighbors of Europe,” Raisi pointed out. US interventions have only led to “blood-spilling and instability,” he said, recalling the CIA coup that overthrew his nation’s elected government in 1953. Raisi called the ongoing US military occupations of Syria and Iraq the “biggest hindrance to the establishment of democracy” in West Asia, quipping, “Freedom does not fit in the backpacks of soldiers coming from outside the region.” And the way Washington wages war on independent countries is shifting, he noted. Unilateral economic “sanctions are the United States’ new way of war with the nations of the world.” The Iranian president stressed that “sanctions, and especially sanctions on medicine, at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic are crimes against humanity.” Raisi is invariably demonized in the Western press as a “hardliner,” but his UN speech shows that Iranian leadership highly emphasizes rationality (a term he mentioned several times), diplomacy, and multilateralism. At the UN, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi stressed that ISIS would be Europe's neighbors were it not for the resistance led by Iran, Syria, Iraq and al-Muhandis and Soleimani (whom the US killed) "Freedom does not fit in the backpacks of soldiers coming from outside the region" pic.twitter.com/bFWYJBcyFM — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 23, 2021 “It has been our policy to strive for the preservation of stability and territorial integrity of all the countries of the region,” Raisi said. “If not for the power and role of Iran, alongside the governments and peoples of Syria and Iraq, as well as the selfless efforts of martyrs Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and General Qasem Soleimani, today, ISIS would be the Mediterranean neighbors of Europe,” he stressed. The fact that Raisi named Soleimani and al-Muhandis is significant: both were murdered by the Donald Trump administration in a criminal act of war on January 3, 2020. He is emphasizing that Washington murdered two of the most important figures in the fight against ISIS. The Iranian president continued, warning that “ISIS will not be the last wave of extremism.” Raisi indirectly criticized Washington’s new cold war on China and Russia, stating, “The new drive to come up with cold war-esque divisions will not help foster the security of humans, by isolating independent countries.” In another jab at US support for extremist groups, he went on, “Even more bitter is the use of terrorism as an instrument for foreign policy, because you cannot fight terrorism with double standards. You cannot make a terrorist group such as ISIS in a certain place, and claim to fight it somewhere else.” Finally, Raisi stated clearly, “The military presence of the United States in Syria and Iraq is the biggest hindrance to the establishment of democracy and will of nations.” “Freedom does not fit in the backpacks of soldiers coming from outside the region.” Iranian President Raisi at the UN: "Sanctions are the US' new way of war" on the world US interventions only lead to "blood-spilling and instability," and "it is the oppressed people from Palestine and Syria to Yemen and Afghanistan, as well as the US taxpayers, who have to pay" pic.twitter.com/JLoJGD7iEI — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 23, 2021 The Iranian president also condemned Washington’s addiction to military interventions and economic warfare. “The United States’ hegemonic system has no credibility, whether inside or outside the country. What you see in our region today proves that not only the hegemonist and the idea of hegemony, but also the project of imposing Westernized identity have failed miserably.” “The result of seeking hegemony has been blood-spilling and instability, and ultimately defeat and escape.” “Today, the US does not get to exit Iraq and Afghanistan, but is expelled, and at the same time it is the oppressed people from Palestine and Syria to Yemen and Afghanistan, as well as the US taxpayers, who have to pay for this lack of rationality.” “Today, the world doesn’t care about ‘America first’ or ‘America is back.’ If rationality prevails in the minds of the decision-makers, they have to realize that nations’ perseverance is stronger than the power of the superpowers.” “Over the past decade, the US has been making the mistake of modifying its way of war with the world, instead of changing its way of life. An erroneous path cannot be brought to fruition by merely adopting a different method.” “Sanctions are the US’ new way of war with the nations of the world.” “Sanctions against the Iranian nation started not with my country’s nuclear program; they even predate the Islamic Revolution and go back to 1951, when oil nationalization went under way in Iran, which in turn led to a military coup backed by the Americans and the British against the then-government of Iran, which had been elected by the people.” “Sanctions, and especially sanctions on medicine, at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic are crimes against humanity.”

Write an article about: US kills 4th UN call for peace in Gaza, helping Israel violate Hague’s genocide ruling. 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.

Canada, Gaza, Hague, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Israel, Joe Biden, Josep Borrell, Mélanie Joly, Palestine, Rafah, Security Council, UN Security Council, United Nations

The US used its veto power to block a fourth UN Security Council resolution that called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The Biden administration keeps sending weapons to Israel, helping it violate an ICJ ruling that says Netanyahu must respect the Genocide Convention and stop killing Palestinians. The United States has since October voted against four United Nations Security Council resolutions that called for peace in Gaza. Top UN officials have called for a ceasefire, but the US government has stood in their way, facilitating further violence. In January, the highest UN judicial authority, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruled that Israel must abide by the Genocide Convention and stop killing Palestinians. But Tel Aviv ignored the Hague’s decision and killed thousands more Palestinian civilians. By vetoing a fourth Gaza-related Security Council resolution on February 20, and by continuing to provide weapons to Israel, the US government has helped Israel violate an ICJ order. The resolution that Washington vetoed on February 20 had been introduced by Algeria, and called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. In the session, 13 of the 15 members of the Security Council voted in support of the resolution. The UK abstained, and the US was the only country that voted against it. #BREAKING US vetoes Algerian-led draft resolution that would have, inter alia, demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that must be respected by all parties IN FAVOR: 13AGAINST: 1 (US)ABSTAIN: 1 (UK) Live coveragehttps://t.co/fLIqiQv9A4 pic.twitter.com/5lqhlix7RV — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) February 20, 2024 The 13 nations that voted in support of the resolution were permanent members China, France, and Russia, plus Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Switzerland. United States vetoes latest draft resolution on the ongoing crisis in #Gaza The text was put forward by Algeria on behalf of Arab States. It demanded, among other issues, “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that must be respected by all parties” More: https://t.co/fLIqiQv9A4 pic.twitter.com/Nd1sCDQMEf — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) February 20, 2024 The US designed the United Nations after World War II by concentrating power in the Security Council and giving permanent seats to the war’s five victors: the US, UK, France, Russia (the former Soviet Union), and China. The Security Council’s permanent members have veto power, which Washington has abused to advance its foreign-policy interests. On December 9, the US vetoed another resolution in the Security Council, which had been introduced by the United Arab Emirates and called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. That vote was the same: 13 countries in support, an abstention from the UK, and the US veto. #BREAKING United States vetoes Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and immediate and unconditional release of all hostages VOTEIn Favour: 13Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 1 (UK) pic.twitter.com/hY0YcJ1JKF — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 8, 2023 Back on October 18, the US vetoed a resolution that had been introduced by Brazil, which the UN News Agency noted “would have called for ‘humanitarian pauses’ to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza”. In this case, 12 countries voted in favor. The US voted against it, and two countries abstained: the UK and Russia. US vetoes Security Council resolution that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza Favor: 12 (Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland,UAE)Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 2 Russia, UK pic.twitter.com/y4tiAbRMUQ — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) October 18, 2023 Why did Russia abstain on this resolution that had been introduced by Brazil? This was because two days before, on October 16, there was a vote on a stronger competing resolution that Russia had introduced, which called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. This had been the first resolution concerning Gaza to be introduced in the Security Council since the war began on October 7. In this first resolution, five countries voted in support of the ceasefire: China, Gabon, Mozambique, Russia, and the UAE. Four countries voted against it – the major imperial powers that had colonized much of the world: France, Japan, the UK, and the US. Six countries abstained: Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Malta and Switzerland. (Brazil only abstained because it had introduced its own competing resolution, which was voted on two days later, and vetoed by the United States.) The Western powers killed a UN Security Council resolution that proposed a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza The resolution was proposed by Russia 5 countries voted for the ceasefire:???????? China???????? Gabon???????? Mozambique???????? Russia???????? UAE 4 voted against:???????? France???????? Japan???????? UK???????? US… pic.twitter.com/6UMfoRRqQH — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 17, 2023 The US veto of the Algerian resolution on February 20 is particularly scandalous, because Washington did it after the top legal authority on Earth, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), located at the Hague, ruled in January that Israel had to stop killing Palestinians. The Hague stated that there is sufficient evidence to investigate Israel on charges of genocide. The ICJ was very clear in its ruling. It ordered (emphasis added): Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of … (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Since this ruling, Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, and injured tens of thousands more. ICJ’s Israel genocide decision: Historic victory for Palestinians and Global South The United States has also continued to send weapons to Israel, to help it kill Palestinians – and violate the Hague’s ruling. Meanwhile, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) reported on February 5 that roughly 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza had either been killed or wounded by Israel, or were missing – trapped under the rubble of the buildings that Israel had destroyed with US weapons. Furthermore, the WHO estimated that “60% of the 27,019 fatalities reported by the enclave’s health authorities have been women and children… with more than 66,000 now injured and requiring medical care that remains difficult to access”. As of February 21, Israel had killed more than 29,000 Palestinians, according to the health ministry in Gaza. The Gaza health ministry’s data has proven to be consistently accurate. Israeli intelligence agencies have used its casualty figures for their own analysis. Moreover, despite US President Joe Biden’s misleading claims to the contrary, multiple medical experts published peer-reviewed scientific articles in the leading medical journal The Lancet, scrutinizing the data from the Palestinian health ministry and concluding that it is accurate. If anything, the death toll is conservative, and actually understates the number of Palestinians who have been killed by Israel. In fact, the most mainstream of media outlets in the US, the Associated Press, or AP, published a report in January titled “Israel’s military campaign in Gaza seen as among the most destructive in recent history, experts say”. It wrote (emphasis added): The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history. In just over two months, researchers say the offensive has wreaked more destruction than the razing of Syria’s Aleppo between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine’s Mariupol or, proportionally, the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II. It has killed more civilians than the U.S.-led coalition did in its three-year campaign against the Islamic State group. The Israeli military has said little about what kinds of bombs and artillery it is using in Gaza. But from blast fragments found on-site and analyses of strike footage, experts are confident that the vast majority of bombs dropped on the besieged enclave are U.S.-made. They say the weapons include 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) “bunker-busters” that have killed hundreds in densely populated areas. The Wall Street Journal reported in December that the US has sent Israel these 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs during the war. The newspaper noted that, between October 7 and December 1, the US had delivered to Israel 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells. In fact, the Biden administration has repeatedly bypassed Congress, using extraordinary measures to ship more weapons to Israel. While US officials claim that they supposedly want a ceasefire in Gaza, the Wall Street Journal reported on February 17 that the US plans to continue shipping Israel tens of millions of dollars worth of additional weapons. Even the European Union, which strongly supports Israel, has publicly criticized its atrocities in Gaza. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell admitted in a press conference on February 13 that Israel is carrying out a “slaughter” in Gaza. Borrell highlighted the “illogical” hypocrisy of the US, arguing, “If you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed”. The top European diplomat stated: I don’t pretend to be in charge of the foreign policy of the US. I have enough with the foreign policy of European Union. But let’s be logical. How many times have you heard the most prominent leaders and foreign ministers around the world saying too many people are being killed? President Biden said this is too much on the top; it is not proportional. Well, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed. It’s not logical. … They [Palestinians] are going to evacuate. Where? To the moon? Where are they [Israel] going to evacuate these people? So if the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe they have to think about the provision of arms. And by the way, today [February 13], a court in the Netherlands has said, has ordered the government to stop exporting the spare parts of the F-35 fighters to Israel, in order to be sure that the International Court of Justice ruling is being implemented. So I don’t know; every member state is an owner of its foreign policy. But this is a little bit contradictory to continue saying that there are too many people being killed, too many people being killed; please take care of people; please don’t kill so many. Stop saying please, and do something. The Canadian government has been equally hypocritical. Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly tweeted on February 10, “We are deeply concerned by reports of an Israeli military operation in Rafah. It would have devastating impact, putting the lives of Palestinians and foreign nationals, including [Canadians], seeking refuge in grave danger and making the vital delivery of humanitarian aid dangerous”. However, local news outlet The Maple reported that the Canadian government has approved $28.5 million worth of new permits for military equipment exports to Israel during its brutal war on Gaza.

Write an article about: Dick Cheney confirmed US goal is to break up Russia as a country, not just USSR. 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.

Dick Cheney, Iraq, Iraq War, Russia, Soviet Union, USSR

Former Vice President and Iraq War architect Dick Cheney wasn’t content only breaking up the Soviet Union. Balkanizing Russia (and China) is a bipartisan foreign-policy goal among top US national security state officials. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, a lead architect of the Iraq War, not only wanted to dismantle the Soviet Union; he also wanted to break up Russia itself, to prevent it from rising again as a significant political power. Balkanizing Russia, as NATO did to former Yugoslavia, is a fantasy shared by many hawks in the US national security state. They will never tolerate an independent government in Moscow, regardless of whether or not it is socialist. Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.” Gates made these comments in his 2014 memoir “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.” This quote was highlighted on Twitter by journalist Jon Schwarz. In Robert Gates's memoir "Duty," he describes how at the end of the Cold War, Dick Cheney—then secretary of defense—wanted to dismantle not just the Soviet Union but Russia itself. No one in the US knows or cares about this, but I bet lots of people in the Russian government do. pic.twitter.com/Dyb7NeXzJD — ☀️ Jon Schwarz ☀️ (@schwarz) January 31, 2022 Cheney was one of the most powerful vice presidents in modern US history. He exercised significant influence over President George W. Bush, who had little foreign-policy experience and knowledge. The fact that a figure at the helm of the US government not-so-secretly sought the permanent dissolution of Russia as a country, and straightforwardly communicated this to colleagues like Robert Gates, partially explains the aggressive posturing Washington has taken toward the Russian Federation since the overthrow of the USSR. The reality is that the US empire will simply never allow Russia to challenge its unilateral domination of Eurasia, despite the fact that the government in Moscow restored capitalism. This is why it is not surprising that Washington has utterly ignored Russia’s security concerns, breaking its promise not to expand NATO “once inch eastward” after German reunification, surrounding Moscow with militarized adversaries hell bent on destabilizing it. Leading US imperial planner Zbigniew Brzezinski clearly stated in his 1997 opus “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” that the goal was to contain and weaken Russia. Washington had to “prevent the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power,” the former US national security advisor wrote, in order to maintain US “global primacy.” US imperial planner Brzezinski stressed they must "prevent the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power" to maintain US "global primacy" The US empire knows the biggest threat to its hegemony is if China & Russia can integrate Eurasia, and form a military alliance pic.twitter.com/8ekQrfOBrZ — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 21, 2021 Also in 1997, Brzezinski penned an article proposing “A Geostrategy for Eurasia.” This imperial blueprint was published in Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations. The influential US policymaker insisted that Russia should be divided into a “decentralized political system”, with “free-market economics”. Brzezinski proposed a “loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic”. He added that “a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization”. The Russian Federation of today consists of 22 republics. Moscow has long accused Washington of supporting secessionist movements within its borders, aimed at breaking away some of these republics, with the goal of destabilizing and ultimately dismantling Russia. Russian security services have published evidence that the United States supported Chechen separatists in their wars on the central Russian government. British academic John Laughland stressed in a 2004 article in The Guardian, titled “The Chechens’ American friends,” that several Chechen secessionist leaders were living in the West, and were even given grant money by the US government. Laughland noted that the most important US-based pro-Chechen secessionist group, the deceptively named American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), listed as its members “a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusiastically support the ‘war on terror'”: They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be “a cakewalk”; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush’s plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines. This was a Who’s Who of DC’s most influential hawks. Alongside Rumsfeld, Abrams, and company, Cheney was a key figure in these neoconservative foreign-policy circles in Washington, whose bellicose adherents fill the unelected US national security state bureaucracy, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. That is to say that Cheney was by no means alone is seeking the breakup of the Russian Federation; it is a fantasy shared by many of his Beltway colleagues. During the Second Chechen War in the 2000s, these avid proselytizers of the so-called “War on Terror” cheered on Chechen insurgents as they battled the Russian central government. The fact that far-right Salafi-jihadists made up a significant percentage of the Chechen insurgency didn’t bother these anti-Muslim neocons – just as Islamophobic “War on Terror” veterans had no problem supporting extremist head-chopping Takfiri Islamists in the subsequent US wars on Syria and Libya. Today many of these same neoconservative US national security state functionaries have turned their attention back toward supporting secessionist movements in China – in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and especially Xinjiang. The fact that the CIA cutout the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) openly publicizes its support for Uyghur separatist groups in China shows how transparent Washington’s geopolitical objectives are. To further #humanrights & human dignity for all people in China, the National Endowment for Democracy has funded Uyghur groups since 2004. #NEDemocracy #HumanRightsDay https://t.co/C0LJEyWxq1 pic.twitter.com/OqZdehdxXN — NEDemocracy (@NEDemocracy) December 10, 2020 The idea that the US foreign-policy apparatus, and NATO as a military bloc, seeks to prevent the rise of both Russia and China as independent powers is obvious to any truly impartial analyst. Michael T. Klare, a professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, wrote at TomDispatch this January that “America’s top leaders have reached a consensus on a strategy to encircle and contain the latest great power, China, with hostile military alliances, thereby thwarting its rise to full superpower status.” Klare continued: The gigantic 2022 defense bill — passed with overwhelming support from both parties — provides a detailed blueprint for surrounding China with a potentially suffocating network of U.S. bases, military forces, and increasingly militarized partner states. The goal is to enable Washington to barricade that country’s military inside its own territory and potentially cripple its economy in any future crisis. For China’s leaders, who surely can’t tolerate being encircled in such a fashion, it’s an open invitation to… well, there’s no point in not being blunt… fight their way out of confinement. … For Chinese leaders, there can be no doubt about the meaning of all this: whatever Washington might say about peaceful competition, the Biden administration, like the Trump administration before it, has no intention of allowing the PRC to achieve parity with the United States on the world stage. In fact, it is prepared to employ every means, including military force, to prevent that from happening. This leaves Beijing with two choices: succumb to U.S. pressure and accept second-class status in world affairs or challenge Washington’s strategy of containment. It’s hard to imagine that country’s current leadership accepting the first choice, while the second, were it adopted, would surely lead, sooner or later, to armed conflict. This goal is likewise clearly reflected in a 2019 report published by the RAND Corporation, a major Pentagon-backed think tank. Titled “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground,” the document discusses various ways to exploit Moscow’s “weaknesses,” encircle it, and contain it. RAND listed the following “geopolitical measures”: Measure 1: Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine Measure 2: Increase Support to the Syrian Rebels Measure 3: Promote Regime Change in Belarus Measure 4: Exploit Tensions in the South Caucasus Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia Measure 6: Challenge Russian Presence in Moldova Excluding perhaps concerning Moldova (at least openly), the US government has pursued all of these policies to a tee. The Pentagon's privatized policymaking arm the RAND Corporation published a report in 2019 calling for the US to wage proxy war on Russia in Ukraine, Syria, Belarus, Caucasus, & Central Asia — the next region on the list, now being targeted via Kazakhstanhttps://t.co/sp6CTNFDeq pic.twitter.com/yxkxeJRuGh — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 6, 2022 The Moon of Alabama blog, which highlighted this RAND report, also noted that Victoria Nuland, the third-most powerful official in the Joe Biden administration’s State Department, served as Vice President Cheney’s principal deputy foreign policy adviser from 2003 to 2005. Nuland, today under-secretary for political affairs, held a similar senior position in the Barack Obama administration’s State Department. She used her role there to help sponsor a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014. A leaked phone call showed that Nuland chose who would make up the top members of the subsequent Ukrainian puppet government. Current State Dep person running U.S. Russia policy is Victoria 'Fuck the EU' Nuland. "From 2003 to 2005, Nuland served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney" https://t.co/9rEQVt1uVB — Moon of Alabama (@MoonofA) January 31, 2022 Like her mentor Cheney, Nuland is a hard-line neoconservative. The fact that he is a Republican and she works primarily in Democratic administrations is irrelevant; this hawkish foreign-policy consensus is completely bipartisan. Nuland (a former member of the bipartisan board of directors of the NED) is also married to Robert Kagan, a patron saint of neoconservatism, and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century – the cozy home of the neocons in Washington, where he worked alongside Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other top Bush administration officials. Kagan was a longtime Republican, but in 2016 he joined the Democrats and openly campaigned for Hillary Clinton for president. What all of this shows is that these hawkish foreign-policy positions are totally mainstream in Washington. Whether Republican or Democrat, Beltway policy-makers simply refuse to allow Russia and China to challenge US unipolar hegemony. The idea that the United States, a country on the other side of the planet, should rule Eurasia – and frankly the world as a whole – is unquestionable and sacrosanct. There are some exceptions and internal contradictions, but they are few and far between. The reality is that large parts of the US national security state clearly seek the balkanization of Russia and China. This quote from Dick Cheney only further confirms what was already apparent.

Write an article about: US blocks Gaza peace proposal at UN for 3rd time, holding world hostage. 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.

Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Security Council, United Nations

The US government has paralyzed the United Nations, voting against the rest of the world and preventing peace in Gaza by vetoing three different resolutions in the Security Council. Meanwhile, Washington continues giving weapons to Israel. The United States has used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council three times in less than two months to kill resolutions calling for peace in Gaza. Meanwhile, Washington is sending billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel, directly assisting the country as it commits war crimes against Palestinian civilians. On December 8, the Security Council voted on a resolution that called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” and the unconditional release of all hostages. The United States was the only country on the 15-member council that voted against the measure. #BREAKING United States vetoes Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and immediate and unconditional release of all hostages VOTEIn Favour: 13Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 1 (UK) pic.twitter.com/hY0YcJ1JKF — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 8, 2023 This resolution had been introduced by the United Arab Emirates, and had the support of more than 90 UN member states. The 13 Security Council members that voted for the measure were Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Switzerland, and the UAE. Close US ally the United Kingdom was the only country to abstain in the vote. UN Security Council vote (on December 8) calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza: FOR (13)????????Albania????????Brazil????????China????????Ecuador????????France????????Gabon????????Ghana????????Japan????????Malta????????Mozambique????????Russia????????Switzerland????????UAE(????????Backed by 90+ UN member states and Secretary-General… https://t.co/b0FM7mhLEn — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 9, 2023 The United States helped to design the United Nations after World War II, concentrating power in the Security Council and giving permanent seats with veto power to the victors: the US, UK, France, USSR (now Russia), and China. Many countries in the Global South have called to expand the Security Council and to eliminate the veto. China and Russia have repeatedly expressed support for expanding the council. But Washington has adamantly opposed the initiative. Global South leaders are particularly frustrated by the fact that the UK and France, each of which has a population of fewer than 70 million people, both have permanent seats on the Security Council, but not many of the most populous countries on Earth, such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, or Brazil. Brazil’s left-wing President Lula da Silva stressed this November that the failure of the UN to bring peace to Palestine demonstrates that the system is “broken” and has a “lack of credibility”. “The UN needs change”, Lula said, calling to expand the Security Council and remove the veto. “The UN of 1945 does not work in 2023”, the Brazilian leader added. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has publicly called for a ceasefire in Gaza, but was rejected by Washington. Guterres took the extraordinary measure of invoking article 99 of the UN Charter, for the first time in five decades. Article 99 states, “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”. The Associated Press noted, “Article 99 is extremely rarely used. The last time it was invoked was during fighting in 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh and its separation from Pakistan”. In the case of the Bangladeshi national liberation war of 1971, Pakistan’s right-wing military regime ethnically cleansed and committed genocide against Bengalis, with the support of the US government – specifically President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. The genocidal situation in Palestine is strikingly similar today. This November, top UN experts warned that “grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians… point to a genocide in the making”. The UN experts wrote: [Israeli officials] illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation”, loud calls for a ‘second Nakba’ in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 1 that the “U.S. has provided Israel with large bunker buster bombs, among tens of thousands of other weapons and artillery shells”. In less than two months, Washington sent Israel approximately 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells. In fact, Gaza is now one of the most heavily bombed areas in history, according to a report in the Financial Times. Gaza is one of the most heavily bombed areas in history The United States voted against two similar resolutions in October. On October 16, the US and its allies the UK, France, and Japan voted against a measure introduced by Russia that called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The Western powers killed a UN Security Council resolution that proposed a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza The resolution was proposed by Russia 5 countries voted for the ceasefire:???????? China???????? Gabon???????? Mozambique???????? Russia???????? UAE 4 voted against:???????? France???????? Japan???????? UK???????? US… pic.twitter.com/6UMfoRRqQH — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 17, 2023 Two days later, the US unilaterally vetoed a resolution introduced by Brazil that urged “humanitarian pauses” in Gaza. The UK abstained in that vote. Russia did too, but as a form of protest, arguing that the resolution was too weak, instead urging a ceasefire. US vetoes Security Council resolution that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza Favor: 12 (Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland,UAE)Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 2 Russia, UK pic.twitter.com/y4tiAbRMUQ — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) October 18, 2023 At the Security Council meeting on December 8, Russia’s UN representative, Dmitriy Polyanskiy, warned that the United States was “leaving scorched earth in its wake”. China’s ambassador, Zhang Jun, stated, “The task required of the Council is very clear and definitive – act immediately, achieve a ceasefire, protect civilians and avoid a human catastrophe on a larger scale”. “The task required of the Council is very clear and definitive – act immediately, achieve a ceasefire, protect civilians and avoid a human catastrophe on a larger scale” – Zhang Jun, Permanent Representative of China pic.twitter.com/VY9LEf2vKs — UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 8, 2023 139 of the 193 members of the United Nations recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, but it is not officially a UN member state – because the United States has prevented it from becoming one. Palestine does however have observer status in the UN (along with the Vatican). The representative of the observer state of Palestine, Riyad Mansour, participated in the December 8 Security Council session. “Millions of Palestinian lives hang in the balance, every single one of them is sacred and worth saving”, he cautioned. By failing to approve a ceasefire, the Security Council is ensuring that Israeli “war criminals are given more time to perpetrate their crimes”, Mansour added. The Palestinian representative asked, “How can this be justified? How can anyone justify the slaughter of an entire people?”

Write an article about: Saudi Arabia kills 91, injures 236 in Yemen with US-made bomb from Raytheon. 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.

Amnesty International, Joe Biden, Raytheon, Saada, Saudi Arabia, UN, United Nations, Yemen

Saudi Arabia attacked a detention center in Yemen’s Saada city with a US-made laser-guided bomb from Raytheon, killing 91 people and injuring 236 more. President Joe Biden claimed he would end US support for Saudi bombing, but has instead sold the monarchy more weapons. (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) US-backed Saudi forces bombed a crowded detention center in Yemen three times on January 21, killing at least 91 people and injuring 236 more. This massive atrocity in Yemen’s northwestern Saada governorate was carried out using US-made weapons, including a laser-guided bomb manufactured by top Pentagon contractor Raytheon. Washington’s complicity was confirmed by Amnesty International, whose experts analyzed photos showing the remnants of a 500-pound GBU-12 Raytheon bomb. Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s richest countries per capita, has been relentlessly bombing Yemen, the poorest nation in West Asia, since March 2015, with the steadfast support of the United States and Britain. The war on Yemen has unleashed the largest humanitarian catastrophe on Earth, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis. US assistance to the Saudi monarchy in this war has continued under the administrations of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Even Amnesty International, which is notorious for its pro-Western bias, acknowledged that this massacre in Yemen is “the latest piece in a wider web of evidence of the use of US-manufactured weapons in incidents that could amount to war crimes.” The organization wrote: Since March 2015, Amnesty International’s researchers have investigated dozens of air strikes and repeatedly found and identified remnants of US-manufactured munitions. Amnesty International previously identified the use of the same US-made Raytheon bombs used on 21 January in a Saudi-led air strike carried out on 28 June 2019 on a residential home in Ta’iz governorate, Yemen, that killed six civilians — including three children. The United Nations reported that the Saada detention center was full of roughly 2,000 people, including 700 migrants, at the time it was attacked “by three airstrikes in quick succession.” The spokesperson of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Rupert Colville, made it clear that this was a civilian target, stating, “During the recent visit by our team this week, we saw no signs indicating that this site, formerly a barracks, continues to have a military function.” On the same day of this attack, Saudi and Emirati forces supported by the United States and Britain also attacked Yemen’s telecommunications grid, taking down the entire country’s access to the internet. The OHCHR reported that, in the first 28 days of year 2022, US-backed Saudi forces launched 1,403 airstrikes in Yemen. President Joe Biden promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that he would cease US support for the war on Yemen. In February 2021, just weeks after he entered office, Biden claimed he was “ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arm sales.” This was demonstrably false. The Biden administration has maintained support for Saudi Arabia and arms sales to the monarchy as it regularly bombs civilians in Yemen. Amnesty International reported: Since November 2021, the Biden administration has approved sales of — and awarded US firms contracts for — missiles, aircraft, and an anti-ballistic defence system to Saudi Arabia, including a $28 million deal for US maintenance of Saudi aircraft in mid-January. Among these was the approved sale of $650 million in missiles to Saudi Arabia, also from Raytheon, which Congress greenlit despite motions to block it. In December, the administration stated it “remains committed” to the proposed sales of $23 billion in F-35 aircraft, MQ-9B, and munitions to the UAE — despite strong human rights concerns. Continuing to arm the SLC not only fails to meet the US’s obligations under international law, it also violates US law. The Foreign Assistance Act and Leahy Laws both bar US arms sales and military aid to gross violators of human rights. The United Nations has called for an investigation into the attack. Amid ??#Yemen’s escalating conflict, which saw deadly airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition on 21 January, we call for a transparent, independent and impartial investigation to ensure accountability for any breaches of international humanitarian law.https://t.co/pt3cg0urY5 pic.twitter.com/ZNtCEqXY8A — UN Human Rights (@UNHumanRights) January 28, 2022

Write an article about: Geopolitical game changer: China’s Iran-Saudi peace deal is big blow to petrodollar and US economic 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.

BRICS, China, de-dollarization, dollar, gas, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, oil, petrodollar, Qasem Soleimani, Saudi Arabia, SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Syria, Yemen

China’s peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran is a big blow to the petrodollar that undergirds US economic hegemony. Both countries are top oil producers that are discussing selling energy in other currencies. They also applied to join BRICS, and are members of the Belt and Road Initiative. China surprised the world on March 10, announcing that it had successfully sponsored peace talks between rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran. Four days of secret negotiations in Beijing led to a historic agreement in which the two West Asian nations normalized relations, following seven tense years without any official diplomatic ties. Iraq had previously hosted peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but these were sabotaged in January 2020 when US President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike to assassinate top Iranian official Qasem Soleimani, who had been involved in the negotiations. China’s diplomatic breakthrough is part of a larger process of Asian integration, and constitutes a step toward bringing both Iran and Saudi Arabia into the BRICS system and institutions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. In addition to encouraging stability and peace in a region that has been devasted by decades of US wars and meddling, this deal will have huge economic repercussions across the planet. More tangibly, the agreement is a significant blow to the petrodollar system that the United States has used to maintain the dollar as the global reserve currency, thus threatening the very foundation of its economic hegemony. Saudi Arabia has long been one of the world’s leading producers of oil, in the top three (along with the US and Russia). Iran has consistently been among the top 10 producers of crude. As de facto leader of OPEC, Saudi Arabia has significant influence over the price of oil on the global market. Since the 1970s, Riyadh has agreed to sell its crude in dollars and then invest those petrodollars in Treasury securities, helping to strengthen the value of the greenback and increasing global demand for the US currency. But the petrodollar system is facing new challengers. The Saudi government publicly confirmed in January that it is considering selling oil in other currencies. This declaration came just a few weeks after Chinese President Xi Jinping took a historic trip to Riyadh. There, Beijing signed agreements with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Arab League. Xi announced that China would be buying oil and gas from the Persian Gulf region with its own currency, the renminbi, not dollars. “China will continue to import large quantities of crude oil from GCC countries, expand imports of liquefied natural gas … and make full use of the Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas Exchange as a platform to carry out yuan settlement of oil and gas trade“, he said. BRICS is making “a fairer system of monetary exchange” to challenge the “dominance of the dollar”, South Africa revealed. Saudi Arabia, which applied to join BRICS, is considering selling oil in other currencies. China says it will by Gulf energy in yuanhttps://t.co/fDWhqExVAw — Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) March 13, 2023 Xi’s trip to Riyadh was a resounding success when compared to Joe Biden’s attempt at a “reset” in July 2022. A photo of the US president refusing to shake hands and instead fist-bumping with the de facto Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), was a symbol of a trip that was widely panned as a diplomatic failure. At the time, Biden had been struggling with significant consumer price index inflation at home, with midterm elections on the horizon. The US president pressured MBS to increase oil production in an attempt to bring down prices. But Saudi Arabia and OPEC+ refused to do so. Riyadh’s gradual move away from its historical role, firmly ensconced in the heart of the US-led camp, reflects a larger global trend toward a multipolar world. Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states are adopting a more non-aligned foreign policy that balances the US and Europe against China and Russia. This also is a result of China’s growing economic importance, as the biggest economy in the world (according to a purchasing power parity measurement, which is more accurate than nominal GDP). China is the largest trading partner of both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Beijing enjoys close relations with the West Asian nations. In its readout announcing the peace deal, China’s Foreign Ministry described itself as “a reliable friend of the two countries”. Iran and Saudi Arabia have formally applied to join the extended BRICS+ bloc, alongside founders Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS is currently planning to “develop a fairer system of monetary exchange”, to weaken the “dominance of the dollar”, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor revealed in January. As part of this process, BRICS is considering creating a new international reserve currency, based on a basket of currencies of its members. As BRICS seeks to economically integrate the Global South, China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will provide the physical infrastructure to do so. And both Iran and Saudi Arabia are also important parts of the BRI. Complementing the BRICS system is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which brings together China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and numerous Central Asian republics in a massive association representing around two-fifths of the global population and more than one-third of the world’s GDP. Iran is in the process of becoming a full member of SCO. The organization’s Secretary-General Zhang Ming visited Tehran in March. He met with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, who “described the SCO as the world’s largest regional international organisation that plays an important role in maintaining regional and global security and stability”. In 2021, Saudi Arabia became an official SCO dialogue partner, in a step toward membership. Qatar and Egypt did the same in 2022. If all of these countries can be economically and politically integrated, the extended BRICS+ bloc would be the world’s commodities powerhouse. BRICS founding members Russia, China, and Brazil are among the top 10 biggest producers of oil in the world, along with Saudi Arabia and Iran. If the West Asian nations officially join, BRICS+ will include at least half of the world’s top 10 oil producers, representing more than one-third of global petroleum output. OPEC, too, would become a natural partner of BRICS, given Saudi Arabia’s key role in the organization, along with Russia’s influential voice in the extended OPEC+. It is not just oil that is central in this geopolitical shift. Gas and other commodities are crucial as well. Russia is the world’s second-largest producer of natural gas. Iran is the third biggest, China is the fourth, and Qatar is fifth. Algeria, which has also expressed interest in joining BRICS+, is a major gas producer. Qatar is tied with the United States as the biggest producer of liquified natural gas (LNG) on Earth. Algeria is in the top 10. This alliance is deeply complementary. China is the world’s largest consumer of oil, and one of the biggest importers of gas. Already for over a decade, China has bought more oil from West Asia than has the United States. Beijing imports one-third of its energy resources specifically from the Persian Gulf region. And as the planet transitions away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy technologies, minerals will become increasingly important. BRICS-curious countries are very well placed here as well. Brazil is the second-biggest producer of iron ore, followed by fellow BRICS members China, India, Russia, and South Africa in third, fourth, fifth, and seventh place, respectively. Potential BRICS member Iran is the eighth largest. China and Brazil are top producers of lithium, the “white gold” needed for batteries. So, too, is Argentina, which has applied to join BRICS+, and virtually attended the bloc’s summits in 2022. Iran announced this March that it also found significant lithium reserves, which could be the second biggest in the world. What all of this shows is that, by extending and including countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran as new members, BRICS+ could become a commodities powerhouse, with significant influence in global markets. None of this would have been possible if Saudi Arabia and Iran were at war with each other. Now that they have normalized relations, Asian integration is likely to move forward, full steam ahead. Countries by their current account balance (red is a deficit, green is a surplus) The Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 established the US dollar as the global reserve currency. At that time, the dollar was pegged to gold at the price of $35 per troy ounce, making it essentially as good as gold. US military spending in its wars on Korea, Vietnam, and beyond led Washington’s gold reserves to run low. So in 1971, President Richard Nixon unilaterally ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold, making the greenback a freely floating fiat currency. This led to a period of instability, which was further compounded by OPEC’s 1973 oil embargo. In 1974, Nixon sent his Treasury secretary, William Simon, to Saudi Arabia. “The goal” of the trip, Bloomberg explained, was to “neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade” Saudi Arabia “to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth”. Washington signed a historic agreement with Riyadh, pledging to protect the Gulf monarchy in return for Saudi Arabia selling its oil exclusively in dollars, depositing those petrodollars in US commercial banks, and investing in Treasury bonds. Bloomberg explained: “The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending”. This petrodollar system helped ensure global demand for the dollar, because countries that imported oil and other commodities needed dollars to pay for them. As economist Michael Hudson showed in his book Super Imperialism, the ballooning US current account deficit was almost entirely from military spending, as Washington waged war after war and built a constellation of foreign bases across the globe. For most countries, such a consistent, long-term deficit would lead to a devaluation of their national currency and related economic problems. But not for the US, thanks in part to the petrodollar system. The status of the dollar as global reserve currency and the steady demand for dollars to import oil and other commodities granted the United States an “exorbitant privilege” that has allowed it to maintain this massive current account deficit (importing significantly more than it exports). The 2008 financial crash, however, inspired some countries to think about alternatives. China, specifically, floated the idea of unseating the US dollar as the global reserve currency. The governor of China’s central bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, published a white paper in 2009, arguing that the “crisis again calls for creative reform of the existing international monetary system towards an international reserve currency with a stable value, rule-based issuance and manageable supply, so as to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability”. Ever escalating Western sanctions on China and allies such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have only further incentivized Beijing to seek new financial alternatives. US-dominated institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have taken note. In 2022, an IMF report warned of the “erosion of dollar dominance”, acknowledging that the share of foreign-exchange reserves of central banks around the world held in dollars had shrunk from 70% to 60% in the previous two decades. This was not a massive decrease, but it is part of a steady trend that is likely to accelerate, as the United States wages a new cold war on China and Russia. According to the Federal Reserve, the US dollar is involved in roughly 80% of international trade, but this varies greatly depending on the region. The use of other currencies for trade in Asia is increasing, as countries targeted by unilateral Western sanctions develop new financial mechanisms to trade with their national currencies. For more than a decade, China has already been using yuan to buy oil from Iran. After the Donald Trump administration unilaterally sabotaged the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), back in 2018, Reuters noted that the newly imposed US “sanctions could advance China’s ‘petro-yuan’”. The NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine was a shot of adrenaline into the arm of de-dollarization. Unprecedented US and EU sanctions led Moscow to develop new financial arrangements with its top trading partners in Asia. Russia has made importers of its gas pay in rubles, while using local currencies in bilateral trade with countries like India and Iran. China is also conducting more and more bilateral trade with Russia in yuan. It took a while, but the call that the People’s Bank of China made in 2009 for a new international monetary system is now coming to fruition. And if Beijing is serious about challenging the hegemony of the US dollar, Saudi Arabia is a key player it needs on its side. Before the landmark peace deal this March, China had been worried it may have to choose between either Iran or Saudi Arabia. Now, it can maintain good relations with both. The normalization of ties between Tehran and Riyadh is a significant development in a larger process of Asian integration. (This is frequently referred to as Eurasian integration, but Europe has essentially politically expelled Russia from the continent over the proxy war in Ukraine, leading Moscow to seek closer ties with its Asian neighbors instead.) In his 1997 opus “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, US imperial strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that “the most dangerous scenario” for Washington’s unipolar hegemony “would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition”. US sanctions and aggressive policies toward these three powers have pushed them to unite in exactly the way that Brzezinski feared. In 2021, China and Iran signed a historic, 25-year economic and strategic partnership agreement estimated at $400 billion. Reporting on the deal, Forbes summarized: “a power shift threatens Western energy“. Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi took an important trip to China in February 2023. It was the first visit by an Iranian president in 20 years. In a readout on the meeting, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry affirmed, “China always views and develops relations with Iran from a strategic perspective, and no matter how the international and regional situation changes, China will remain steadfast in developing friendly cooperation with Iran and advancing China-Iran comprehensive strategic partnership“. Condemning US attacks on Iran, “Xi Jinping emphasized that China supports Iran in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national dignity, supports Iran in resisting unilateralism and bullying, opposes external forces interfering in Iran’s internal affairs and undermining its security and stability”. China and Russia are already close allies, with a comprehensive strategic partnership that they say has “no limits”. Even with the unprecedented Western sanctions imposed on Moscow in 2022 over the proxy war in Ukraine, China declared that Russia is its “most important strategic partner” and called their friendship “rock solid”. At the same time, Iran and Russia are deepening their integration, especially economically. The two countries are building trade routes to circumvent Western sanctions. The multibillion-dollar International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC) will connect India’s western Mumbai port to Iran’s southern Bandar Abbas port, with goods then traveling north on rail networks, passing through the Caspian Sea, and reaching Russia. INSTC will not only cut out the need for products to transit through the Mediterranean Sea; it will also nearly halve the transit time of 40 to 60 days on average to instead just 25 to 30 days, while reducing costs by approximately 30%. China, Russia, and Iran are likewise developing alternatives to the SWIFT inter-bank messaging system, which is dominated by the United States. As part of the proxy war in Ukraine in 2022, the US and EU disconnected several Russian banks from SWIFT – a scandalous decision that was called the financial “nuclear option“. In response, in January 2023, the central banks of Iran and Russia made an agreement to integrate their inter-bank communication and transfer systems, connecting 52 branches of Iranian banks that use Iran’s SEPAM system to 106 banks using Russia’s System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS). Even Riyadh is moving closer to Moscow. In 2021, Saudi Arabia and Russia signed a military cooperation agreement. Riyadh has also been buying significant military equipment from Moscow. Russia’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia told state media Sputnik in 2023 that Riyadh “is a regular and trusting dialogue at the highest level”, adding that the two countries’ relations have “a real prospect of reaching the level of strategic partnership“. Despite China’s diplomatic breakthrough, clearly, no one expects the Saudi monarchy to become a friend of Iran and to join the anti-imperialist Axis of Resistance. That said, Riyadh’s balancing of relations with Washington and Brussels on one side and Beijing and Moscow on the other reflects the transition toward a multipolar world. Persian Gulf monarchies that were long loyal clients of the United States have gradually moved toward a more non-aligned foreign policy. There are certainly profound ideological differences between the Wahhabi and ultra-conservative strains of Sunni Islam sponsored by the Gulf states and the revolutionary Shia liberation theology promoted by Iran. But Riyadh’s normalization of relations with Tehran is a sign that the kingdom’s animosity toward the Islamic Republic was much more motivated by geopolitical pressure from the United States than it was religious disagreements. Washington has sought regime change in Tehran ever since the Iranian people’s 1979 revolution overthrew the country’s Western-backed dictator. And the US has long seen Saudi Arabia as a key ally, even a proxy, needed to enforce its “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran. Through decades of illegal unilateral sanctions, constant destabilization operations, and relentless information warfare and propaganda, the United States has desperately tried to make Iran into a pariah state. China has effectively neutralized this US strategy by brokering peace between West Asia’s arch-rivals. The outrage in Israel reflects the growing realization that Iran has not been isolated. The regime of Benjamin Netanyahu is furious. Tel Aviv sees the peace agreement as a threat, because it thwarts its plans to divide Arabs and Iranians, Sunnis and Shia. The US has spent years trying to form an alliance between Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab states against Iran. The Donald Trump administration took a victory lap in 2020 with the signing of the so-called Abraham Accords, which were mostly symbolic, but formalized diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Israel. US President Donald Trump signing the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain in 2020 The fact that the US and Israel see China’s peace talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia as a threat demonstrates the fundamental difference between Beijing’s and Washington’s policies. China wants stability in the region, to deepen economic integration and trade. In Beijing’s readout on the negotiations, top diplomat Wang Yi stressed that “the improvement of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran has paved the way for realizing peace and stability in the Middle East”. Wang added that “China supports countries in the Middle East in upholding strategic autonomy, strengthening solidarity and cooperation, getting rid of external interference, and really holding the future of the Middle East in their own hands”. This approach could hardly be more different from US foreign policy toward the region, which derives from an obsessive drive to destabilize and control it, to advance the geopolitical objectives of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, to maintain “full-spectrum dominance”, to bring about regime change “in seven countries in five years“. Just in the two decades since September 11, 2001, US wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen killed millions of people, created tens of millions of refugees, and devastated entire countries. Washington and its allies intentionally stoked sectarianism, giving rise to extremist Salafi-jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. Countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in particular suffered heavily from this sectarian conflict. Now that Saudi Arabia and Iran have normalized relations, these battleground nations serve to benefit the most. This is a key reason why Iraq spent years trying to broker a deal itself. But the US government, again, intentionally sabotaged Baghdad’s peace initiative by murdering Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, when the top Iranian general was negotiating with Saudi Arabia. Thanks to China’s diplomacy, the war in Yemen may also finally come to an end, after nine years. Saudi Arabia’s gruesome bombing campaign, sponsored by the United States and Britain, has killed hundreds of thousands of Yemenis and unleashed the largest humanitarian catastrophe on Earth. West Asia will undoubtedly be the first region to benefit from the diplomatic breakthrough between Saudi Arabia and Iran. But the geopolitical and economic implications are truly global. Decades from now, historians will likely look back at this agreement as a watershed moment, reflecting China’s new role on the global stage as a negotiator of peace, symbolizing the end of US unipolar hegemony and the rise of a multipolar world.

Write an article about: Taiwan separatists lose key ally, Honduras recognizes China – just 12 small countries remain. 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.

China, coup, Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Xiomara Castro

Honduras’ leftist President Xiomara Castro officially recognized China. Now only 12 UN member states have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan separatists. They have a combined population of less than 39 million, or 0.49% of the planet. Update (March 26): Honduras announced on March 25 that it officially established formal diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. The Honduran Foreign Ministry publicly recognized the One China Policy – that there is only one China, represented by the People’s Republic, and that Taiwan is a province of it. “The two governments agreed to develop links of friendship”, the Honduran Foreign Ministry wrote, pledging to negotiate “agreements in areas of cooperation, such as finance, trade, infrastructure, energy, technology, culture, tourism, education, and health, among others, based on mutual benefit and shared integral development”. “With this historic decision, the Government of the Republic widens the horizon of development for the Honduran people”, the Foreign Ministry added. ?????| La República de Honduras y la República Popular China establecen Relaciones Diplomáticas. pic.twitter.com/slUPC26fbt — Cancillería Honduras (@CancilleriaHN) March 26, 2023 Original article (March 16): The government of Honduras has announced that it is breaking formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan and recognizing the People’s Republic of China. Honduras’ leftist President Xiomara Castro had pledged during her 2021 campaign that, if she won the election, she would recognize China. This March, she fulfilled that promise. This means that just 12 United Nations member states have formal diplomatic relations with the so-called “Republic of China” on the island of Taiwan. The other 99.51% of the global population live in countries that formally recognize that there is only one China, and that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China. These 12 UN member states that recognize Taiwan have a combined population of only 38.9 million – representing just 0.49% of the global population of 8 billion. The following list consists of the countries that still do not have formal relations with the People’s Republic of China, accompanied by the size of their populations, according to CIA World Factbook data: 12 UN member states: Guatemala – 17.98 million Haiti – 11.47 million Paraguay – 7.44 million Eswatini – 1.13 million Belize – 419,137 Saint Lucia – 167,591 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – 100,804 Marshall Islands – 80,966 Saint Kitts and Nevis – 54,817 Palau – 21,779 Tuvalu – 11,639 Nauru – 9,852 Non UN member: Vatican City – c. 1000 Even the United States technically recognizes that Taiwan is part of China, at least on paper. Washington signed Three Communiqués with Beijing when the governments normalized diplomatic relations. The first communiqué, signed in 1972, stated clearly: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. Despite its legal commitments, Washington has been gradually increasing its support for separatist forces in Taiwan. The US military has deployed troops on Taiwan island, and sold it billions of dollars of weapons. Top US officials like former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi have also made provocative trips to the Chinese province, backing separatists. Xiomara Castro (of no relation to Cuba’s revolutionary leader Fidel Castro) made this historic announcement on March 14. In a tweet, Castro said, “I have instructed Foreign Minister Eduardo Reina to arrange the opening of official relations with the People’s Republic of China, as a demonstration of my determination to fulfill the Plan of Government and expand the frontiers of liberty in concert with the nations of the world”. He instruido al Canciller Eduardo Reina, para que gestione la apertura de relaciones oficiales con la República Popular China, como muestra de mi determinación para cumplir el Plan de Gobierno y expandir las fronteras con libertad en el concierto de las naciones del mundo. — Xiomara Castro de Zelaya (@XiomaraCastroZ) March 14, 2023 Castro’s decision enraged US politicians. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy tweeted threateningly, “The Honduran people will suffer because of her failed leadership”. Honduran President Xiomara Castro is moving her country closer to Communist China while the world is moving away. The Honduran people will suffer because of her failed leadership. — U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) March 15, 2023 In a subsequent interview explaining the decision, Reina said that China has offered to help Honduras economically. There are “great needs that the Honduran people have”, and, “Unfortunately, the needs are enormous, and we have not seen this response” from Taiwan, the foreign minister emphasized. Reina also noted that Honduras is trapped in billions of dollars of odious debt owed to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other US-dominated institutions, and China could potentially ease this burden. US-backed coup regimes trapped Honduras in unpayable odious debt, warns new President Xiomara Castro Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western hemisphere. Roughly three-quarters (74%) of its population of 10 million live in poverty. The United States sponsored a military coup in Honduras in 2009, which overthrew the country’s democratically elected left-wing President Manuel Zelaya and installed a brutally repressive right-wing regime. This ultra-conservative coup regime, which was closely linked to drug trafficking, ran Honduras with an iron first from 2009 until the end of 2021. Poverty skyrocketed, and violence and organized crime became such systemic problems that Honduras had the highest murder rate on Earth. Meanwhile, the coup regime, which blatantly stole two elections, enjoyed the staunch support of not only the United States, but also Taiwan. In fact, during the November 2021 vote, Taiwan meddled in Honduras’ elections. Honduran activists published photos and videos across social media that showed Taiwan providing aid to the right-wing National Party, the party of the coup regime. Taiwan is meddling in Honduras' presidential election, coming up on the 28th, giving aid to the ruling right-wing National Party, which has brutally ruled the country since a US-backed 2009 military coup The leftist Libre Party candidate pledged to establish relations with China https://t.co/EMzwYQKOo9 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 25, 2021 Taiwan has been similarly meddling in the political system of Honduras’ western neighbor, Guatemala, pressuring the country to maintain diplomatic relations. The Associated Press reported in 2022 that Taiwan paid Guatemala $900,000 to hire a top ally of Donald Trump to lobby in Washington on behalf of its right-wing President Alejandro Giammattei, a notoriously corrupt millionaire and dual citizen of Italy. Honduras’ southern neighbor, Nicaragua, on the other hand, has a leftist government led by the Sandinista Front. In 2021, Nicaragua broke ties with Taiwan, recognizing the People’s Republic of China. Since then, Managua and Beijing have become close allies, and the two governments are negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement. China is helping Nicaragua expand its public housing program, building thousands of homes for poor and working families. Beijing has also signed agreements to develop infrastructure, hospitals, and renewable energy. Nicaragua has even made plans with China to construct an interoceanic canal, which would challenge the monopoly of the Panama Canal and offer enormous economic opportunities for the Central American nation. Nicaragua’s revolutionary Sandinista government had first recognized China back in the 1980s, but after a decade of a CIA-sponsored Contra terror war and an illegal US blockade against Nicaragua, a right-wing regime came to power in 1990, which reveretd to diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Sandinista Nicaragua allies with China, Russia, Iran against US imperialism

Write an article about: West killed peace proposal to end Ukraine war, Russia supported negotiated settlement. 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.

Boris Johnson, Britain, EU, Europe, European Union, Josep Borrell, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United Kingdom

Russia and Ukraine agreed to a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in April, but British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened to stop the peace deal, and the US and EU escalated the proxy war to try to weaken Moscow. Russia and Ukraine agreed to a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in April, but British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened to stop the peace deal, and the US and EU escalated the proxy war to try to weaken Moscow. In May, Ukraine’s avowedly anti-Russian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda published a bombshell report that got virtually no attention in the West, titled “Possibility of talks between Zelenskyy and Putin came to a halt after Johnson’s visit.” The article noted, “The Russian side… was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting. But two things happened, after which a member of the Ukrainian delegation, Mykhailo Podoliak, had to openly admit that it was ‘not the time’ for the meeting of the presidents.” The newspaper continued: According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages. The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to “press him.” Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine “had turned into a dead end”. The fact that Russia and Ukraine were willing to end the conflict diplomatically was further confirmed later by Foreign Affairs, the media arm of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, which has a revolving door with the US government. Fiona Hill, who served as the senior director for Europe and Russia on the US National Security Council in the Barack Obama administration, co-authored an article for the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs titled “The World Putin Wants.” The former top US national security official overseeing Russia policy wrote: According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option. These terms had apparently been ironed out in face-to-face peace talks in Istanbul, Turkey on March 29. Hill did not reveal what killed the peace process, but the Ukrainska Pravda report from May made it clear that it was Western pressure on Ukraine that sabotaged the negotiated settlement. As US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stated publicly on April 25, Washington’s goal was to use the proxy war in Ukraine to “weaken” Russia. “Experts react: After Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, is an end to war imminent?,” Atlantic Council, April 1, 2022 “Possibility of talks between Zelenskyy and Putin came to a halt after Johnson’s visit – UP sources,” Ukrainska Pravda, Roman Romaniuk, May 5, 2022 “The World Putin Wants,” Foreign Affairs, Fiona Hill and Angela Stent, September/October 2022 “Report: Russia, Ukraine Tentatively Agreed on Peace Deal in April,” Antiwar.com, Dave DeCamp Brookings Institution funders in 2021 annual report “No middle way between being independent country and colony, Putin says,” Russia’s Tass, June 9, 2022 “In long speech, Putin recognizes two Ukrainian regions as independent, a potential pretext for war,” Washington Post, February 21, 2022 “Foreign Affairs Council: Remarks by High Representative Josep Borrell upon arrival,” in Luxembourg on April 11, 2022: JOURNALIST: Russians have criticised you for saying that the battle will be won on the battlefield. Do you still believe that this will be the case? BORRELL: Normally wars have been won or lost on the battlefields. Yes. Touched by the resilience, determination and hospitality of @ZelenskyyUA & @Denys_Shmyhal. I return with a clear to do list: 1. This war will be won on the battlefield. Additional €500 million from the #EPF are underway. Weapon deliveries will be tailored to Ukrainian needs. pic.twitter.com/Jgr61t9FfW — Josep Borrell Fontelles (@JosepBorrellF) April 9, 2022

Write an article about: US-backed coup in Pakistan overthrows PM Imran Khan over his independent foreign policy. 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.

coup, Imran Khan, Pakistan, podcast

Benjamin Norton speaks with Pakistani scholar Junaid S. Ahmad about the US-backed coup against Prime Minister Imran Khan, aimed at reversing his alliance with China, Russia, and Iran and support for Palestine. 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 1 of 2 This video is also available on Rumble and Rokfin. You can also download the podcast at Substack. You can watch or listen to part 2 here: Who is Pakistan’s Imran Khan? From athlete to protester of US wars to overthrown prime minister 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

Write an article about: Spanish lawmaker: NATO subordinates Europe to US, pushes war on China, enriches weapons companies. 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.

Gerardo Pisarello, NATO, Partido Popular, Podemos, poverty, Spain, unemployment

Spain’s leftist member of parliament Gerardo Pisarello said the NATO summit was organized to “enrichen the weapons trade” and “reinforce the geostrategic priorities of the United States … above all to weaken China.” He condemned US “vassalage,” calling for a new “autonomous” European security model based on respect for the Global South. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) A Spanish lawmaker has condemned the NATO summit that was held in Madrid this June, denouncing the US-led military alliance for advocating for more war and pushing to enrich the weapons industry while Europeans suffer from inflation and an energy crisis. On the floor of Spain’s parliament, leftist Deputy Gerardo Pisarello argued that “the NATO summit was not organized to strengthen the cause of peace,” but rather “was organized basically to reinforce the geostrategic priorities of the United States… above all to weaken China.” “It is evident that Europe needs a new model of security,” Pisarello said. But “that security model has to be an autonomous model, a European model, not a model subordinated to the United States.” He portrayed Washington as a neocolonial overlord, condemning Spain for offering to “surrender ourselves in vassalage to NATO.” The US government came to Madrid “to sell us, at a high price, its polluting shale gas, its GMO grains, and above all, the weapons of Lockheed Martin and its war industry,” he declared. Spain’s leftist member of parliament @G_Pisarello said the NATO summit was organized to “enrichen the weapons trade” and "reinforce the geostrategic priorities of the US" to "weaken China" He called for an “autonomous” European security model Full video: https://t.co/Tl3Gtkh6vu pic.twitter.com/hZkNFi16i4 — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) July 6, 2022 Gerardo Pisarello Prados is a Spanish-Argentine lawmaker from Catalunya, representing the socialist political party Barcelona en Comú (Barcelona in Common), which is affiliated with the national leftist party Podemos. He is a member of the Congress of Deputies, the lower chamber of Spain’s parliament, where he serves as first secretary and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. In a speech in parliament on June 29, during NATO’s Madrid summit, Pisarello called for a new paradigm of “peace” and “respectful relations” with the Global South. Citing left-wing leaders in Latin America, like Lula da Silva of Brazil and Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, Pisarello declared, “There is a new multilateral world order that is emerging, which is irreversible, and which no empire, neither old or new, is going to be able to stop.” The main threat to European security is not refugees, he stressed. Rather, “the principal security threat are the imperial disputes for energy resources, the concentration of wealth, the inequalities that creates, the migrations.” The Spanish lawmaker denounced the demand by the United States and NATO that European governments boost their military spending to 2% of GDP. This “would involve dedicating millions of euros to enrichen the weapons trade, when neither inflation nor unemployment is going to be resolved by filling Europe with more nuclear warheads or with more warships,” he said. Pisarello pointed out that the combined military spending of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain is already four times larger than Russia’s. Increasing the military budget “in the middle of a dire social and energy emergency would truly be the act of a pyromaniac,” he added. The United States and its NATO alliance have pressured members to devote 2% of their GDP to military spending. Since the 2008 financial crash, Spaniards have suffered from high levels of unemployment and poverty, and a brutal austerity policy that has continued regardless of which political party is in government. This economic hardship has deepened with a global inflation crisis, which has been greatly exacerbated by Western sanctions on Russia, which have caused spiking energy prices. Yet the Spanish government used the opportunity of the NATO summit held in Madrid from June 29 to 30 to announce that it will increase its military spending to 2% of GDP by 2030. Spain already spends €12.21 billion on its military every year, which represents 1.03% of GDP. This means that Madrid is pledging to double military spending to roughly €24 billion in just over seven years. For context, even before Russia escalated the war in Ukraine in February 2022, Spain had increased its military spending in the past seven years by more than €2 billion, from 0.93% of GDP to 1.03%. Spain is currently governed by a liberal coalition led by the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party), which despite its name is a neoliberal centrist party that has governed just like the right wing. Madrid’s proposal to significantly boost military expenditure must be approved by the parliament. Spain’s left-wing party Podemos, which is technically part of the coalition government, has pledged to oppose the measure. Meanwhile, the major right-wing Partido Popular (People’s Party), which is in the opposition, supports Madrid’s proposed spending hike. The Spanish government is already saddled by tens of billions of dollars of debt due to foreign weapons contracts, and economic experts warn that the country will likely be forced to impose even more austerity measures in order to pay this off. For more than a decade, Spanish workers have been heavily hurt by austerity measures imposed on them by a succession of neoliberal governments, at the orders of EU leadership in Brussels. Spain has the second-highest level of unemployment in the European Union, after Greece. After the 2008 financial crash, national unemployment in Spain reached more than 20%. As of 2021, it is officially at 13%, although southern provinces have rates over 20%. A staggering 27.8% of people in Spain are at risk of poverty, according to official government statistics, and that figure is getting worse by the year. A map of unemployment in Spain, as of the beginning of 2022 Multipolarista translated Gerardo Pisarello’s speech into English. A full transcript follows below: Gentlemen of the right wing, as you will come to understand, if we join the warmongering fervor that has come to show itself here today [at NATO’s Madrid summit], in the middle of a dire social and energy emergency, it would truly be the act of a pyromaniac. Because we are going to say it clearly: what you all are proposing here does not guarantee any calm, or any security to working families and to the citizenry in general, among other reasons, because from the start it would involve dedicating millions of euros to enrichen the weapons trade, when neither inflation nor unemployment is going to be resolved by filling Europe with more nuclear warheads or with more warships. After NATO’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, it is evident that Europe needs a new model of security. But if we have learned something from all of this, we must at least have two things clear: first of all, that that security model has to be an autonomous model, a European model, not a model subordinated to the United States, or to any other power; and secondly, that that autonomous security model should not be used for escalation without end, but rather for a foundational value of Europe and the United Nations: peace as a condition for shared prosperity. I understand that the Partido Popular [Spain’s major right-wing party] which already involved us in the Iraq War, with Blair and George Bush, does not clearly see this goal, but at least you could listen to conservative people, of your own ideology, who remember that every single day of war means thousands of civilian victims, with mass displacement, with economic devastation, with mothers crying to their children, dead soldiers. We, for example, would have hoped for a summit in which it is remembered that the principal security threat are not the Ukrainian refugees, or Syrian refugees, or Africans; that the principal security threat are the imperial disputes for energy resources, the concentration of wealth, the inequalities that creates, the migrations. We would have wanted a summit in which it is explained that increasing military spending when there are urgent needs and when just France, Germany, Italy, and Spain spend four times more on the military than Russia, that it makes absolutely no sense. We would have liked a summit in which it were said that the main challenge for Europe is not trying to pressure people with fear, but rather persuade them, that is to say, to be a credible promoter of peace and of negotiated resolutions of the conflicts in Ukraine, Yemen, Palestine, or the Sahara. But that is not going to happen, because the NATO summit was not organized to strengthen the cause of peace, which was championed by people like Altiero Spinelli, Petra Kelly, or Olof Palme. This summit was organized basically to reinforce the geostrategic priorities of the United States, which are not about Ukraine or Europe, but above all about weakening China. That, gentlemen, is why Mr. Marshall [the United States] has not come to this summit with a pack of social and green investments under his arm. He has not come with a Green New Deal under his arm. He has come to sell us, at a high price, his polluting shale gas, his GMO grains, and above all, the weapons of Lockheed Martin and his war industry. And he has come to tell us that, more than ending the war, what we need to do is feed it. And let’s be honest, that can be the project of an irresponsible warmonger like Boris Johnson; it can be the project of the Polish ultra-right-wing; it can be the project of the Latvian ultra-right-wing; but it cannot be the project of a Europe that respects itself, a Europe that wants to be autonomous, and that aspires to build a civilizational alternative based on the deepening of democracy, of peace, of social and environmental justice. That other, autonomous European model not only is it what is better for the countries in the south of Europe; it is the only one with which we can earn the respect of the rest of the peoples of the world, beginning with Africa and Latin America. Because what Africa hopes of us, gentlemen, not is that we go to pillage its resources, to later militarize the southern border, and shoot those who try to cross it [a reference to the Melilla massacre on June 24]. What Africa hopes for is a serious commitment, not just rhetoric, with a codevelopment that allows its boys and girls to eat every day, and not see themselves pushed to immigrate when they are teenagers. Because what Latin America hopes for us is not what [Spain’s King] Felipe VI proposed, after receiving Biden at the foot of his airplane, that we surrender ourselves in vassalage to NATO. What they hope for, which was told to us by [Brazil’s] ex President Lula, what was told to us by [Mexico’s] President López Obrador is that we seek peace and shared prosperity, starting from a respectful relation between free and equal peoples. That respectful, not arrogant, Iberoamericanism is also what was just demanded by Colombia’s President-elect Gustavo Petro. Gentlemen of the right-wing, don’t allow the neocolonial ravings of of the marquesses [feudal royals] of Vargas Llosa ruin this opportunity. Because if that happens, I can assure you that Africa and Latin America will rebel. They already did it with [King] Fernando VII. They already did it in Cuba and the Philippines, supported by Pi y Margall and by Unamuno. And it will happen again if we don’t understand that there is a new multilateral world order that is emerging, which is irreversible, and which no empire, neither old or new, is going to be able to stop. Thank you. Discutiendo con la derecha sobre la Cumbre de la OTAN pic.twitter.com/b5ppFUzu0o — Gerardo Pisarello (@G_Pisarello) June 29, 2022

Write an article about: While fueling Ukraine proxy war, NATO and EU are militarizing the Balkans. 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.

Balkans, Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU, EUFOR, European Union, NATO, Serbia, Yugoslavia

The proxy war in Ukraine threatens to drag the Balkans into a larger regional conflict, as the US, EU, and NATO militarize Bosnia and increase pressure on Serbia, and Ukrainian drones crash in Croatia. While much of the world’s attention is focused on the war in Ukraine, the NATO-affiliated European Union Force (EUFOR) mission deployed combat troops to Bosnia, to the city of Banja Luka, on April 20. These soldiers were sent to the Balkans ostensibly to monitor a peaceful protest organised by a Bosnian Serb veterans’ organisation, which was supported by the Bosnian Serb ruling party and its president Milorad Dodik. The increasing visibility of EUFOR and NATO troops in Bosnia is exacerbating already high tensions in the former Yugoslav countries, following the dramatic escalation of violence in Ukraine this year. The EUFOR intervention in Banja Luka followed similar “pre-cautionary” demonstrations of force in Bosnia over the last several months, including flyovers by French fighter jets and exercises in which EUFOR troops marched down commercial streets in central Sarajevo and drove around civilian areas in armored vehicles. The protests in Banja Luka result from conflicting interpretations of jurisdiction under the Dayton Agreement, the deal that ended Bosnia’s four-year civil war in 1995. The Dayton Accords established a tenuous political system for Bosnia and Herzegovina which saw power divided between two “entities” along the armistice line: the Croat and Muslim “Federation” and Serb “Republic”. While Dayton formally incorporates Russia and other non-NATO countries into its oversight body, the agreement is in practice administered by NATO governments and by Austria, which together appoint a “High Representative” who has sweeping powers to overrule democratic decisions of the respective entity governments. While nominally neutral, Austria plays a key role in implementing NATO policy in Bosnia, and its status within the former Yugoslav republics as a historic colonial power and major foreign investor undermine its claims to objectivity. Dayton also laid the framework for what in effect became a permanent military occupation of Bosnia, first directly under NATO, and later under a joint EU-NATO operation known as the European Union Force Bosnia and Herzegovina, or EUFOR. The symbol of EUFOR While the ostensible purpose of EUFOR is to prevent the re-emergence of armed conflict between Muslims and Serbs, its contribution to regional and inter-community security is ambiguous at best, and the military occupation of Bosnia is routinely used by the West to exert political domination over the region. In 2014, a wave of anti-privatization and anti-corruption protests began in Tuzla, a mainly Muslim mining town in Bosnia known for a tradition of socialist and labour militancy. The protests were notable for broad solidarity between Muslim, Croat, and Serb protestors, and the shared contempt for the dysfunctional administrative structures and nationalist elites (including the aforementioned Dodik) created by Dayton. In response, the Western-appointed High Representative threatened to suppress the protests with Austrian troops. In a region with vivid recent memories of a horrific civil war, such Western threats were sufficient to send protestors home. In response to Russia’s military incursion in Ukraine this February, the United States, European Union, and NATO have increased their activities with EUFOR, holding meetings featuring senior representatives from the US, UK, Germany, France, and Italy. A very constructive meeting consisting of @OHR_BiH, @eubih, @eufor, @natobih, @OSCEBiH and senior representatives from Germany, France, Italy, UK, US took place in EUFOR/NATO HQ on Friday 18 March. pic.twitter.com/YQdUJjMScv — Operation EUFOR Althea (@euforbih) March 18, 2022 This March, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Josep Borrell, traveled to Bosnia to meet with EUFOR leadership. COM EUFOR Maj Gen Anton Wessely had the great pleasure to welcome the ?? High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Mr. Josep Borrell to Camp Butmir. @JosepBorrellFhttps://t.co/sxLPMmR1qz pic.twitter.com/qQl4YLbtzN — Operation EUFOR Althea (@euforbih) March 16, 2022 Then in April, a bipartisan group of US senators took a tour of the Balkans to, in their own words, “convey continued U.S. support for its allies amid Russian aggression against Ukraine and the implications for European security in the region.” Democratic and Republican senators met with representatives from EUFOR and NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The US embassy in Sarajevo said the meeting was held “to discuss ways we can bolster cooperation and partnership.” .@SenatorShaheen, @ThomTillis, & @ChrisMurphyCT met with @NATOBiH and @EUFORBiH to discuss ways we can bolster cooperation and partnership to support #BiH. pic.twitter.com/q13eMwWPId — US Embassy Sarajevo (@USEmbassySJJ) April 20, 2022 EUFOR commanders have likewise been coordinating with the US ambassador to Bosnia, Michael J. Murphy, stressing “the importance of shared cooperation and partnership.” Yesterday COM EUFOR Major General Anton Wessely was delighted to meet the U.S Ambassador to BiH Michael J. Murphy @USEmbassySJJ in his introductory office call to #EUFOR, where the importance of shared cooperation and partnership in supporting BiH authorities was discussed. pic.twitter.com/UOBUZEXZqU — Operation EUFOR Althea (@euforbih) April 1, 2022 This Western coordination threatens to drag the Balkans into a larger geopolitical conflict. Bosnia is not the only former Yugoslav country where NATO’s contributions to peace and security are dubious. In March, a Tupolev Tu-141 drone carrying a bomb entered Croatian airspace via Hungary and crashed in a residential neighbourhood in central Zagreb, likely as a result of an error. A Tupolev Tu-141 drone It was later revealed that this drone, which is similar to a cruise missile, belonged to the Ukrainian military, and had sought to attack Russian forces. While no one was hurt, the passage of the explosive-armed drone through hundreds of kilometres of NATO airspace without being intercepted raised questions in Croatia about the ability of NATO to provide for the country’s safety. The Serbian and Bosnian Serb governments have faced increasing pressure from Western governments seeking to harm bilateral relations with Russia, despite their repeated statements deploring the escalation of violence in Ukraine and calling for a peaceful resolution for the conflict. This pressure led Serbia to vote in the United Nations General Assembly to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council, which was a broadly unpopular move within Serbia. According to the stated goals of US policy, the pressure on Serbia makes little sense: Serbia is a small, middle-income country that plays no role in Russia’s war effort. Serbian neutrality is much less important for Russia than the roles played by Israel and Turkey, which unlike Serbia, have received little criticism in the Western press for their ambiguous position in the conflict. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has repeatedly implied that the pressures placed on his country are intended to destabilize the Balkans, not to help Ukraine. Whatever one thinks of Vučić or the war, given the pattern of facts, this explanation is more plausible than the official Western one. The Serbian government has also expressed its concerns with Russia’s invocation of the 1999 NATO intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro) as a legal pretext for Russia’s own actions in Ukraine. NATO’s 1999 intervention, conducted intentionally without UN Security Council authorization partly as a demonstration of NATO’s willingness to act unilaterally in violation of international law, nonetheless offered a flimsy legal pretext for military action: it first recognized a secessionist republic in Kosovo before immediately bombing Serbia to protect it. While Kosovo independence has never received broad international recognition – mainly because of the global consensus that its secession and NATO’s intervention were both in direct violation of the UN charter – NATO was nonetheless able to force Serbia to accept a permanent occupation of Kosovo after 78 days of bombing. Camp Bondsteel, that US Army base that hosts NATO’s Kosovo presence, is a key logistics hub for military operations across Asia. It is one of the world’s largest US military bases and has been implicated in grave human rights violations by US personnel, including rendition. Much like the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Camp Bondsteel’s location in a legal grey area, under military occupation and without civilian oversight, offers advantages for covert operations. Ukrainian soldiers being trained at the US Army’s Camp Bondsteel base in Kosovo in 2010 As in Bosnia, the constant threat of renewed NATO aggression is an ever-present phantom in Serbian politics. Despite claims that its military occupations are intended to preserve regional stability, NATO has never demonstrated a desire to see durable peace and reconciliation among the Balkan countries. On the contrary, perceived regional instability is a reliable pretext for maintaining a permanent military presence in a strategic location, without the democratic oversight, control, or transparency that would come with regular NATO membership. The Balkans have experienced major wars every few decades throughout the history of modern states – often proxy conflicts between neighbouring superpowers – and during a period of intensified conflict in Europe, the region needs renewed diplomacy, not militarist provocations. Yet in line with NATO’s maximalist, escalatory posture in Ukraine itself – explicitly seeking to sacrifice Ukraine in an apocalyptic proxy war to weaken Russia – NATO has done nothing to secure or reassure the peoples of the Balkans. Perhaps the biggest danger is the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Claims that the region is doomed to instability and violence risk feeding an escalatory cycle that may bring about the very violence one hopes to avoid. While this may be good news for Western arms manufacturers, it does nothing to protect the lives of Croats or Albanians. Despite racist lies about “ancient ethnic hatreds” and violent cultures, however, armed conflict and instability have been repeatedly imposed on the Balkans by self-interested foreign powers, exploiting the same internal fractures and divisions that exist anywhere else. It is external provocations that threaten the region, not any fundamental conflicts between its peoples. None of this is to say that recent Russian diplomacy in the region has been particularly positive either. Remarks by Russia’s ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Igor Kalabukhov, were widely condemned, after he threatened retaliatory action should the country begin a process of NATO accession, citing Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine as an example of a possible response. Escalatory rhetoric and actions on both sides – but particularly on the side of NATO, which has an extensive recent history of military aggression in the region and a significant military presence in both non-NATO former Yugoslav republics – is enhancing the grave danger of renewed violent conflict in the region. The western Balkans is not the only place that has seen efforts from various actors to broaden the scope of the Russia-NATO proxy war by opening new fronts. Transnistria, the disputed region on Moldova’s eastern border with Ukraine, which hosts a small Russian peacekeeping force, was hit by a series of bombings of unknown origin this April, targeting government institutions and radio infrastructure. Moldova’s pro-EU president Maia Sandu has made similar remarks to Vučić, suggesting efforts to destabilize the formally neutral country. Exactly which forces are encouraging escalation in each of these cases, and why, is not always clear. Both Russia and NATO have acted in ways that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of weaker states, and both have engaged in escalatory rhetoric. However, efforts to prolong, intensify, and broaden the geographic scope of armed conflict, including efforts to draw Moscow into secondary proxy conflicts, are entirely consistent with the stated US program to maximize costs and destabilization within Russia itself. The situation in Ukraine has made it abundantly clear that US policy makes no effort to protect its ostensible allies, including NATO members. Not only does Washington see Ukrainian lives as an acceptable price to pay in a proxy conflict against Russia; economic devastation of Europe and explosive-armed drones landing in Zagreb are also acceptable. This is an extremely dangerous period of history, for the Balkans, for Europe, and for the world. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov even stated that the risk of a nuclear war in the current circumstances is “considerable.”. Coordinated efforts to encourage diplomacy, de-escalation, and peace have never been more urgent.

Write an article about: US bombing of Iraq and Syria is illegal aggression – Occupiers have no right to ‘self-defense’. 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.

Iraq, Joe Biden, Syria

Militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents. (Puedes leer este artículo en español aquí.) The United States believes it has the right to bomb, militarily occupy, and economically strangulate any country, anywhere, without consequence. But the peoples of the world are standing up more and more to the global dictatorship of US hegemony. On June 27, Washington launched airstrikes against forces in both Iraq and Syria, two sovereign countries that are illegally occupied by the US military and that have repeatedly called for American troops to leave. The US attack proved to be a gift to the genocidal extremists in ISIS: it helped provide cover as remnants of the so-called “Islamic State” launched a terror attack on a power grid in northern Iraq. Similarly, the US bombing killed several members of Iraqi government-backed units who had been protecting their nation from ISIS and al-Qaeda. This is far from the first time Washington has clearly been on the same side as far-right Takfiri fanatics. Current US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan admitted in an email to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 that “AQ is on our side in Syria.” And the US government supported al-Qaeda extremists in its wars on Yemen and Libya. In addition to aiding notorious terrorist groups, these US strikes on Iraq and Syria were glaringly illegal under international law. They constitute a clear act of aggression against the peoples of West Asia, who for decades have struggled for self-determination and control over their own, plentiful natural resources — resources that the US government and its all-powerful corporations seek to control and exploit. The Pentagon tried to justify its attack claiming it was an act of “self-defense.” Absurdly, the US Department of Defense — the world champion in violating international law — even cited international law to try to legitimize the airstrikes. In reality, the US military’s very presence in Iraq and Syria is illegal. And under international law, a military power that is illegally occupying a territory does not have the right to self-defense. That is true just as much for apartheid Israel in its settler-colonial aggression against Palestine as it is for the United States in its imperial wars on the peoples of Iraq and Syria. Iraq’s prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, made that clear. He condemned the US strikes as a “blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security.” In January 2020, in response to Washington’s assassination of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis — a criminal act of war against both Iraq and Iran — the democratically elected parliament in Baghdad voted 170 to 0 to expel the thousands of US troops occupying Iraq. Washington simply ignored the vote, silencing the voices of the Iraqi people — while threatening more economic sanctions on their government. The Pentagon stressed that the vote was nonbinding, but even the US government-backed RAND Corporation acknowledged that there “is no treaty or status of forces agreement (SOFA) authorizing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.” Likewise, the United States is illegally occupying one-third of Syrian sovereign territory. The internationally recognized government in Damascus has repeatedly called on the US military occupiers to leave, but they have refused, in a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty. “The presence of Americans in Syria is a sign of occupation, and we believe that all nations and governments must stand up to their unlawful presence in the region,” Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis declared in 2020, after the US assassinations of the top Iraqi and Iranian military leaders. While former Republican President Donald Trump radiated a kind of neocolonial arrogance, boasting that US troops would illegally remain in Syria because “we want to keep the oil,” the Democratic Joe Biden administration has not acted much differently. President Biden appointed hardline neoconservative operative Dana Stroul as the top Pentagon official for Middle East policy. In 2019, Stroul bragged that Washington “owned” one-third of Syrian territory, including its “economic powerhouse,” which includes the vast majority of the country’s oil and wheat reserves. Stroul’s promotion was an unambiguous sign that the Democrats are endorsing the same sadistic, Trumpian strategy to militarily occupy Syria, steal its natural resources, starve its government of revenue, deny its people gasoline and bread, and prevent reconstruction of what Stroul snidely referred to as the widespread “rubble.” The reality is that militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democratic and Republican presidents. Trump launched airstrikes against Syria in April 2018 on totally unsubstantiated accusations that Damascus had carried out “gas attacks,” claims that have since been proven false by multiple whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Then in December 2019, the Trump administration bombed anti-ISIS militias in both Syria and Iraq. Biden carried out a similar, illegal attack on these same fighters in eastern Syria in February 2021. It was yet another example of Washington serving as the de facto air force for the remnants of the so-called “Islamic State.” The December 2019, February 2021, and June 2021 US airstrikes targeted the Iraqi government-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), known in Arabic as the al-Hashd al-Sha’abi. The Pentagon stated unequivocally in its official statement on the June bombing that it was attacking Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, two prominent Iraqi armed groups in the Hashd. The Department of Defense misleadingly referred to these units as “Iran-backed militia groups.” The US government and the corporate media outlets that act as its obedient mouthpiece always describe the Hashd as “Iran-backed” to try to downplay their role as indigenous protectors of Iraqi sovereignty and deceptively portray them as foreign proxies of Washington’s favorite bogeyman. In reality, the PMFs are Iraqi units supported by the elected, internationally recognized government in Baghdad. And the Hashd played a leading role in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist Takfiri groups in both Iraq and Syria — while the United States, apartheid Israel, and NATO allies spent billions of dollars backing Salafi-jihadist death squads in their genocidal war on the people of Syria. The Hashd do indeed receive assistance from Tehran, and they have every right to. Iran is Iraq’s neighbor, after all, whereas the United States is on the other side of the planet. But Washington, NATO, and their de facto stenographers in the corporate press corps seek to discredit all resistance to criminal US aggression in West Asia by erasing its organic, indigenous roots and lazily depicting it as a vast conspiracy controlled by an omnipresent Iranian puppet-master. The PMFs made it clear that they will not tolerate Washington’s assault on their nation’s sovereignty. “We reserve the legal right to respond to these attacks and hold the perpetrators accountable on Iraqi soil,” the Hashd declared. Unlike the US military occupiers, the people of Iraq and Syria do have a right to exercise self-defense in response to strikes by foreign aggressors. They can legally resist American military occupation and neocolonialism, just as the people of Palestine have the right to resist Israeli military occupation and Zionist settler-colonialism. This is a right enshrined in international law — and an inalienable right that any nation would defend. If Washington wants to stop attacks on its troops, there is an easy way to do that: withdraw them from the region, where they are not wanted. American soldiers will be much safer at home. (This article was written for Al Mayadeen English.)

Write an article about: Israeli military conspiring with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Egypt against Iran. 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.

Bahrain, Egypt, Ghassan Kanafani, Iran, Israel, Jordan, normalization, Palestine, PFLP, Qatar, UAE, United Arab Emirates

The US organized a meeting with top military officials from apartheid Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, the UAE, and Bahrain to conspire against Iran, as Jordan’s king calls for a “Middle East NATO.” The United States organized a meeting with top military officials from apartheid Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain in order to conspire against Iran. These talks come while the staunchly pro-Western king of Jordan has called for creating a “Middle East NATO.” The military talks were revealed in a June 26 report in the Wall Street Journal, titled “U.S. Held Secret Meeting With Israeli, Arab Military Chiefs to Counter Iran Air Threat.” The US military’s Central Command is trying to coordinate the region’s aerial activities in hopes of containing Tehran. Apartheid Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz referred to the collaboration as the “Middle East Air Defense Alliance,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Anonymous US government officials confirmed the meeting to the newspaper. It was convened in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in March, in order to “coordinate against Iran’s growing missile and drone capabilities,” the newspaper said. The talks brought together the chiefs of staff of the Israeli, Saudi, and Qatari armed forces, along with senior military officers from Jordan and Egypt and lower level officials from the UAE and Bahrain. Kuwait and Oman did not participate in the meeting. The US military’s air command center for the Middle East is located at al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest US military base in the region. These military talks in Egypt were are a clear sign of the growing campaign of normalization of Israeli colonialism by the Gulf monarchies and their allies. Egypt normalized relations with Israel in 1979. The Jordanian monarchy normalized relations with Israel in 1994. The UAE and Bahrain normalized relations with apartheid Israel in 2020, as part of the Donald Trump administration’s Abraham Accords. The leaders of Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain meet with Donald Trump at the White House in September 2020 to sign the Abraham Accords Saudi Arabia and Qatar have technically not yet formally established relations with Israel, although they have been quietly collaborating behind the scenes for years. The Saudi regime has purchased Israeli military equipment and surveillance and hacking technology. Israeli corporate executives have been welcomed by the Saudi monarchy. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have very tense relations, and Riyadh, which preaches a Wahhabi fundamentalist ideology, even imposed a blockade in 2017 on Doha, which is a top sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood. But the fact that the top military commanders of Saudi Arabia and Qatar participated in a meeting with the chief of staff of the IDF shows that the Gulf monarchies and apartheid Israel are still willing to collaborate in an effort to contain Iran. Iran is one of the main supporters of anti-imperialist forces in the region, and the de facto leader of the Axis of Resistance. Tehran has also formed broader economic and political alliances with China, Russia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro visited Iran and signed a historic 20-year cooperation agreement involving energy, technology, and trade. He pledged support against Western aggression in a joint “anti-imperialist struggle for a better world”https://t.co/eKGFPMkaPf — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 11, 2022 Citing the proxy war in Ukraine, Jordan’s pro-Western King Abdullah II endorsed the idea of making a “Middle East NATO,” a regional alliance based on the US-led military cartel. “I would be one of the first people to endorse a Middle East NATO,” the Jordanian monarch said in an interview with CNBC this June. “We work actively with NATO all over the world, and have been for ages. The relationship with NATO, from a Jordanian perspective is, actually, we’re partners,” Abdullah added. “That relationship with NATO is extremely special. We are fighting shoulder to shoulder, and have been for decades.” Jordan’s King Abdullah II tells CNBC’s @_HadleyGamble he “would be one of the first people to endorse a Middle East NATO” pic.twitter.com/jcKWzwLJKZ — CNBC International (@CNBCi) June 24, 2022 US President Joe Biden plans to visit apartheid Israel and Saudi Arabia this July. Ghassan Kanafani, a prominent leftist intellectual of the revolutionary Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), argued back in the 1960s that the top enemy of the freedom of the Palestinian people was not just Israel, but also what he called the “reactionary Arab regimes,” like the Gulf monarchies, all of which are part of the US-led imperialist system. It was an open secret for decades that these reactionary Arab regimes were collaborating with Israel, but in the past few years their alliance has become public and undeniable.

Write an article about: EU calls China and Russia ‘threats’ in ‘war for the future of the entire world’. 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.

Belt and Road Initiative, China, Cold War Two, EU, European Union, Global Gateway, new cold war, Russia

European Union leader Ursula von der Leyen warned China and Russia are a “global challenge” to Western hegemony. She called for weakening their influence in the Global South, cutting their access to raw materials, opposing Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, and expanding the EU. The European Union is waging a proxy war on Russia in Ukraine, as well as an economic war aimed at destroying Russia’s economy. But Moscow is not Brussels’ only target. Beijing is also in its crosshairs. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made it clear that Europe sees both China and Russia as threats. And it is waging a new cold war aimed at undermining them, in order to maintain a so-called “rules-based order” dominated by Western hegemony. Von der Leyen emphasized that the EU is raising hundreds of billions of euros to fund programs to weaken Chinese and Russian influence in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The EU leader portrayed the resource-rich Global South as a battlefield. She warned that the demand for raw materials needed to build renewable energy technology “will exponentially increase,” and insisted that the West must prevent China from controlling those natural resources. In an October 12 speech at the 2022 EU Ambassadors Conference in Brussels, von der Leyen declared, “Russia’s failure [in Ukraine] alone will not save the rules-based global order. Because the Kremlin’s revisionism is not the only nor the most serious threat to the rules-based order.” “The so-called no-limits partnership declared by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping is also a clear challenge to the post-war order, built on the core values of the UN Charter,” the EU chief said. “Of course, we are observing carefully the aftermath of the 20th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party to see any changes to China’s international posture,” she added ominously. Von der Leyen characterized the China-Russia alliance as a threat, imploring, “we need to counter this global challenge.” She made it clear that Europe seeks to maintain its influence in “the entire world,” insisting, “The war in Ukraine is not only a European war, it is a war for the future of the entire world. So Europe’s horizon can only be the entire world.” Von der Leyen, a right-wing German politician, concluded her speech with nationalist fervor, proclaiming, “Long live Europe!” The EU leader’s comments echoed the positions of the US government’s 2018 National Defense Strategy and NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, which both declared China and Russia to be the West’s main adversaries. NATO’s 2022 plan declares second cold war on Russia and Chinahttps://t.co/98CElPCm2g — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 11, 2022 While much of her October 12 speech was dedicated to demonizing Russia, the EU Commission president also devoted a significant amount of time to fearmongering about China. Von der Leyen boasted that the European Union has created an investment program, called Global Gateway, in order to challenge China’s massive global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative. She called for more funding from EU member states, to raise €300 billion for this neoliberal public-private partnership, in order to challenge Chinese and Russian influence in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Echoing the debunked myth of “debt-trap diplomacy,” the EU leader claimed: A ‘Belt and Road’ debt crisis is now in full swing. Tens of countries are massively indebted with China. Eight of these countries – from Angola to Laos – will spend in 2022 more than 2% of their gross national income to pay their debt to China. Our Global Gateway investment programme is about giving countries a better choice, to give them an alternative. Von der Leyen failed to mention that China has pardoned or restructured tens of billions of dollars of debt for more than a dozen countries. (For context, Argentina is trapped in $45 billion in debt owed to the US-dominated IMF, which represents nearly 10% of its gross national income. Similarly, following a US-backed coup, Honduras was trapped in $9.25 billion of external debt, due largely to the IMF, which makes up a staggering 35% of its GNI.) The EU chief also warned about “the Asia-Pacific, where the footprint of Chinese investment is massive.” She did not acknowledge that China, unlike Europe, is actually located in the Asia-Pacific region. “We need all continents to rise up in defence of the rules-based order,” she urged. Von der Leyen noted that she and US President Joe Biden are holding a “Leaders’ Summit” to “really push forward a value-based investment agenda for the world.” The proxy war in Ukraine has pushed the United States and Europe closer together than ever, von der Leyen explained with delight in the October 12 speech. “Never before have I experienced such an intense cooperation with the White House as I did this year,” she said. “And our cooperation got even stronger in the run-up to Russia’s invasion.” “Now, the transatlantic bond is stronger than ever at a crucial time for Europe,” she added with a smile. “We coordinated our sanctions, round after round. We stepped up our energy coordination and energy supplies on both sides.” The EU leader emphasized that US energy exports have “made it possible for us to diversify away from Russian fossil fuels.” “It helped enormously that I had the agreement with President Biden on the LNG [liquified natural gas] and they really stepped up in delivering LNG toward the European Union,” von der Leyen said. “And like-minded partners like the United States and for example Norway have massively stepped up and helped us break free from our very dangerous dependency [on Russian energy],” she added. The proxy war in Ukraine has created “a huge tectonic shift in the region, because we are diversifying away from Russia,” she stressed. Von der Leyen explained that, in the beginning of 2022, Russia provided Europe with 41% of its imported pipeline gas. As of October 12, that figure has decreased to just 7.5%. “This is a huge move. This is an enormous decrease, a necessary decrease. We would have never been able to do that if it would not have been for our close friends and partners, like for example Norway and like the United States, with LNG coming in,” she said. Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged mere hours before the EU opened its own competing Baltic Sea pipeline. US Secretary of State Blinken boasted it was a “tremendous opportunity” to weaken Moscow. Full video: https://t.co/jlNNQA2iXF Article: https://t.co/Z7Ux1iPzlb pic.twitter.com/4AN16LXUiL — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022 In addition to Europe rapidly increasing its energy imports from the United States and Norway, von der Leyen noted that the EU signed a trilateral gas deal with Egypt and apartheid Israel, which she said “has played an important role in our strategy to get rid of the Russian fossil fuels.” But the EU chief emphasized that Europe also seeks to control the natural resources needed to develop renewable energy technologies – and many of those materials are in Africa. Von der Leyen spelled it out: But my visits in Cairo and Jerusalem were about much more than gas. Because our goal remains the transition away from fossil fuels. And the Mediterranean countries hold an immense potential for renewable energy. For example, we have launched a new hydrogen partnership that looks very promising for both Europe and Egypt. And at the same time, we are working in the same direction with other northern African countries, too. Because we know we need the energy; we need renewable energy; we need the hydrogen. And those northern African countries have all the resources that are necessary in abundance. (While the EU chief claimed the West is defending a “rules-based order,” she also unwittingly showed with these remarks how said order contradicts international law. The United Nations does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; East Jerusalem is illegally occupied Palestinian territory, according to international law. But von der Leyen implicitly referred to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.) Von der Leyen acknowledged in her speech that, as the world transitions to renewable energy technologies, Europe’s need for the natural resources of the Global South will “exponentially increase.” The EU leader warned that there is, however, a problem: China, which she said “dominates the whole global market”: But I just want to mention the third example that shows how important these moves with our best friends are: That is raw materials. Take lithium or take rare earth metals, they are vital for our green and digital transition. No wind turbine, no solar panel without these raw materials. The demand for them will exponentially increase. That is for sure. First of all, that is good news because it shows that the green transition is progressing. That is good. The not so good news is: one country dominates the whole global market. That is China. In order to weaken Chinese and Russian influence, von der Leyen called for the EU to boost its operations in Central Asia: We must also step up our engagement in Central Asia. The region is a gateway between Europe, Russia and China. And it is going through an era of turbulent transformation. Some countries are pushing for reforms that seemed unthinkable just a few months ago. And they deserve all our political and economic support. So this is the time to enhance our economic engagement in Central Asia and provide alternatives to the region to be connected to the global economy. I want Europe to be a partner for change in Central Asia. Because the global geopolitics are also changing. You know that tectonic plates are shifting. And in times like these, we must be ready to sail uncharted waters. We must engage beyond our immediate neighbourhood and the circle of our traditional allies. In the same vein, von der Leyen urged for the European Union to expand into the Balkans. The EU leader proposed adding new member states like Ukraine, Albania, North Macedonia, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and potentially even Georgia. “The Western Balkans belong in our family and we have to make this very, very clear,” she declared. Von der Leyen also used her October 12 speech to express staunch support for violent protests in Iran, which seek to overthrow the government. The EU chief portrayed the ongoing riots as a feminist uprising. She blamed all of the violence that is happening on both sides solely on the Iranian government, ignoring the documented attacks carried out by rioters. She then called for more sanctions to be imposed on Tehran. “Now is the time to sanction these people [in Iran] who are responsible,” von der Leyen declared. “The shocking violence inflicted on the Iranian people cannot stay unanswered. And we have to work on sanctions together.” At the 2022 EU Ambassadors Conference, von der Leyen reiterated Brussels’ undying support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. “We, the European Union, must keep supporting Ukraine through thick and thin, for as long as it takes,” she declared, adding that Ukraine was “enthusiastically” given EU candidate status. She boasted of nine harsh sanctions packages that Europe has imposed on Russia. Von der Leyen disclosed that the EU has provided Ukraine with at least €19 billion since February 2022. She noted that this is a conservative estimate, as it “does not include what the European Peace Facility is giving, the equipment with military capabilities and weapons.” The United States has also given at least $60 billion in support to Ukraine, with an average of $228 million in military aid per day. The Joe Biden administration pledged Ukraine $39.87 billion in military aid between February and August 2022, for an average of $228 million per day, fueling a brutal proxy war causing tens of thousands of deathshttps://t.co/L6UvfrglFd — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) September 2, 2022

Write an article about: Poverty is growing in Puerto Rico, under US colonialism: 57.6% of children live in poor households. 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.

colonialism, poverty, Puerto Rico

Poverty is rising in one of the world’s oldest colonies: In Puerto Rico, 41.7% of people, including 57.6% of children, live in poverty. This is nearly four times the US rate. And Puerto Rican workers are getting poorer even while unemployment falls. Poverty in Puerto Rico, under US colonialism, is getting worse over time, not better. More than two-fifths of Puerto Ricans suffer from poverty, and nearly three-fifths of Puerto Rican children live in poor households. In 2022, the poverty rate in the colonized US “territory” grew from 40.5% to 41.7%, according to US Census Bureau data. A staggering 57.6% of Puerto Rican children live in poverty. And 38.8% of families are below the poverty line. Poverty has been growing in Puerto Rico even at a time when more people are working. The unemployment rate fell from 13.1% to 9.9% in 2022, while poverty got worse. These statistics from the US Census Bureau may be very conservative. Anti-poverty activists in Puerto Rico have criticized the official figures and argued they downplay the hardship in the colonized nation. As Yale University’s Genocide Studies Program notes, “Puerto Rico is one of the world’s oldest colonies, having been under some form of military occupation or protectorate status since 1508″. The United States seized the nation from its former colonizer Spain in an 1898 war. Washington claims that being a US “territory” makes Puerto Ricans wealthier, but after more than a century of colonization, their poverty rate is nearly four times the US average, while their incomes are roughly one-third those of the United States. Puerto Rico’s poverty rate of 41.7% stands in stark contrast to the US national average of 11.5%, according to the Census Bureau. In Puerto Rico, per capita income is just $14,047, while median household income is $21,967. Across the United States, per capita income is $37,638, and median household income is $69,021. In wealthy US states such as Maryland, Massachussets, or New Jersey, median household income is around $90,000 – more than four times that of Puerto Rico. Even the poorest US states, like Mississippi, West Virginia, and Louisiana, still have a median household income of roughly $50,000 – more than double that of Puerto Rico. The already dire economic situation for Puerto Rican families has only gotten worse in the past two years, as a rise in consumer price inflation has further eroded their purchasing power. Meanwhile, the US federal government has fueled mass displacement and outward migration, by turning Puerto Rico into a tax haven. Right-wing libertarians and corporate oligarchs have happily proclaimed, “Move to Puerto Rico!“, not because they care about the nation, its people, its culture, and its history, but simply because US citizens who relocate there do not have to pay federal income tax or capital gains tax. This policy has unleashed colonial gentrification, incentivizing rich North Americans to displace local Puerto Rican residents. It has also fueled rampant real estate speculation. Skyrocketing housing prices have only exacerbated the cost of living crisis, forcing many indigenous Boricuas out of the homes their families have lived in for generations. Journalist Bianca Graulau has documented this colonial gentrification:

Write an article about: How Brazil’s electoral court took action against Bolsonaro’s fake news campaigns. 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.

Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, Lula da Silva, PT, Workers' Party

Targeted disinformation campaigns on social media were key in getting Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro into power in 2018. A law professor explains how the Superior Electoral Court took action to prevent him from manipulating the 2022 vote. Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has often been described as the “Trump of the tropics,” in reference to the former leader of the United States. But this has led to superficial comparisons between the two countries. It is true that the Bolsonaro family and members of Steve Bannon’s ultra-conservative “Movement” have worked together closely, and social media disinformation tactics were imported from the US and became a key factor in Bolsonaro’s 2018 electoral victory. However, Brazil’s electoral system is completely different. Many things that are legal in US elections – especially regarding campaign funding – are considered election fraud under Brazilian law. In Brazil, the results of the October 30, 2022 presidential election were tallied in just under four hours, whereas the United States needed more than a week to finalize the results of its November 8 mid-term elections. Brazil has an independent national electoral court system, which was established in 1932, and which oversees all steps of the electoral process, including by auditing elections and investigating and punishing fraud. The 2018 Brazilian presidential elections showed that the regulatory mechanisms controlled by the electoral courts were too slow to act effectively in the social media age. Despite dozens of allegations of fraudulent, illegally funded social media campaigns that spread micro-targeted disinformation against the Workers’ Party 2018 presidential candidate Fernando Haddad, it took three years for the Superior Electoral Court to reach a judgement on any of them. As Brazil’s six-week election season began in August 2018, the court began ordering US social media monopolies to pull electoral disinformation – from both the Bolsonaro and the Lula camps – off of their platforms. However, the 48-hour compliance time, based on laws that were created during the newspaper and TV age, did nothing to stop false stories from going viral. Then, after the first round vote on October 7, 2018, the Superior Electoral Court passed a law reducing compliance time to two hours. At this moment, prominent members of Brazil’s US-connected far right cried “censorship.” But does this complaint apply in Brazil, which has a different legal conception of the right to free expression? In the following interview, Federal University of Pernambuco law professor Liana Cirne, a Workers’ Party councilwoman in the city of Recife, evaluates the effect of the electoral courts on the 2022 elections. Brazilian law professor and city council member Liana Cirne BRIAN MIER: Could you please explain the differences in the role of the Superior Electoral Court system during the 2018 and 2022 presidential elections? LIANA CIRNE: It was very big and noticeable. It looks like the Electoral Court felt the impact of the Supreme Court’s inquiry on digital militias and fake news. This caused them to pay more attention to coup plotting and threats against democracy. The role of the electoral courts in 2018 was radically different from this election. In 2018, it collaborated with the coup through rulings which attacked our democracy. One of these was the decision to bar Lula’s candidacy. Another ruling blocked ex-president Lula from giving any interviews, which constituted an act of prior censorship. It ruled, for example, that Lula’s name couldn’t appear in any electoral campaign materials. In 2018, the Workers’ Party was forced to recall stickers and pamphlets that had Lula’s name in them. So there were actions taken by the courts which had the electoral goal of preventing one of the candidates from being elected. In 2022, after four years of the Bolsonaro government constantly threatening institutional normalcy, threatening the regular functioning of government institutions, and, especially, constantly threatening the judiciary, it looks like the Electoral Court recuperated the nature of its role and functions and became more vigilant, including with itself. It moved slowly. It is important to remember that the Workers’ Party filed a motion to cancel Bolsonaro and Mourao’s electoral victory in 2018 that was only deliberated on in 2021, in a ruling that recognized the illegal use of fake news in the elections, that this use of fake news had an important influence on the results of the election, and, even so, didn’t stipulate any punishment. They only issued a warning that these tactics would not be allowed in the 2022 elections. Nevertheless we saw that the court was slow in restricting certain sites and social media accounts, including those of politicians and right-wing extremist sites from spreading disinformation. This certainly had some kind of impact in our elections and, at least, shortly before the second round elections, the electoral court was able to bar certain sites from pushing fake news on social media. It barred the launching of fake news. It wasn’t enough, and it wasn’t done in an adequate time span, but in the end, the court performed its role as an auditor of the electoral process. BRIAN MIER: What was the relationship between these sites that were barred from broadcasting content at the end of the election season, such as Brasil Paralelo, with the Bolsonaro campaign? LIANA CIRNE: Brasil Paralelo is not simply a website. It is a content producer. I call Brasil Paralelo the Netflix of the Brazilian far right. It is a high-quality production company. Its documentaries and series are very well produced and well written. The problem is that they engage in historical and political revisionism, and they use a very dangerous trick, which has been explained in documentaries like The Great Hack and The Social Dilemma. They attract the curiosity of average, slightly conservative citizens and gradually radicalize them until they are entirely conditioned into the ideology of the far right. The existence of Brasil Parelelo is very dangerous here. It is clear that, to the extent that it builds an audience of people indoctrinated into right-wing extremist ideology, it is an indirect but very effective way to campaign for Jair Bolsonaro. The Court barred Brasil Parelelo from releasing one episode of its series Investigação Paralela. It had already released an episode about the assassination of Marielle Franco that completely exonerates any possibility of the Bolsonaro’s involvement – something we know that exists because people connected to the assassination worked in Flavio Bolsonaro’s state congressional cabinet, because one of the killers was a neighbor of Bolsonaro and he had a functional relationship with the Bolsonaro family. But there was another episode that they had planned to release before the final election called, “Who ordered the killing of Jair Bolsonaro?” It was going to air on the eve of the election. The idea was to cover the incident – which some people contest – of the Bolsonaro stabbing, or supposed stabbing in 2018 in order to create a commotion and a radicalization of his supporters. It was very important to delay the launch of this episode and block Brasil Paralelo from promoting content, during the final lead-up to the election. It’s important to point out that Brasil Paralelo was the company that spent the second-largest amount of money on online advertising in Brazil during the election season, trailing only the Meta corporation. It spent more on online advertising than the Bolsonaro campaign itself. BRIAN MIER: Do you think that this and other similar actions taken by the Superior Electoral Court had any significant effect on the elections? LIANA CIRNE: I think it had an impact, a cleansing impact. It’s very important that people can choose their candidate based on correct information and not on disinformation. Everything that can erroneously or wrongly affect an election result should be prevented and stopped by the electoral court. We don’t really know how to measure what the impact would have been if paid content promotion of fake news had been allowed to continue freely, but we suppose that the impact, in a race that was as close as this one, may have been enough to alter the result of the election. We can’t say for certain, but we can imagine that this disinformation could have affected the election result. BRIAN MIER: The Brazilian right has imported some of the arguments from the US right about freedom of speech to refer to these regulatory actions by the Superior Electoral Court as a form of censorship. Why doesn’t this argument apply here, within the context of Brazilian law? LIANA CIRNE: Freedom of expression is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by our constitution, but like all other fundamental rights, it is not an absolute right. Therefore it has to be taken into consideration together with other fundamental rights. Rights coexist. The essential core of all rights fit together so they can coexist harmoniously. What does this mean? There is no right that is so absolute that it can pass over other rights. Rights have to be guaranteed to their essential core. The right for people to express themselves exists, but is there a right to lie? No, especially when the goal of this lie is to defraud an election, which is another fundamental right. The election is the core of freedom in a system such as ours, in which we elect our representatives. Is there a right to express threats? No. So rights have to be guaranteed in their essential core. Freedom of expression is a very important right, but you can’t use this right to suppress other rights. This is the balance that we need to strive for under the democratic rule of law.

Write an article about: La derecha oligárquica está organizando protestas de ‘camioneros’, desde Canadá hasta Brasil. 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.

Brasil, Canada, Covid-19, Donald Trump, Eduardo Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro, Jason Miller, Justin Trudeau

Con el apoyo de las élites económicas, las llamadas protestas de “camioneros” (dirigidas por no camioneros) han paralizado las capitales de Brasil y Canadá en menos de seis meses. Las campañas tienen muchas similitudes, incluida la financiación de la derecha oligárquica. (You can read this article in English here.) Unas redes internacionales de derechistas ricos han respaldado una protesta en Canadá que paralizó la capital, Ottawa, en enero y febrero. Muchos de los organizadores de la manifestación, que llaman el “convoy de la libertad”, no son camioneros, y algunos tienen vínculos con grupos de extrema derecha y agencias policiales y de inteligencia militar canadienses. Pero han explotado la imagen de los camioneros para confundir a los observadores, haciéndoles pensar que es un movimiento de la “clase trabajadora”. Con grandes sumas de dinero y el apoyo de poderosos líderes de la derecha en Canadá y en el extranjero, especialmente de Donald Trump y su red política en Estados Unidos, el “convoy de la libertad” ha utilizado la oposición a los mandatos de vacunas contra el covid-19 como tapadera para lanzar una ocupación de la capital canadiense. Esto es a pesar del hecho de que casi el 90% de los camioneros en Canadá ya están vacunados, y el convoy ha sido condenado por los principales sindicatos y organizaciones que representan a los camioneros, incluidos el Canadian Labour Congress (Congreso laboral canadiense), Teamsters y la Canadian Trucking Alliance (Alianza de camioneros canadienses). Sin embargo, esta no es la primera vez que se emplea esta táctica del “convoy de camioneros”. Es el último ejemplo de una estrategia desarrollada por redes de derecha bien financiadas en las Américas, desde Canadá hasta Brasil. El convoy en Ottawa es, de hecho, inquietantemente similar a una campaña organizada unos meses antes en Brasilia por ricos partidarios del presidente de extrema derecha de la nación sudamericana, Jair Bolsonaro. Una protesta de camioneros en Brasil en 2018 paralizó las redes de distribución durante semanas. Arraigada inicialmente en quejas legítimas de aumentos irrazonables en el costo del diesel causados ​​por las políticas económicas neoliberales impuestas después de un golpe de estado político en 2016 contra un gobierno de izquierda que había sido elegido democráticamente, la protesta de los camioneros pronto fue secuestrada por élites conservadoras adineradas. 2018 fue un año electoral crucial, y las oligarquías de los medios de comunicación de Brasil convirtieron la protesta de los camioneros en un gigantesco comercial de campaña para el político más subordinado a los intereses estadounidenses en la historia del país: Bolsonaro, su primer jefe de estado en visitar la sede de la CIA. Las redes internacionales de derecha volvieron a recurrir a la táctica del camionero en 2021. En la primera semana de septiembre, Brasil realizó una Conferencia de Acción Política Conservadora (CPAC), protagonizada por el hijo de Bolsonaro, Eduardo. (Donald Trump Jr. planeaba asistir en persona, pero habló a través de una transmisión de video.) CPAC Brasil también presentó a Jason Miller, ex asesor principal de Trump y aliado cercano del agente político de extrema derecha Steve Bannon. Ex asesor principal de Donald Trump, Jason Miller, con Jair Bolsonaro y su hijo Eduardo en Brasil Apenas unos días después de la CPAC Brasil, el 7 de septiembre, un grupo de camioneros ocupó la explanada nacional, paralizando brevemente la capital Brasilia, liderando a miles de simpatizantes de Bolsonaro en lo que inicialmente parecía ser un asalto planeado al edificio de la Corte Suprema. La protesta de los “camioneros” brasileños fue organizada por un hombre que se hacía llamar Zé Trovão. Más tarde se reveló que en realidad no era camionero y que ni siquiera tenía licencia de conducir, pero recibió miles de dólares del hijo de Bolsonaro, Eduardo. Además, la mayoría de los camioneros que se presentaron en el mitin del 7 de septiembre en Brasilia en realidad habían sido contratados por una empresa, Pro Tork, cuyo rico propietario, Marlon Bonilha, fue uno de los mayores contribuyentes de la campaña de Bolsonaro. Horas después de que se desvaneciera el intento de insurgencia, Miller fue detenido en el aeropuerto de Brasilia por policías federales, quienes lo interrogaron sobre su papel en la desestabilización del país. Los claros paralelismos entre estas campañas ilustran cómo las poderosas redes de derecha están desarrollando una estrategia novedosa para desestabilizar a los gobiernos, bajo el disfraz cínico de las protestas de los camioneros de la “clase trabajadora”. Camiones en la manifestación pro Bolsonaro el 7 de septiembre de en Brasil, todos propiedad de Pro Tork, la empresa del donante adinerado de Bolsonaro, Marlon Bonilha En enero de 2022, el gobierno canadiense comenzó a exigir que los camioneros que cruzan la frontera con Estados Unidos se vacunen contra el covid-19. Para la gran mayoría de los camioneros, casi el 90% de los cuales están vacunados, esto no fue un problema. Pero las redes de derecha tanto dentro de Canadá como fuera del país aprovecharon la nueva política para protestar y cerrar la capital. Numerosos miembros de grupos de extrema derecha, incluidos nacionalistas blancos e islamófobos, ayudaron a organizar lo que llamaron un “convoy de la libertad”. Muchas de las personas involucradas en realidad no eran camioneros, pero retrataron las manifestaciones como una protesta de camioneros. Algunos de los líderes del convoy tienen antecedentes en los departamentos de policía y de inteligencia militar canadienses, y parecen tener relaciones cercanas con las fuerzas de seguridad del estado. "Those involved with organizing protest include former RCMP and military officers," hardly the kind of people who get involved in organizing leftwing pro-labor movements.https://t.co/xeNqY3C5p0 — Stephen Gowans (@GowansStephen) February 11, 2022 Los mensajes conservativos y xenófobos eran omnipresentes en el convoy, y algunos manifestantes incluso se presentaron con banderas de los nazis y de los Estados Confederados de América, que apoyaban la esclavitud de los afrodescendientes. Innumerables fotos y videos del convoy muestran carteles anticomunistas, algunos acusando extrañamente al primer ministro centrista y neoliberal de Canadá, Trudeau, de ser un comunista secreto. Muchos más atacaron a China y culparon al Partido Comunista de China por la pandemia de Covid-19. Se vio a otros manifestantes con carteles antisemitas que culpaban a los judíos de la crisis. Una página web creada por partidarios del convoy enumeró al conspiracionista de derecha David Icke y a los grupos antivacunas como “aliados“, y alentó a los lectores a seguir los medios de extrema derecha InfoWars y Rebel News. Totally disgusted with the Sh.. Show called Freedom Trucker Convoy. Flying nazi and confederate flags, no one seemed bothered including conservative politicians who supported this gathering of white supremacy disguised as a truckers rally. My father a WWII vet would be appalled. pic.twitter.com/pvPVbX57YC — Ted Williams (@TedWill44) January 31, 2022 A medida que el convoy crecía, dos activistas de derecha que no son camioneros, llamados Tamara Lich y B.J. Dichter, organizaron una campaña de financiamiento colectivo en el sitio web GoFundMe. El apoyo llegó de las élites derechistas nacionales e internacionales, y la campaña GoFundMe recaudó $10 millones en poco más de dos semanas, con donaciones individuales de hasta $215.000. La recaudación de fondos fue apoyada por banqueros de inversión conservadores, magnates inmobiliarios y empresarios adinerados, hasta que se cerró el 4 de febrero. La recaudación de fondos para el convoy había sido impulsada en las redes sociales por una sospechosa campaña coordinada que involucraba una cuenta hackeada. El jefe de policía de Ottawa dijo que había “un elemento significativo de EEUU que ha estado involucrado en la financiación, la organización y la manifestación”. El ex presidente de Estados Unidos Donald Trump promovió abiertamente el convoy, en mítines y en línea, refiriéndose al primer ministro de Canadá, Justin Trudeau, un centrista neoliberal que ha hecho campaña activamente contra la izquierda, como un supuesto “lunático de extrema izquierda”. Donald Trump is endorsing the Ottawa convoy, calling Justin Trudeau a “far left lunatic who has destroyed Canada,” and backing an attempt to bring a similar truck protest to DC pic.twitter.com/RCyPCD6qwT — Adrian Morrow (@AdrianMorrow) February 4, 2022 Mientras que los grupos de derecha apoyaron al convoy, los grupos de izquierda en Canadá se pronunciaron firmemente contra la protesta, incluidos los principales sindicatos, líderes indígenas y partidos socialistas que se oponen firmemente al gobierno de Trudeau. El sindicato de camioneros más grande de Canadá, Teamsters, condenó abiertamente el convoy como una “despreciable muestra de odio liderada por la derecha política”, y lamentó que “ha servido para deslegitimar las preocupaciones reales de la mayoría de los camioneros en la actualidad”. Teamsters Canada señaló que el 90% de sus camioneros están vacunados. Cuando el convoy creó un bloqueo en la frontera entre Canadá y EEUU, el sindicato publicó otro comunicado denunciando la protesta “que sigue perjudicando a los trabajadores y tiene un impacto negativo en nuestra economía”. “El sustento de los trabajadores estadounidenses y canadienses en los sectores automotriz, agrícola y manufacturero está amenazado por este bloqueo”, dijo Teamsters. The Real Enemy for Truckers is Covid-19 Statement by François Laporte, President of Teamsters Canada, representing over 55,000 professional Drivers across Canada.#canlabhttps://t.co/scrrYeXa7x — Teamsters Canada (@TeamstersCanada) February 7, 2022 El Canadian Labour Congress (Congreso laboral canadiense), la organización laborista más grande del país, que representa a decenas de sindicatos y millones de trabajadores, también se pronunció enérgicamente contra el convoy. “Esto no es una protesta, es una ocupación de una turba enojada que intenta disfrazarse de protesta pacífica”, dijo el congreso laboral. “Esta ocupación de las calles de Ottawa, además de la última ola de la pandemia, está teniendo un efecto devastador en el sustento de los trabajadores y las empresas que ya luchan”, escribió. “Los trabajadores de primera línea, desde la venta al menudeo hasta los trabajadores de la salud, han sido intimidados y acosados”. Canada’s unions stand together, unequivocally opposed to these vile & hateful messages and condemn the ongoing harassment & violence.Govts must act now to support workers & businesses affected and end the occupation.Our statement: https://t.co/IlOiYLYaoK #canlab #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/m3JH99WuQt — Canadian Labour (@CanadianLabour) February 9, 2022 Además de la organización laboral más grande y el sindicato más grande de camioneros reales que condenaron el convoy, la Canadian Trucking Alliance (Alianza de camioneros canadienses) emitió una declaración que indica claramente que “no apoya y desaprueba enérgicamente” las protestas. “La gran mayoría de la industria camionera canadiense está vacunada”, dijo la alianza, y agregó que “la mayoría de los camioneros que trabajan arduamente en nuestra nación continúan transportando carga nacional e internacional para garantizar que nuestra economía continúe funcionando”. En declaraciones de seguimiento, la federación enfatizó que “un gran número de estos manifestantes no tienen conexión con la industria del transporte por carretera y tienen una agenda separada más allá de un desacuerdo sobre los requisitos de vacunación transfronterizos”. La alianza de camioneros criticó al convoy por “perjudicar el arduo trabajo de los camioneros que continúan manteniendo nuestros productos esenciales en movimiento a lo largo de la cadena de suministro durante este momento crítico”. “Los conductores que simplemente intentan ganarse la vida y volver a casa con sus familias han estado atrapados en cruces fronterizos bloqueados durante cuatro a ocho horas, muchos de los cuales no han tenido acceso a baños ni comida”, escribió la federación. Las comunidades indígenas de Canadá denunciaron de manera similar que el convoy era un frente de derecha. El First Nations Leadership Council (Consejo de liderazgo de las Primeras Naciones) condenó enérgicamente la protesta por “su propagación de desinformación, racismo y violencia”. First Nations Leadership Council Strongly Condemns “Freedom Convoy” Movement Across Canada and its Spread of Misinformation, Racism, and Violence: "The racist double-standard in policing in this country is on full display -" https://t.co/FrNCEF3ajB pic.twitter.com/ITb0z0QRI6 — UBCIC (@UBCIC) February 8, 2022 “Además de la peligrosa información errónea sobre salud pública y seguridad, el convoy también está amplificando el discurso de odio y los peligrosos sentimientos racistas”, escribió la organización de la comunidad indígena, señalando la presencia de carteles y banderas racistas en la protesta. Los líderes de las Primeras Naciones señalaron la hipocresía de las autoridades canadienses y señalaron que “la respuesta policial a la protesta convertida en ocupación en Ottawa, hasta hace poco, ha sido casi inexistente y terrible en su falta de voluntad para interceder”. “El doble rasero racista en la vigilancia policial en este país está en plena exhibición: si estos manifestantes hubieran sido indígenas, la policía los habría expulsado en un santiamén”, agregó el consejo. Al enfatizar este doble rasero transparente, el periodista canadiense David Pugliese informó: “La policía de Ottawa se mantuvo al margen y no hizo nada mientras los manifestantes instalaban un jacuzzi en medio de una calle del centro. Tenemos imágenes de policías golpeando los puños de los manifestantes”. Police in Ottawa @OttawaPolice stood by and did nothing as protesters installed a hot tub in the middle of a downtown street. We have images of police fist bumping protesters…what next…police carrying their bath water or scrubbing their backs? pic.twitter.com/CWfcwRX3OW — David Pugliese (@davidpugliese) February 13, 2022 Los partidos de izquierda que se oponen mucho a Trudeau también se pronunciaron firmemente contra el convoy. El Partido Comunista de Canadá denunció la manifestación como “una expresión pública de la extrema derecha cada vez más organizada y asertiva”, destacando “el fuerte apoyo (ideológico y financiero) de la extrema derecha estadounidense y círculos cercanos a Donald Trump” y la presencia de ” Banderas nazis y confederadas, carteles electorales de Bernier y todo tipo de símbolos de extrema derecha”. Los canadienses frustrados por el bloqueo de semanas de su capital incluso organizaron protestas contra el convoy. Ottawa residents, unions, and community organizations marching today against the far-right occupation of their city. pic.twitter.com/t87bUJu6cy — Stephen Gowans (@GowansStephen) February 12, 2022 En la medida en que los camioneros reales han participado en el convoy de Canadá, representan un pequeño porcentaje de los trabajadores de la industria, y la mayoría son, de hecho, propietarios-operadores pequeñoburgueses e incluso propietarios de empresas que explotan a los conductores de clase trabajadora. Es importante aclarar la posición social de los camioneros, porque no todos son iguales. La categoría laboral de camionero está conformada por múltiples clases sociales. Los conductores contratados por hora son de clase trabajadora. El hermano del coautor de este artículo, Brian Mier, es de hecho un delegado sindical de Teamsters de la clase trabajadora que ha sido conductor de camiones en Chicago durante 30 años. Pero no todos los camioneros son de clase trabajadora. Los conductores que tienen sus propios camiones son propietarios de pequeñas empresas o pequeños burgueses. Luego están los que poseen múltiples plataformas y dirigen empresas que contratan conductores por hora para conducirlos. Son capitalistas burgueses. Las tres categorías a menudo se denominan simplemente “camioneros”, pero son de diferentes clases y tienen intereses económicos antagónicos. Es ingenuo o deshonesto presentar una protesta en la que todas las categorías están presentes como un movimiento estrictamente obrero. En Canadá, la protesta de los camioneros ha estado fuertemente dominada por propietarios-operadores y capitalistas que tienen sus propias empresas de camiones y que, por lo tanto, explotan a los camioneros de la clase trabajadora. Irónicamente, muchos de los que participaron en el convoy recibieron dinero del gobierno canadiense por el que ahora protestan, a través de su programa de financiación de emergencia Covid-19 para empleadores, Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS). ETS – Elite Transport SolutionsCapitalist / CEWS Collector. pic.twitter.com/4w2Hxu1Fny — T?ri the Dumb Lefty Canadian Radical (@RodneyTori) February 8, 2022 Es solitario manejar un camión. Al igual que los carteros, los camioneros no disfrutan del mismo tipo de interacción constante con otros empleados que, por ejemplo, la gente del sector servicios. Este aislamiento dificulta la organización de sindicatos y huelgas, y hace que algunos camioneros, que pasan horas todos los días escuchando programas de radio y podcasts satelitales mientras conducen, se inclinen hacia puntos de vista políticos conservadores. Sin embargo, dado que las leyes laborales se han debilitado en América del Norte, la fabricación nacional ha disminuido y la robotización ha diezmado los sectores laborales tradicionales, la logística del transporte sigue siendo una de las únicas áreas que aún pueden paralizar el sistema capitalista contemporáneo. El nuevo modelo de distribución justo a tiempo, que minimiza el uso de almacenes al confiar en una logística de transporte milimétricamente precisa, es especialmente vulnerable a las huelgas de camioneros. Esto explica por qué las élites derechistas antisindicales han puesto un énfasis especial en tratar de secuestrar las protestas de los camioneros, e ilustra la importancia del trabajo político y la organización laboral dentro de este sector. El periodista Seymour Hersh reveló que, en el año previo al golpe de estado en 1973 contra el presidente Salvador Allende en Chile, la CIA gastó millones de dólares en financiar una huelga de camioneros de 26 días. Esta huelga marcó el comienzo de un período de desestabilización económica que debilitó al gobierno socialista elegido democráticamente y sentó las bases para que el general de extrema derecha Augusto Pinochet tomara el poder, con el apoyo de Estados Unidos. El gobierno centrista de Canadá, Justin Trudeau, no tiene prácticamente nada en común con el Chile de Allende, pero el izquierdista Partido de los Trabajadores de Brasil sí lo tiene. Y una campaña similar en Brasil muestra cómo las élites ricas tienen un historial de explotar el nombre de los camioneros para impulsar sus intereses reaccionarios. La presidenta democráticamente electa de Brasil, Dilma Rousseff, del Partido de los Trabajadores, fue derrocada en 2016 en un golpe de estado político que, como el golpe en Chile de 1973, fue liderado por redes derechistas con el apoyo del gobierno de Estados Unidos. Rousseff fue reemplazada por su vicepresidente, el tecnócrata neoliberal Michel Temer. En 2017, su administración liberalizó la política de precios de los combustibles, vinculando los precios en uno de los países con las mayores reservas de petróleo del mundo a las tasas internacionales dolarizadas. Esto provocó aumentos diarios de precios, que se vieron exacerbados por la caída de los tipos de cambio. A mediados de 2018, los precios del diésel habían subido un 56,5%. Ese mayo, la Confederación Nacional de Trabajadores Autónomos del Transporte, que representa a decenas de miles de propietarios-operadores, lanzó un ultimátum al gobierno: congelar todos los precios del diésel hasta que se lleven a cabo las negociaciones, o paralizaremos las redes de distribución de Brasil. El gobierno de Temer se negó a responder. El 21 de mayo, los propietarios-operadores de todo el país comenzaron a bloquear carreteras y puertos. Con el apoyo de algunos de los mayores propietarios de empresas, se les unieron miles de conductores contratados. La mayoría de los sindicatos de Brasil no respaldaron la protesta. Debido a la participación de los propietarios de las empresas de camiones, lo vieron más como un cierre que como una huelga, y creyeron que no representaba claramente las demandas de la clase trabajadora. Sin embargo, los camioneros ganaron rápidamente el apoyo de gran parte de la clase media brasileña, que estaba casi tan harta del aumento de los precios de la gasolina como lo estaban los camioneros del aumento vertiginoso de los costos del diésel. Una profesora de historia llamada Larissa Jacheta Riberti, quien se abrió camino en la escuela de posgrado como editora de la popular revista comercial de la industria camionera Chico do Boleia, informó sobre los primeros días de la protesta: No existe un conjunto unificado de demandas. El movimiento no es hegemónico desde un punto de vista social o ideológico. Hay un grupo de camioneros que apoya a Jair Bolsonaro, otro grupo que exige el regreso a la dictadura militar, y otros que piden elecciones libres ya y libertad para Lula. En otras palabras, es un movimiento que se centra principalmente en el tema de los precios del diesel. Luego agregó: “Hay un claro intento que está haciendo la clase empresarial, que está ejerciendo una mayor influencia en las negociaciones con el gobierno, para apropiarse de las demandas de los camioneros”. Al principio, parecía que la predicción de Riberti sobre la apropiación de la clase empresarial iba a ser un éxito total. Las oligarquías conservadoras de los medios de comunicación de Brasil enmarcaron la huelga para dañar la reputación del Partido de los Trabajadores (PT) al filmar solo a los elementos más reaccionarios: hombres vestidos con los colores nacionales de verde y amarillo, agitando pancartas que claman por el regreso a la dictadura y apoyando el lejano -El candidato presidencial de derecha, Jair Bolsonaro. Asociaron al principal beneficiario del golpe de Estado de 2016 respaldado por Estados Unidos, Temer, con el gobierno al que ayudó a sacar del poder. A los ojos de los oligarcas de los medios, la liberalización de los precios de los combustibles de 2017 fue de alguna manera causada por Rousseff, quien había sido destituida ilegalmente de su cargo un año antes. 2018 fue un año electoral, y los medios hicieron todo lo posible para bloquear el regreso al poder del PT, cuyo candidato presidencial, Lula da Silva, lideraba todas las encuestas, con más apoyo que la suma de todos los demás candidatos juntos, a pesar de que estaba recluido como preso político e ilegalmente impedido de hablar con la prensa. En medio del circo mediático, el Movimiento de los Trabajadores Rurales Sin Tierra (MST) de Brasil entró en acción. Grupos de pequeños agricultores afiliados al movimiento campesino más grande de América Latina llegaron a docenas de lugares en todo el país donde los camioneros acamparon con sus camiones y alimentaron a los conductores contratados con tres comidas al día, preparadas con alimentos producidos en sus fincas. Los activistas del MST utilizaron tácticas de organización política influenciadas por el educador revolucionario Paulo Freire para escuchar y aprender de las experiencias de los camioneros. Los organizadores del MST luego explicaron por qué creían que los precios del diesel eran tan altos y cómo la solución sugerida por los dueños de la empresa -bajar los impuestos- los perjudicaría. Poco a poco, esta estrategia comenzó a acentuar las diferencias de clase entre los dueños de las empresas, los dueños-operadores y los choferes contratados, y resquebrajó el apoyo a Bolsonaro. EL Movimiento de los Trabajadores Rurales Sin Tierra (MST) distribuía cientos de toneladas de comida a camioneros en Brasil en 2018 Pero debido a que Lula fue encarcelado ilegalmente y se le prohibió postularse como candidato, Bolsonaro terminó ganando las elecciones de 2018. Y tras asumir el poder, Bolsonaro dejó claro que no iba a deshacer la liberalización de la política de precios de Temer. En cambio, ofreció una pequeña exención de impuestos sobre el diésel, utilizando dinero apropiado de los recortes del gasto en salud pública (que volvería a atormentarlo en 2020, cuando estalló la pandemia de covid-19). Para cuando llegó 2021, la mayoría de los camioneros brasileños se sintieron traicionados por la promesa incumplida de la administración Bolsonaro sobre los precios del diésel, que aumentaron un 765% por encima del nivel de inflación solo ese año. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los dueños de las grandes empresas se reían todo el camino hasta el banco. La aniquilación de los derechos laborales que comenzó en 2017 les permitió tratar a los trabajadores como si fueran repartidores precarios de Uber o Ifood. Mientras tanto, la administración de Bolsonaro estaba involucrada en una serie de batallas con la Corte Suprema, que había abierto una investigación por fraude electoral contra el presidente y sus aliados. La popularidad de Bolsonaro estaba llegando a su punto más bajo, pero todavía tenía un núcleo de seguidores hiperradicalizados, estimado por la profesora de UNIFESP Esther Solano en alrededor del 11% del electorado. El problema era que el mito de Bolsonaro del amplio apoyo de la clase trabajadora se estaba desmoronando. Las encuestas mostraban que incluso su grupo demográfico electoral más solidario en 2018, los cristianos evangélicos, ahora tenían la misma probabilidad de votar por Lula en las elecciones de 2022 que por él. Bolsonaro tenía que hacer algo grande. Así que decidió fabricar una nueva insurrección camionera. En 2021, una serie de videos de YouTube comenzaron a enviar spam a cuentas sociales conectadas a una red de aliados de derecha del hijo de Bolsonaro, Carlos, conocida como el “gabinete del odio”. Los videos fueron filmados dentro de un camión por un hombre barbudo que se hace llamar “Zé Trovão” – Joe Thunder (el nombre del personaje principal en una popular telenovela de los 90). Trovão no era en realidad un camionero, pero se presentaba como tal. Y anunció que encabezaba un convoy de cientos de camiones hacia la explanada presidencial el día de la independencia de Brasil, el 7 de septiembre, con planes de asaltar la Corte Suprema y hacer arrestos ciudadanos a todos los ministros. El no camionero Trovão llamó a los camioneros patriotas de Brasil a unirse a él, el mismo día en que los partidarios de Bolsonaro ya estaban planeando una manifestación en la explanada de Brasilia. A medida que continuó haciendo videos, Zé Trovão hizo reclamos cada vez más grandes. Además de cientos de camioneros, habría dos helicópteros brindando apoyo aéreo, insistió. El activista pro-Bolsonaro Zé Trovão en un camion La Corte Suprema de Brasil, que tiene el poder de ordenar arrestos e investigaciones, decidió que Trovão había cruzado la línea. Primero emitió una orden de alejamiento que le prohibía el ingreso a la ciudad de Brasilia el 7 de septiembre. Luego emitió una orden de arresto. Trovão huyó del país. El coautor de este artículo, Brian Mier, llegó a Brasilia el 6 de septiembre para cubrir la protesta de TeleSur. Mier se hospedó en un hotel de dos estrellas construido para congresistas, que estaba lleno de gente vestida de verde y amarillo que llegaba en caravanas de autobuses. Inmediatamente quedó claro que muchos de ellos nunca antes habían estado en una gran ciudad. Una pareja de ancianos con aspecto nervioso le pidió ayuda a Mier para usar el ascensor. Otro hombre dijo que nunca antes había visto una máquina expendedora y pidió ayuda para comprar un refresco. Parecía que un porcentaje significativo de los manifestantes fueron transportados en autobús desde áreas rurales pobres por partidarios ricos de Bolsonaro. Más tarde apareció un video que mostraba a un hombre de negocios adinerado entregando 100 billetes reales y camisetas a las personas mientras abordaban un autobús que se dirigía al otro mitin pro-Bolsonaro del 7 de septiembre en Sao Paulo. La noche del 6 de septiembre, Mier escuchó bocinazos y gritos a lo lejos. Llegó la noticia de que un grupo de camioneros había invadido la explanada y, seguidos por cientos de jubilosos simpatizantes de Bolsonaro, llegaron y se estacionaron frente a la barrera de seguridad que protege el Congreso y la Corte Suprema. En respuesta a la noticia, la presidenta del Partido de los Trabajadores, Gleisi Hoffman, tuiteó palabras tranquilizadoras: “Es cierto que mañana es el 7 de septiembre”, dijo, “pero el día siguiente es el 8 de septiembre… Mire este video. El Congreso y la Corte Suprema están completamente seguros. Nadie se acerca a ellos. Los camioneros se subieron a la Explanada porque la policía les abrió la barricada”. Al igual que el llamado “convoy de la libertad” en Canadá, los camiones en Brasilia mostraban grandes pancartas que predicaban el anticomunismo. Un cartel anti-comunista en los camiones en la manifestación pro Bolsonaro rally en Brasilia Al final, no hubo asalto a la Corte Suprema. La verdadera operación psicológica había sido convencer a los medios y al público de que iba a suceder. El 7 de septiembre, toda el área fue cerrada por completo. La policía hizo su trabajo y no se permitió a nadie entrar a la explanada sin pasar por un detector de metales y ser cacheado. Al día siguiente, la mayor parte de la multitud se había ido. Pero una fila de camiones permaneció estacionada frente al edificio de la Corte Suprema. Constantemente tocaban la bocina y una música patriótica a todo volumen. Mier luego confirmó que toda la línea estaba compuesta por camiones propiedad de la misma empresa, Pro Tork, cuyo propietario, Marlon Bonilha, fue uno de los mayores contribuyentes de la campaña de Bolsonaro. Fascism and big business have walked hand in hand since the days of Mussolini. Meet Marlon Bonilha (l), the multimillionaire owner of the Pro-Tork trucking company, which still has a dozen trucks parked on Brasilia's Esplanade honking and intimidating the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/TJD3QShuq3 — BrianMier (@BrianMteleSUR) September 9, 2021 En definitiva, la mayoría de los conductores que ocupaban la explanada eran peones, que trabajaban para Pro-Tork o para otras dos empresas. No había nada de clase obrera en ello. Here is Pro Tork owner Marlon Bonilha giving Jair Bolsonaro a motorcycle helmet. pic.twitter.com/uZzaYxPuNG — BrianMier (@BrianMteleSUR) September 9, 2021 Días después se supo que el autoproclamado líder de la protesta camionera, Zé Trovão, en realidad no era camionero. De hecho, ni siquiera tenía licencia de conducir. La policía federal brasileña alcanzó a Trovão en la Ciudad de México. Y una de las principales figuras del paro de 2018, Plinio Dias, presidente del Consejo Nacional de Transporte de Carga por Carretera, comentó: “Este tipo hizo un video dentro de un camión… pero no sabemos nada más de él. Yo He estado en este negocio durante 22 años. Este tipo acaba de llegar en paracaídas”. Trovão, cuyo verdadero nombre es Marcos Antônio Pereira Gomes, fue extraditado, devuelto a Brasil y encarcelado, en espera de juicio por riesgo de fuga. También se supo pronto que también había estafado al hijo de Jair Bolsonaro, Eduardo, quien aparentemente le envió miles de dólares para combustible para sus inexistentes helicópteros. Plinio Dias, 2018 strike leader and President of the National Highway Cargo Transport Council, says, "this guy made a video inside of a truck […] but we don't know him. I've been in this business for 22 years. This guy just arrived by parachute." pic.twitter.com/eDkbFSRw1r — BrianMier (@BrianMteleSUR) September 11, 2021 Mientras Gomes pasaba su primera semana en la cárcel, la actriz Ingra Lyberato, que interpretó a la compañera de Trovão, Ana Raio (Ana Lightning) en la telenovela de la década de 1990 de la que Gomes tomó su apodo, comentó en Twitter: “Este joven está siendo manipulado por su propia vanidad, en un juego de cartas marcadas en el que probablemente él será la única víctima”. Las ricas redes derechistas que apoyan las protestas de los “camioneros” en Canadá pueden haber aprendido de este juego brasileño de cartas marcadas. Mier habló con un amigo cuyo hermano ha sido camionero de larga distancia en Canadá durante 20 años, y le preguntó si alguien de su patio estaba participando en la protesta de Ottawa. Ninguno de sus colegas protestaba. “Los verdaderos camioneros no pueden darse el lujo de dejar de trabajar durante tres semanas”, dijo, “tenemos facturas que pagar”. Los camioneros contratados en Brasil hicieron comentarios muy similares durante la protesta del 7 de septiembre.

Write an article about: Colombia’s first ever left-wing president: Gustavo Petro wins historic election. What does it mean?. 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.

Álvaro Uribe, Colombia, Francia Márquez, Gustavo Petro, Iván Duque

Gustavo Petro won Colombia’s June 19 election, becoming its first ever left-wing president. We analyze what this means for Latin America, the US, Venezuela, the military, paramilitary groups, the powerful oligarchy, and social movements. Gustavo Petro won Colombia’s presidential election on June 19. This will make him the first left-wing leader in the South American nation’s history. In the video, podcast, and written analysis below, Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton discusses Petro’s historic victory, what it means for Colombia, Latin America, and the world, and how difficult it will be for him to govern. Gustavo Petro won the first round of Colombia’s presidential election on May 29. In the second round, he defeated far-right candidate Rodolfo Hernández, a real estate mogul with an estimated $100 million in wealth. Petro previously served as mayor of the capital Bogotá, and long before that a former guerrilla in the armed socialist group M-19. After putting down his weapons, Petro moderated his politics and moved to the center-left. His presidential campaign brought together a broad coalition of left-wing parties, under the name the Pacto Histórico (Historic Pact), ranging from liberals to the Communist Party. Petro will face many obstacles to governing. He does not have a majority in the bicameral Congress; both the Senate and Chamber of Representatives remain dominated by right-wing, centrist, and neoliberal parties. Colombia’s state security services, which are closely linked to paramilitary groups, and which killed thousands of civilians in the “falsos positivos” (false positives) scandal, are also openly antagonistic to Petro. The chief of Colombia’s armed forces, General Eduardo Zapateiro, publicly attacked Petro on Twitter, violating national laws that stipulate that military officers cannot interfere in the electoral process. An ardent supporter of peace, Petro hopes to settle the armed conflict that has destabilized Colombia for decades. He wants to honor the government’s 2016 peace deal with the FARC, which has been systematically violated by the administration of current far-right President Iván Duque. Hundreds of signatories of this agreement, former socialist revolutionaries who put down their arms, have been murdered since 2016. In an attempt to facilitate peace, Petro has called for land reform. He recognizes that land ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs, with millions of campesinos toiling in brutal, inhumane conditions, and understands how this has fueled violence. Petro wants to ensure that peasants will have their rights guaranteed against the multinational corporations, Colombian oligarchs, and death squads that have long terrorized them. This, however, is much easier said than done. Petro likewise pledged to reverse the neoliberal economic policies that have ravaged Colombia, pushing a staggering 40% of the population into poverty. In 2021, working-class Colombians rose up against the crushing austerity measures of current President Duque. Petro supported the anti-neoliberal protests that rocked the country for months. Duque, for his part, was the hand-picked candidate of Colombia’s former far-right President Álvaro Uribe, a powerful representative of the oligarchy who is closely linked to drug cartels and paramilitary death squads. Petro’s victory represents the end of the right-wing Uribista movement that has dominated Colombian politics since Uribe first rose to power in 2002. The Pacto Histórico’s vice-presidential candidate, Francia Márquez, is a leftist social movement activist from the Afro-Colombian community, which has been historically marginalized and repressed by the Colombian state and oligarchy. Márquez publicly criticized the US government for meddling in Colombia’s electoral process. She also condemned the war on drugs, which she called a failure. Colombia's top vice presidential candidate, Francia Márquez, warned that the US government is meddling in the country's elections to hurt her left-wing Pacto Histórico coalition, just days before the May 29 vote. Read more here: https://t.co/XMLwCNs79L pic.twitter.com/kgzJWIeokQ — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 29, 2022 Márquez wants peace, and opposes further militarization of the country. She blasted Colombia’s free-trade agreement with the United States, which she said should be renegotiated. Márquez has stressed the urgent need for land reform and reparations for Indigenous peoples and oppressed nations in Colombia. When it comes to his foreign policy, Petro has a much more mixed record. He harshly criticized the socialist governments of Venezuela and Nicaragua during his presidential campaign, making baseless accusations and comparisons that leftists across Latin America condemned as ridiculous. But Petro and Márquez both also called for normalizing relations with Colombia’s neighbor Venezuela. This means that, although their government certainly won’t be a friend of Venezuela’s Chavista movement, it will end recognition of US-appointed coup leader Juan Guaidó. Colombia’s current far-right Duque government is one of fewer than 15 countries in the world that still recognize Guaidó as supposed “president” of Venezuela, despite the fact that he has never received a single vote in a presidential election. Under Duque, Colombia has supported violent cross-border attacks on Venezuela, including a failed invasion in May 2020, known as Operation Gideon, which was sponsored by the Donald Trump administration, and, according to Colombians involved in the operation, overseen by the CIA. A Venezuelan army defector who helped plan a botched May 2020 invasion, Clíver Alcalá, said the coup-plotters were in touch with the CIA and other US government agencies They had Washington's approval to try to violently overthrow President Nicolás Madurohttps://t.co/GHYCrcZnm8 — Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 2, 2022

Write an article about: El golpe de estado respaldado por EEUU atrapó a Honduras en una deuda odiosa e impagable, advierte la nueva presidenta Xiomara Castro. 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.

Argentina, deuda, FMI, Grecia, Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, Puerto Rico, Xiomara Castro

En el momento del golpe de estado respaldado por EEUU en 2009, Honduras tenía una deuda externa de $2481 millones de dólares. Ahora son $9250 millones. La nueva presidenta izquierdista Xiomara Castro dice que esta deuda odiosa es impagable. Ya consume el 50% del presupuesto del gobierno. (You can read this article in English here.) La nueva administración de izquierda en Honduras logró ganar las elecciones de noviembre de 2021 de manera aplastante y derrotar a un régimen autoritario golpista. Pero ahora enfrenta un gran problema que dificultará su gobernabilidad: la deuda odiosa. Cuando un golpe militar patrocinado por Estados Unidos derrocó al presidente izquierdista Manuel Zelaya en Honduras en 2009, el país tenía una deuda externa de $2480 millones de dólares. A finales de 2021, después de 12 años de regímenes anti-democráticos, corruptos, de derecha, la deuda externa de Honduras había aumentado a $9250 millones, un aumento del 373%. La deuda interna del estado hondureño con entidades privadas también subió de aproximadamente $810 millones en 2009 a aproximadamente $7300 millones en la actualidad. El PIB de Honduras es de solo $23,8 mil millones. Sin embargo, el país tiene una deuda de más de $16,5 mil millones, lo que significa que su deuda es casi el 70% del tamaño de toda su economía. La nueva presidenta izquierdista de la nación centroamericana, Xiomara Castro, el primer líder democrático de Honduras desde el golpe de estado, ha dicho que esta carga sobre el gobierno es una forma de deuda odiosa y simplemente impagable. Castro declaró en un discurso en su toma de posesión el 27 de enero que los regímenes golpistas habían “hundido” al estado en deuda, dejándolo en “bancarrota” en una “catástrofe económica”. Los pagos de la deuda ahora consumen un asombroso 50% del presupuesto del gobierno, enfatizó Castro. Este gráfico del medio hondureño La Prensa muestra cómo la deuda aumentó después del golpe respaldado por EEUU. La deuda externa de Honduras Este gráfico no incluye la enorme deuda interna de Honduras. “Después de 12 años de dictadura subió el saldo de la deuda interna de 20 mil millones [de lempiras, o sea USD $810 millones] a 179 mil millones [de lempiras, o USD $7,3 mil millones]”, dijo Castro en su discurso de toma de posesión. “Con estas cifras es evidente que el estado no tiene capacidad para sostener la estruendosa y bochornosa deuda que nos están heredando”, agregó la nueva presidenta hondureña. “Es prácticamente imposible cumplir con los vencimientos de la deuda”. Castro dijo que la única forma de manejar la deuda es restructurarla con los acreedores. “Mi gobierno no continuará la vorágine de saqueo que ha condenado a las generaciones de jóvenes a pagar la deuda que contrajeron a sus espaldas”, declaró. “El país debe saber qué hicieron con el dinero y dónde están los 20 millones de dólares que sacaron en préstamos”. La nueva presidenta hondureña advirtió que este “saqueo” provocó que la pobreza aumentara en un 74%, “para convertimos en el país más pobre de América Latina.” “Esta cifra por sí misma explica la caravana de miles de personas que buscan oportunidades para sus vidas”, dijo. Otros países de Latinoamérica han estado atrapados en este mismo tipo de trampas de la deuda. En 2018, el presidente derechista de Argentina, Mauricio Macri, solicitó el préstamo más grande en la historia del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI): $57.1 mil millones. Esta enorme deuda contraída por Macri empujó al posterior gobierno de centroizquierda del presidente Alberto Fernández a una espiral de endeudamiento, que ha dificultado mucho su plan de gobernación. El FMI, que es dominado por Estados Unidos y se utiliza como arma económica para hacer avanzar la agenda de política exterior de Washington, a menudo ha atrapado a las naciones del Sur Global en una deuda impagable. El FMI usa esta deuda como palanca para obligar a los países a vender sus recursos naturales, privatizar las empresas estatales, reducir el gasto social y abolir las protecciones laborales que desafían los intereses de las corporaciones extranjeras. Puerto Rico, una colonia de Estados Unidos, también sufre una dolorosa deuda odiosa. El gobierno de EEUU usó esta carga de la deuda para imponer una Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera que no fue elegida por el pueblo y que controla todos los gastos de Puerto Rico. Esta junta ha impuesto devastadoras medidas de austeridad al pueblo puertorriqueño. Incluso Grecia, un miembro de la Unión Europea, ha sido aplastada de manera parecida bajo el peso de una deuda odiosa. Si bien los griegos trabajan la mayor cantidad de horas en toda Europa, los economistas han dicho que es imposible pagar la deuda del país.

Write an article about: Latin America challenges neocolonial OAS, and US hegemony, at historic CELAC summit. 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.

AMLO, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Argentina, Bolivia, CELAC, China, Cuba, Denis Moncada, Evo Morales, Joe Biden, Luis Arce, Mexico, Miguel Díaz-Canel, Nicaragua, Nicolás Maduro, OAS, Organization of American States, Pedro Castillo, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Xi Jinping

The presidents of Venezuela and Cuba joined leaders from across Latin America and the Caribbean in a CELAC summit in Mexico, challenging US unilateralism and the neocolonial OAS. (This article was written for Al Mayadeen English.) Mexico hosted a historic summit of CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, on September 18. It was an important example of Latin America’s gradual move away from the Organization of American States (OAS), a neocolonial proxy of Washington, by instead strengthening regional institutions that exclude the United States and Canada. The summit revived a multilateral organization that had for years been dormant, and brought together leaders from across the region, including Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel. ?? | El presidente de Venezuela, @NicolasMaduro agradeció la negociación de las Declaraciones Especiales y la Declaración Política. Reconoció que éstas son el resultado de las propuestas conjuntas de los países de la región ? pic.twitter.com/fg40US8abf — Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (@PPT_CELAC) September 18, 2021 Maduro’s presence at the meeting served as yet another blow to the United States’ ongoing coup attempts against Venezuela, defying Washington’s effort to delegitimize the South American nation’s constitutional government. Right-wing US client regimes like the drug cartel-linked Iván Duque government of Colombia issued furious statements condemning Maduro’s attendance. (Brazil’s far-right Jair Bolsonaro regime withdrew from CELAC in 2020 as part of its US-sponsored attempt to sabotage independent regional institutions.) In a vicious move reminiscent of mafia dons, the US State Department reiterated its $15 million bounty on the head of the Veneuzelan president as he flew to Mexico for the summit. But it all came crashing down in a moment of delicious irony, when Maduro was photographed standing next to (or, rather, towering over) Ecuador’s ultra-conservative banker President Guillermo Lasso and Uruguay’s right-wing President Luis Lacalle Pou — both of whom still recognize US puppet Juan Guaidó as imaginary “interim president” of Venezuela. It’s easy to see why Maduro was smiling. It was a diplomatic win for Caracas, and a major loss for Washington. The Venezuelan president stressed that the difference between CELAC and the OAS is the difference between Bolivarianism and Monroeism. — that is, between Latin American independence and regional unity on one side, or US neocolonialism on the other. In an extraordinary declaration that emphasized this key distinction, the 31 countries that attended the historic CELAC summit issued a call for an end to US colonialism in Puerto Rico. Citing United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, which was approved in 1960 and demanded independence of colonized countries and peoples, CELAC insisted that Puerto Rico must be decolonized, while emphasizing its uniquely Latin American and Caribbean character. At the summit, CELAC also reiterated its call for the United States to end its illegal, six-decade-long blockade of Cuba, which has starved the country of an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars and taken countless civilian lives. The regional organization’s resounding opposition to the cruel US blockade recalled the meeting of the UN General Assembly this June, in which 184 member states voted to demand an end to the US embargo of Cuba, with just two votes against (the United States and apartheid Israel) and three abstentions (Brazil, Colombia, and Ukraine). Una vez más, la CELAC condenó el bloqueo económico, comercial y financiero impuesto por EEUU contra #Cuba, recrudecido de forma oportunista en el contexto actual de pandemia. Declaración Especial llamó al gobierno y Congreso de ese país a ponerle fin a esta política unilateral. pic.twitter.com/l868drS1sI — Bruno Rodríguez P (@BrunoRguezP) September 18, 2021 In his first CELAC summit, Peru’s new leftist President Pedro Castillo delivered a moving speech, recognizing his country’s Indigenous communities. “I bring the greetings of our Quechua, Aymara, Awajún, Conibo, Shipibo brothers, the men and women who have never had a voice in my homeland,” Castillo said, as he donned a traditional hat. “This is the first time I leave my country as head of state.” Peru's leftist President Pedro Castillo opened his CELAC speech recognizing his country's Indigenous communities: "I bring the greetings of our Quechua, Aymara, Awajún, Conibo, Shipibo brothers, the men and women who have never had a voice in my homeland"pic.twitter.com/G6Utk2Iz99 — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 18, 2021 China’s President Xi Jinping, too, sent a message to CELAC, congratulating it on the historic summit and calling for further developing and strengthening the region’s relations with Beijing. It was another example of the growing international movement to defend multilateralism and sovereignty against US hegemony and domination. La Presidencia Pro Témpore de la #CELAC ostentada por ?? México, agradece el mensaje enviado por el Presidente de la República Popular China ?? Xi Jinping sobre el desarrollo y fortalecimiento de América Latina y el Caribe con China pic.twitter.com/VTalQ6sioA — Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (@PPT_CELAC) September 19, 2021 The posture that Latin America and the Caribbean are increasingly taking in opposition to the Washington-dominated Organization of American States is crucial to challenge US imperialism in a region that Washington considers to be its neocolonial “backyard.” The United States founded the OAS in Colombia in 1948, almost exactly one year before the birth of the main instrument of US neocolonialism, NATO. Both institutions were created at the beginning of the first cold war, as imperialist tools to maintain US hegemony and prop up unpopular capitalist regimes. Like NATO, whose founding members included dictatorships such as Portugal’s fascist “Estado Novo” regime, the OAS was as an explicitly anti-communist alliance of right-wing regimes in the Americas, whose founding members included right-wing dictatorships such as that of Nicaragua’s blood-soaked General Anastasio Somoza. Most of the OAS’ funding comes from the US government. And the State Department has stated clearly in its congressional budget justification reports that Washington provides the OAS with that money because the organization “promotes U.S. political and economic interests in the Western Hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-U.S. countries such as Venezuela.” 2018 USAID Congressional Budget Justification notes the "neutral" OAS "promotes US political and economic interests"https://t.co/GIpJH2o1JG pic.twitter.com/UmhX4wSpGF — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 4, 2017 The centrality of the OAS in backing the far-right coup d’etat in Bolivia in November 2019 — in which US-trained military forces demanded the resignation of democratically elected socialist President Evo Morales — was in fact an issue raised at the CELAC summit. Bolivia’s current President Luis Arce, of Morales’ Movement Toward Socialism party, denounced the OAS as an undemocratic and obsolete institution that should be replaced by a fortified CELAC. #EnVivo #Celac Presidente de #Bolivia: La OEA actúa en contra de los principios de la democracia, es un organismo obsoleto e ineficaz que no responde a los principios del multilateralismo pic.twitter.com/omxmKGPq2j — Al Mayadeen Español (@almayadeen_es) September 18, 2021 Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known popularly by the acronym AMLO), has likewise called for replacing the OAS, and deserves credit for his leadership in hosting the summit and strengthening CELAC. AMLO broke with decades of stultifying neoliberal bipartisan orthodoxy in Mexico, in which the governments ruled by the PRI and PAN parties had obediently followed orders from Washington, and had abandoned the commitment to non-interference that Mexico had enshrined in its 1930 Estrada Doctrine. But we must not forget that Venezuela’s revolutionary President Hugo Chávez was proposing all of this a decade ago. Back in 2011, Chávez publicly called for substituting the OAS with CELAC, and took early steps to do so before his untimely death in 2013. It is important not to erase the leading role Venezuela’s socialist government has played, and still does play, in the effort to unify Latin America and the Caribbean. The steadfast commitment that Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution has shown to strengthening multilateral institutions in the region — and building an anti-imperialist alliance with West Asia’s Axis of Resistance — is one of the main reasons Caracas has been so viciously targeted by US hybrid warfare. Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua have been at the vanguard of advancing progress, integration, and multilateralism in Latin America — and in the world as a whole. This is precisely why Washington demonized these three nations as a so-called “Troika of Tyranny” (in reality, a Troika of Resistance). But while there is much to celebrate about the CELAC summit in Mexico, the unfortunate truth is that not all of Latin America is on the same page when it comes to resisting US imperialism. And this includes not only right-wing forces, but even some center-left movements in the region. Liberal and social-democratic groups have sought to downplay the pivotal leadership of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, while amplifying that of Mexico, Argentina, and more moderate forces. This mistaken approach is not only based on falsehoods; it also creates divisions in Latin America that US imperialism can exploit — and already is exploiting. At the CELAC summit, Nicaragua’s revolutionary Sandinista government criticized Argentina’s centrist government for collaborating with Washington in its destabilization efforts. “CELAC is not an instrument of the Empire,” said Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Denis Moncada. But he lamented that “the government of Argentina has become an instrument of North American imperialism, subordinating itself to its hegemonic interests.” Más noticias falsas descaradas de @LaPrensa, el pasquín de propaganda derechista financiado por EEUU: La Prensa dice que el canciller de Nicaragua atacó al pueblo argentino, pero en realidad dijo lo contrario: "el gobierno de Argentina, NO su pueblo, al que nosotros respetamos" pic.twitter.com/x5LWXgYPYR — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 19, 2021 Right-wing, US government-funded Nicaraguan media outlets spread blatant fake news to try to demonize Moncada and misrepresent his speech. But what he said was clearly confirmed by an article in Voice of America, a US state propaganda organ created by the CIA. Voice of America revealed that top officials from the Joe Biden administration traveled to Buenos Aires this August to meet with the South American nation’s centrist president, Alberto Fernández. The government-funded media outlet reported that the high-level US delegation “agreed to create a channel of ‘open and fluid dialogue’ with the government of Alberto Fernández in order to ‘promote the defense of democratic values’ in the region, particularly in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba.” Fernández was ultimately unable to attend the CELAC summit due to a political crisis he is facing at home, where allies of his left-wing Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner resigned from key posts in his administration, in protest of Fernández’s rightward drift, his sidelining of the left-wing of the governing coalition, and his humiliating defeat in primary elections. But this is a clear example of Washington taking advantage of cracks in the pan-Latin American alliance to try to subvert its attempts at regional integration. The age-old imperialist strategy of divide-and-conquer is alive and well. The strengthening of CELAC and the weakening of the OAS is an important victory for anti-imperialist resistance forces seeking to challenge the global dictatorship that is US imperialism and neocolonialism. But, as with any regional alliance, there are still many internal contradictions to be resolved. And CELAC has weaknesses that could be, and already are being, exploited by imperialism.

Write an article about: Venezuela at UN: We must build multipolar ‘world without imperialism’. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

multipolarity, Nicolás Maduro, UN, United Nations, Venezuela

Translated excerpts from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly, in which he called to build a new multipolar world without imperialism Defying Washington’s ongoing coup attempts, Venezuela’s constitutional President Nicolás Maduro used his platform at the United Nations to call for a “new world without imperialism.” While denouncing the “hellish blockade” the United States and European Union have imposed on his country, Maduro spoke of the need for a multipolar system based on peace, cooperation, and respect for national sovereignty. He made these remarks in a speech at the General Assembly on September 22. When he spoke, Maduro also highlighted that the vast majority of the 193 member states of the United Nations always did and still do recognize him and his constitutional government as the legal representatives of Venezuela — emphasizing without needing to name Juan Guaidó that the US puppet only ever had the support of less than one-fourth of UN member states, at the peak of Washington’s coup attempt. I have translated key excerpts from Maduro’s speech and published them below, because they will doubtless be ignored in the English-language corporate media. At the United Nations, Venezuela's constitutional President Nicolás Maduro called for building "a new world without imperialism," a "multipolar, pluricentric world" He stressed it should be based "especially on the doctrine of the Non-Aligned Movement" of South-South cooperation pic.twitter.com/sy2kG2bJeJ — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 22, 2021 Maduro insisted that we need “what should be, without a doubt, the construction of the new world, of the new human community, of a world without hegemonic empires.” The Venezuelan president called for building a “world free of attempts at domination, economically, financially, militarily, politically, of any hegemon, of any empire, or of those who, over centuries, plundered and dominated, exploited and oppressed the peoples of the world, with the old predatory colonialism.” Maduro lamented that imperial powers today “try to present as new forms of neocolonialism against our people, new forms of domination of plunder, of oppression, of exploitation of the peoples of the world.” “Because of that, in this General Assembly, affected by the pandemic, from the very heart of our beloved homeland, Venezuela raises its voice for a new world without colonialism, for a new world without imperialism, for a new world without a dominating hegemon, for a new world of sharing, of cooperation, of a human community with a shared destiny,” Maduro declared. “The multipolar, pluricentric world that we yearn for, and that we are united for, with our flags of struggle with all of the peoples of the world, with the peoples of the South, especially the doctrine of the Non-Aligned Movement, the South-South doctrine, our doctrine, our vision.” Venezuelan President Maduro, at the UN, denounced the "ferocious campaign against our country which was unleashed by the elites who govern the US," with criminal sanctions that block Venezuela's right in international law "to buy what our country needs and sell what it produces" pic.twitter.com/K5TE2JXlfs — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 22, 2021 The Venezuelan president condemned “the ferocious campaign against our country, which was unleashed by the elites who govern the United States, which was unleashed as well with the complicity of the elites who lead organizations in Europe and other places.” “They have wanted to instrumentalize international organizations and international law to justify the ferocious campaign and criminal attacks against a noble, peaceful, and democratic people, which is the people of Venezuela,” Maduro said. “Venezuela denounces a ferocious campaign, and it denounces a permanent and systematic aggression, by means of economic, financial, and oil sanctions, by means of persecution against the right to economic freedom, against economic rights, and economic guarantees which all of the peoples of the world should be able to enjoy.” Maduro called this “a ferocious attack against the right to buy what our country needs, and against the right to sell what our country produces.” At the UN, President Maduro denounced Britain for stealing Venezuela's gold reserves "They have have stolen and blocked billions of dollars in bank accounts in the US and Europe," while imposing a "hellish blockade," with "cruel torture" of Venezuela's "economic and social body" pic.twitter.com/kBGCNW1Ukp — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 22, 2021 “[Our] bank accounts are stalked. They have stolen and blocked the gold from the legal international reserves of the Central Bank of Venezuela, in London. They have stolen from us and blocked billions of dollars in bank accounts in the United States, Europe, and beyond,” Maduro said. “They prevent Venezuelan companies, in oil and mining, from trading their products and opening accounts in the world, from paying, from getting paid, and from doing commercial transactions, in a free manner, which international law takes into account.” “It is persecution, financial, monetary, commercial, economic, energetic, systematic, cruel, and criminal. And Venezuela raises its voice to denounce it, before the peoples of the world.” Maduro said that, despite the incredible difficulties, Venezuela is trying to find new ways to increase production and get around the illegal, suffocating sanctions. “We have taken the path, of the deployment of the productive forces, of a country subject to a hellish blockade, to criminal persecution, and to cruel torture, of its economic and social body.” The Venezuelan president then affirmed, “And we say to the peoples of the world, with courage, with resolution, with intelligence and wisdom, yes we can confront the imperial aggressions, and advance.” “That is why today, we ratify our request, our demand that all criminal sanctions be lifted against the Venezuelan economy, against Venezuelan society, by the United States of North America and by the governments of the European Union.

Write an article about: After Ukraine, US readies ‘transnational kill chain’ for Taiwan proxy war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

China, Link 16, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine

Washington approved the dangerous sale of the Link 16 communications system to Taiwan. This is the final link of what the US military calls a “transnational coalition kill chain” against China, and signals a commitment to kinetic war. In many traditions, when you paint or sculpt a Buddha, the eyes are the very last to be painted. It’s only after the eyes have been completed that the sculpture is fully alive and empowered. The United States has approved a $75 million weapons package to Taiwan province, involving the sale of the Link 16 communications system. The acquisition of Link 16 is analogous to “painting the eyes on the Buddha”: a last touch, it makes Taiwan’s military systems and weapons platforms live and far-seeing. It confers deadly powers, or more prosaically, in the words of the US military, it completes Taiwan as the final, lethal link of what the US Naval Institute calls a “transnational coalition kill chain”, for war against China. What exactly is Link 16? It is a key system in the US military communications arsenal. Specifically, it’s the jam-resistant tactical data network for coordinating NATO weapons systems for joint operations in war. If this sale is completed, it signals serious, granular, and single-minded commitment to kinetic war. It would signal that the Biden administration is as serious and unwavering in its desire to provoke and wage large-scale war with China over Taiwan as it was with Russia over Ukraine, which also saw the implementation of this system. More important than any single weapons platform, this system allows the Taiwan/ROC military to integrate and coordinate all its warfighting platforms with US, NATO, Japanese, Korean, Australian militaries in combined arms warfare. Link 16 would be the deadliest piece of technology yet to be transferred, because it allows sea, air, and land forces to be coordinated with others for lethal effect. It permits, for example, strategic nuclear/stealth bombers  (US B-1B Lancers, B-2 Spirits) to coordinate with electronic warfare and surveillance platforms  (EA Growlers, Prowlers, EP-3s), fighters and bombers (F-16,F-22, F-35s) as well as conduct joint arms warfare with US, French, British carrier battle groups, Japanese SDF destroyers, and South Korean Hyun Moo missile destroyers, as well as THAAD and Patriot radars and missile batteries. It also allows coordination with low-earth orbit satellites and other Space Force assets. In other words, Link 16 supplies a brain and nervous system to the various deadly limbs and arms that the Taiwan authorities have been acquiring and preparing on the prompting of the US. It ensures interoperability and US control. It effectively prepares Taiwan to be used as the spear tip and trigger of a multinational war offensive against China. To give a shoe-on-the-other-foot analogy, this would be like China giving separatists in a US territory or state (e.g. Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Texas) not just arms and training – already a belligerent act of war, which the US is currently doing – but connecting insurgent militaries directly to the PLA’s surveillance, reconnaissance, and command/control systems. This coordinates and completes, to borrow the words of the US Naval Institute (USNI), the final link in a “transnational coalition kill chain” for war. The current US doctrine of war against China is based on distributed, dispersed, diffused, network-centric warfare to be conducted along the myriad islands of the archipelagic states encircling China in the Pacific. These are the “island chains” upon which the US has encircled and sown dragon’s teeth: tens of thousands of troops armed with mobile attack platforms and missiles. This is to be coordinated with subsurface warfare, automated/autonomous warfare, and longer-range stand-off weapons and attacks. Powerful think tanks like CSBA, CNAS, CSIS, RAND and the Pentagon have been working out the doctrine, details, logistics, and appropriations for this concept intensively for over a decade while advocating intensely for it. The sale of link 16 to Taiwan realizes and completes a key portion of this, binding the Chinese island as the keystone of this “multinational kill chain”. This doctrine of dispersion is based on a “rock-paper-scissors” concept that networked diffusion “offsets” (Chinese) precision. China’s capacity to defend itself and its littoral perimeter with precision missiles can be undermined with diffuse, distributed attacks from all across the island chains. Note that this diffusion and dispersion of attack platforms across the entire Pacific gives the lie to the claim that this is some inherently deterrent strategy to defend Taiwan island. Diffusion is clearly offensive, designed to overrun and overwhelm defenses: like Ukraine, this is not to deter war, but to enable it. This thus signals that aggressive total war against China is being prepared, in granular, lethal fashion on tactical and operational levels. On the strategic level, currently, at the CFR, CNAS, and other influential think tanks in Washington, the talk is all about “protracted warfare” with China, about pre-positioning systems and munitions for war, about ramping up to an industrial war footing for the inescapable necessity of war with China. This discussion includes preparations for a nuclear first strike on China. The US senses that the clock is running rapidly down on its power. If war is inevitable, then it is anxious to start war sooner rather than later. RAND warned in 2016 that 2025 was the outside window for the US to prevail in war with China. The “Minihan window” also hints at 2025. The “Davidson window” is 2027. The question in Washington regarding war with China is not if, but when–and how. Link 16 makes “how” easier, and brings “when” closer. The current administration has hardline Russophobes who want to continue to bleed Russia out in Ukraine. It wants protracted war with Russia. It firmly believes it can wage ambidextrous, multi-front war. Many US officials also believe that war with Ukraine and war with China are connected. They see Russia and China as a single axis of “revisionist powers” (i.e., official enemies) conspiring against the US to undermine its so-called “rules-based order” (i.e., US hegemony). Furthermore, if the US abandons Ukraine, this could weaken the Taiwan authorities’ resolve and willingness to wage war on behalf of Washington. Earlier in the war, when Russian gains in Ukraine were uncertain, Bi-khim Louise Hsiao (Taiwan’s current vice-president elect) gloated publicly and prominently that Ukraine’s victories were a message to China, as well as proof-of-concept of an effective doctrine for waging and winning war against China. As such, the Taiwan authorities were and are a major supporter of the Ukraine proxy war. But the converse also holds true. Based on the same premise, if the US abandons and loses Ukraine, it sends a clear message to the people on Taiwan island that they will be the next to be used and abandoned; that their US-imposed war and war doctrine (light, distributed, asymmetrical combined arms warfare) for fighting China is a recipe for catastrophic loss. The US plans on using proxies for war against China: Taiwan, Korea, Japan (JAKUS), Philippines, and Australia (AUKUS). Thus it cannot signal too overtly its perfidious, unreliable, and instrumental mindset. Washington has to keep up the pretense. It cannot be seen to overtly lose in or abandon Ukraine. It needs a “decent interval”, or a plausible pretext to cut and run. Still, the US is stretched thin. For example, it is relying on Korean munitions to Ukraine, and South Korea has provided more munitions than all of the EU combined. Moreover, the US is currently at war with itself. The fracturing of its body politic can only be unified with a common war against a common enemy. Russia is not that enemy for the US. China is. The Republicans want war with China now. Eli Ratner and Elbridge Colby have been fretting for years about the need to husband weaponry, arms, and munitions in order to wage war against China. Since the outbreak of Ukraine, Ratner has been working hard to pull India into the US defense industry’s supply chain, and claims to have been successful. South Korea’s considerable military-industrial complex is being pulled into sub-contracting for US war with China. Since many of its major Chaebol corporations got their start as subcontractors for the war in Vietnam (for example, Hyundai was a subcontractor for Halliburton/Brown & Root), the Korean economy is simply reverting back to its corporate-martial roots. South Korea’s economy is currently tanking due to US-forced sanctions on China. Major Korean electronic firms have lost 60 to 80% of their profits due to US-imposed chip sanctions. Under those conditions, military manufacturing and/or subcontracting looks to be the only way forward. In this way, the US is forcing a war economy onto its vassals. Furthermore, US aid to Ukraine benefits its own arms industry. The business of the US is war. Not only do existing US arms companies gain, but also the entire tech industry and supply chain benefits, and is currently re-orienting around this. Much of the US tech industry is seeking to suckle from the government teat, now flowing copiously in preparation for war. On the other hand, the general US economy is not doing well, with massive layoffs, especially in the consumer and business tech sector. The backstop of military Keynesianism, with the integration of think-tank lobbying groups funded by the arms industry with close ties to the administration (such as CNAS, West Exec Advisors, and CSIS) ensure that war is always the closest ready-to-hand resort for tough economic times. The US is simultaneously trying to decouple supply chains, which creates opportunities for US firms (both domestically and subcontracting with US vassals). Automated, AI-enabled warfare will be a key part of this development, as will be dispersed, distributed warfare platforms using proxies such as South Korea and Japan. This fits the existing historical pattern: the history of Western technology shows that technology and machinery have always been developed first for war. Afterwards, they become tools of entertainment and distraction, and later productive tools for general industrial use. This pattern goes back to the earliest machines and inventions of the West: the crane, the pulley, the lever, were all military technologies – machines of war (used in sieges). Later they became machines of illusion and distraction (used as stage machinery in Greek theater). Only much later were they applied for general use – and exploitation – in manufacture and production. This holds true for many other technologies, including: Nuclear power obviously derives from nuclear weapons. AI, too, from its inception, was conceived for automated battle management, especially to enable second strike after human life had been destroyed. An AI war is already in the works, with US sanctions on AI-related chips and computing, along with an algorithmic race to suppress dissent and critique in the information domain. War and business are intricately related in the west, and war is the first lever pulled when the economy stagnates critically or needs a boost. The US needs to abandon its neoconservative fantasies of hegemonic global empire and retreat gently into that good night, for there to be peace. Washington needs to negotiate in good faith with Russia, and begin the process of de-escalating its proxies in Ukraine, as well as in Palestine, and the Pacific. It needs to seek win-win cooperation in a multilateral order based on international law and mutual co-existence, not its own top-down “rules-based order”. It needs to respect the One China principle, end its interference in China’s affairs, and stop preparing and provoking war with China. However, the US ruling class is unwilling to do so. And it has only a few levers left to pull. The military one is the closest and most ready to hand. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”. Like a drunk at the bar after the final call – drunk with power – Washington is determined to go out with a fight. That fight could involve a nuclear first strike. Palestine has shown what it will try to get away with: brazen genocide with the whole world watching. The issue is no longer war or peace in Ukraine. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell sees Ukraine as a “unified field” of war with China. He revels in the possibility of a “magnificent symphony of death” in Asia. The coda, of course, will be a deafening fermata of silence across the entire planet. Unless we stop this insane march to war.

Write an article about: Catholic Church backed violent coup attempt in Nicaragua, meddles in politics. 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.

Catholic Church, FSLN, Nicaragua, religion, Sandinistas

Foreign media outlets falsely accuse Nicaragua’s Sandinista government of repressing the Catholic Church, while ignoring its role in supporting a violent coup attempt in 2018 and sponsoring extremist opposition groups. A deluge of misleading stories claiming that the Nicaraguan government has repressed the Catholic Church have appeared in international media, but not one has accurately explained what is happening. In the article below, Becca Renk, who has lived and worked in sustainable community development in Nicaragua since 2001, explains the country’s complex relationship with the Catholic Church and shows how Western media reporting is extremely inaccurate. Credit: Casa Benjamín Linder (Se puede leer este artículo en español aquí.) Colonization: The Catholic Church first came to Nicaragua with the Spanish colonizers and, as elsewhere in the world, the hierarchy and much of the clergy facilitated colonial conquest through conversion. In Nicaragua, the indigenous population was utterly decimated: most of the population was killed, died of disease, or were abducted and sold into slavery. With the notable exceptions of some individual priests like Antonio Valdivieso, the Church was not only complicit but actively participated in the horrors of colonization. Insurrection: Post independence, the Church hierarchy and Nicaragua’s wealthy elite ran the country together. For generations, each powerful family had a son who became a priest. In the 20th century, the Catholic hierarchy supported the bloody Somoza dictatorship during the almost 45 years of their rule, and only at the very end did some in the hierarchy support the people’s liberation. Revolution: Unlike in Cuba, the Nicaraguan revolution was never secular – in fact, the Sandinista Revolution was so influenced by liberation theology that in the 1980s there was a popular saying was, “Between Christianity and revolution there is no contradiction.” There were priests in the Sandinista government – several ministers – but they were not the priests of the Church hierarchy; they were working to improve the lives of the poor majority. The Catholic hierarchy was openly opposed to the Sandinista Revolution. Pope John Paul II came to Nicaragua and chastised the priests in government, and the Vatican later censored them. When the Sandinista Front party came back into power in 2007, it formed the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity (GRUN). In an attempt to unite the country and prevent new conflict, the new government sought not only to work with former enemies from the war – the Contra’s political wing joined the Sandinista alliance and nominated the vice president for that term from within their ranks – but also included the Church, big business, and trade unions in the planning and management of government programs. The Church was given a place at the governing table. But big business and the Catholic Church effectively ended that model when they conspired to overthrow the elected government in 2018, and used their role in society to try to turn the people against the government. In April 2018, protests began that were ostensibly against proposed reforms to the social security system. It quickly became obvious, however, that the protests were about something else: an attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. Armed opposition groups set up hundreds of roadblocks which paralyzed the country and became epicenters of violence. The roadblocks lasted for nearly three months. Some 253 people were killed, and many more injured. While opposition sources blamed the government for nearly all deaths, a careful study by the Nicaraguan Truth, Justice and Peace Commission showed otherwise. Journalists’ investigations have shown that the U.S. government was funding the violence through USAID, NED, and IRI – all “soft arms” of the CIA. Although the U.S. was funding the attempted ousting of Nicaragua’s democratically elected Sandinista government, the Catholic Church hierarchy in Nicaragua was instigating it. Catholic bishops join a right-wing anti-government protest in Nicaragua during the violent coup attempt in 2018 In this article, I documented first-hand accounts of priests initiating violence, including in neighborhoods of Ciudad Sandino. While the Bishop’s conference was supposedly “mediating” a national dialogue, its own priests were calling for violence. At these “roadblocks of death,” as they came to be known, Sandinista supporters were identified, beaten, raped, tortured and murdered – with priests watching and sometimes participating in the violence. Although hundreds were arrested and convicted of violent crimes in 2018, opposition demanded the release of what they called “political prisoners.” In the interests of peace and reconciliation, the Nicaraguan government declared a general amnesty and freed everyone who had been charged in conjunction the attempted coup, including known murderers, on the condition that they not reoffend. The hierarchy’s participation in the failed coup attempt in 2018 has had consequences for the Catholic Church: the Nicaraguan government has reduced by half its financial support for cathedrals, churches and maintenance of the Bishops’ Conference facilities. But the Church has also lost its people. I have talked to many Catholics who no longer go to mass because their priests continue to promote violence and seek political ends from the pulpit. These people have not lost their faith – they continue to pray at home and take part in religious celebrations outside the Church – but they no longer attend mass. This sentiment is widespread. Recent polls by respected firm M&R Consultores show that only 37% of Nicaraguans today identify as Catholics, as opposed to 50% in 2014. The decline of Catholicism in Nicaragua over time (Source: M&R Consultores) So what is going on now that has caused so many inaccurate headlines? The first week of August, Nicaraguan authorities dismantled the network of communication outlets (five radio stations and a local television channel) owned by Rolando Álvarez. Álvarez is bishop of Estelí and Matagalpa, but he is also a political actor, and was one of the leaders involved in the violent coup attempt in 2018. Alvarez’s discourse has created a climate of confrontation, in an attempt to destabilize Nicaragua’s government in the run-up to November’s municipal elections. Alvarez’s private media outlets were closed because they are alleged to have been used to launder money to pay for street violence to feed destabilization attempts. Following the closure of his media outlets, Alvarez was placed under house arrest while he is under investigation for a series of crimes. Even following his arrest, however, Alvarez continued to foment violence which threatened the safety of the population of Matagalpa. In August he was moved to house arrest in Managua, where he will remain while he is being investigated. He is receiving visits from his family and from the cardinal, with whom he has spoken at length. Rolando Álvarez Alvarez isn’t the only priest to be arrested in Nicaragua in recent months. Nicaraguan authorities have arrested, tried, and convicted a priest who raped a 12-year-old girl and another who beat his partner. (The Nicaraguan public didn’t blink an eye at the fact that the priest had a partner, but they were outraged that he beat her.) Interestingly, we have not seen international media using the cases of the rapist and wife-beating priests of Nicaragua to claim religious persecution the way that they are for Alvarez, but all three are cases of Nicaraguan authorities holding Catholic priests accountable for their individual actions, just as they would anyone else. Religious persecution is defined as societal or intuitional attacks on people specifically for their religious beliefs. What we have seen in Nicaragua’s recent events is the investigation and arrest of individuals who have broken the law, regardless of their religious beliefs. Religious persecution can also be defined as attacks on religious institutions, of which the international press also accuses the Nicaraguan government. Few concrete examples are given – most are alleged defacements of churches that cannot be attributed to the government or its institutions. The most often cited incident is a fire in July 2020 in the Managua cathedral, which destroyed the image of the blood of Christ. Church authorities claim it was caused by a firebomb attack on the Cathedral. In their investigation, however, the Nicaraguan police and the fire department found no evidence of a firebomb, and concluded that the fire was caused by a spray bottle of alcohol used for sanitizing hands, which was left too close to an open flame in the poorly ventilated chapel. Eyewitnesses saw no suspicious activity. There were only two people in the cathedral at the time of the fire. Regardless of the results of the investigation, the Church hierarchy maintains their claim of “persecution” and has left the chapel as it was following the fire, encouraging visitors to pray to the charred crucifix. Not only is there no religious persecution in Nicaragua, but there is an atmosphere of thriving religious expression. For proof of this, one just had to look out a window in Nicaragua this August. August is patron saint festival season in this country. While international media has been printing tales of religious persecution, dozens of Nicaraguan cities and towns were busy celebrating their Catholic saints in festivals supported economically and logistically by municipal governments. Our own village celebrated the Virgin of the Nancite. And in Ciudad Sandino we celebrated Little Santo Domingo. Nicaraguan Catholics celebrate the virgin of the Nancite, in the community of Cuajachillo No. 2, in Ciudad Sandino, in August 2022 The largest celebration of all was tens of thousands of people who walked and danced freely through Managua’s streets on two separate public holidays dedicated to Santo Domingo. In Nicaragua, the Church hierarchy may be sequestered inside walls, but the church of the people is in the street, joyfully celebrating its faith.

Write an article about: US legally owes Nicaragua reparations, but still refuses to honor 1986 Int’l Court of Justice ruling. 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.

CIA, Contras, Daniel Ortega, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Nicaragua

37 years after a 1986 International Court of Justice ruling, the United States still refuses to pay Nicaragua the reparations it legally owes. Today, the Nicaraguan government is demanding that the United Nations take action. (Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.) The International Court of Justice in the Hague ruled in 1986 that the US government had violated international law in its attacks on Nicaragua and that it owed the Central American nation reparations. June 27, 2023 was the 37th anniversary of this ruling, and Washington still to this day refuses to pay Nicaragua the money that it legally owes it. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial arm of the United Nations. (It is not to be confused with the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is independent of the UN. The ICJ was founded in 1945, in order to settle disputes between states; whereas the ICC was only formed in 2002, in order to prosecute individuals.) In 1986, the ICJ determined that the US repeatedly violated international law by: Nicaragua’s current government has publicly called on the US to meet its obligations under international law. This June 26, Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega sent a letter to UN Secretary General António Guterres demanding that Washington pay reparations. “There exists a historical debt with the Nicaraguan people that 37 years later has not been settled by the United States”, Ortega said. “It is an obligation clearly established in a final judgment of the highest international judicial authority, the International Court of Justice”. The Nicaraguan president wrote: The list of direct damages includes human damages, direct material damages, defense expenses, losses caused by the embargo. Also other damages such as social losses in education, health, work, social security, as well as potential losses for development and production. From all points of view, the nation’s right to development was irreparably affected. … The estimated value of the damages in March 1988, the date on which the Report was presented along with all supporting documentation, was estimated at $12 billion. This amount does not reflect damages after said date, the consequences of which are currently verifiable. For example, to this day, the country’s social security system continues to pay pensions to those injured in the war and their relatives, including those who were part of the counterrevolutionary forces illegally financed by the United States, which never assumed the social cost of said illegalities. Adjusted for inflation, $12 billion in 1988 would be more than $31 billion in 2023. Following the triumph of Nicaragua’s socialist Sandinista Revolution in 1979, the United States created a far-right terror army that sought to violently overthrow the new revolutionary government. The CIA armed and trained death squads known as the Contras – short for “Counterrevolutionaries”. With US backing, the Contras systematically used terrorism to destabilize Nicaraguan society. A former Contra leader from one of the country’s most powerful oligarchic families, Edgar Chamorro, published an open letter in the New York Times in 1986 admitting that “terror is the most effective weapon of the ‘contras’“. It “was premeditated policy to terrorize civilian noncombatants to prevent them from cooperating with the Government. Hundreds of civilian murders, mutilations, tortures and rapes were committed in pursuit of this policy”, he recalled. Referring to the Contras as “CIA puppets” and “a proxy army controlled by the U.S. Government”, Chamorro wrote that “the ‘contras’ burn down schools, homes and health centers as fast as the Sandinistas build them”. Chamorro said that US-backed Contras seized poor villages, then “selected those civilians they suspected of sympathizing with the Government and shot them in cold blood as a lesson”. US President Ronald Reagan with Contra leader “Doctor Henry” outside the White House In 1984, the Nicaraguan government filed a case with the United Nation’s judicial organ, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), demanding legal action against the United States for its attacks. The US government refused to represent itself in court, boycotting the case. In doing so, Washington refused to accept the legitimacy of the UN-backed ICJ, undermining the so-called “rules-based international order” that the US claims it supports. The ICJ case was officially called “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)”. The judges wrote in 1986 that the court: Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State; … Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983 ; an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983 ; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984 ; an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984 ; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984 ; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984 ; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State; … Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce; … Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicológicas [sic] en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; … Decides that the United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory … and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on 1 May 1985, has committed acts calculated to deprive of its object and purpose the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 2 1 January 1956; … Decides that the United States of America is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts as may constitute breaches of the foregoing legal obligations; … Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above. The ICJ ruling only considered the crimes that Washington had committed against Nicaragua in the 1980s. The United States has a history of invading and militarily occupying the Central American nation, on multiple occasions. After decades of military occupation, the US Marines were expelled from Nicaragua in 1933, due to an armed rebellion led by revolutionary General Augusto Sandino. To maintain its political and economic control over the country, Washington left behind a National Guard led by Anastasio Somoza García. Somoza murdered Sandino, before later taking state power for himself, with US support. The Somoza dynasty ruled Nicaragua as a brutal right-wing dictatorship. Somoza García’s son, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, followed in his father’s footsteps and ran the country with an iron fist, until he was overthrown in the 1979 Sandinista Revolution. US President Richard Nixon with Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1971 In the 1980s, Nicaragua’s civilian population suffered the horrors of the US-sponsored terror war, as well as a devastating economic blockade, which caused hyperinflation and led to a shortage of many goods. Washington’s threat to continue waging this war and imposing the blockade led Nicaraguans to vote in the 1990 election for right-wing presidential candidate Violeta Chamorro, from the wealthy oligarchic dynasty that has long sought to control the country (in alliance with the US). Chamorro’s electoral victory was the result of massive US meddling and manipulation. The CIA and other US government agencies spent millions of dollars creating, supporting, and advising Chamorro’s campaign. Violeta Chamorro addresses the US Congress in 1991 In 1991, Chamorro’s US-installed government told the ICJ that it did not plan on continuing with the case against Washington. However, Chamorro’s decision to discontinue the case was a direct result of the very same US violations of international law and attacks on Nicaraguan sovereignty that the ICJ had ruled on in the first place. Nicaragua’s sovereign government has the right to return to the ICJ case today and demand that its legally binding ruling be implemented. In his letter to the United Nations secretary general, President Daniel Ortega pointed out that, in 1991, Chamorro’s government in “Nicaragua discontinued the proceedings before the Court to determine the amount owed, but at no time did it waive the payment of the debt, that is, the right to receive compensation“. Ortega’s letter made it clear that Chamorro’s decision not to proceed with the case does not change Washington’s legal obligation to pay reparations. The current Nicaraguan president wrote to the UN: Nicaragua never received anything to which it was not entitled (such as the right not to be attacked) in exchange for discontinuing the trial before the Court. Instead of receiving compensation as it morally and legally corresponds, Nicaragua continues to be the object of a new type of aggression. It is in this context, in which Nicaragua has once again been the victim of attacks, now euphemistically called sanctions, and the victim of an attempted coup, that the people of Nicaragua remember the historic sentence of the International Court of Justice. … Nicaragua takes this opportunity to recall that the judgments of the International Court of Justice are final and of inescapable compliance, and therefore the United States has the legal obligation to comply with the reparations ordered by the judgment of June 27, 1986.

Write an article about: Trump boasts he wanted to take Venezuela’s oil after overthrowing its government. 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.

coup, Donald Trump, Hugo Chávez, John Bolton, Juan Guaidó, Nicolás Maduro, oil, PDVSA, Republican Party, Syria, Venezuela

Former US President Donald Trump boasted at a Republican Party rally that he wanted to “take over” Venezuela, and “we would have gotten all that oil”. This confirms the sinister motives behind Washington’s 2019 coup attempt to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro and install Juan Guaidó. Former US President Donald Trump gave a speech in which he boasted that he wanted to “take over” Venezuela and exploit its large oil reserves. “When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door”, Trump said. “But now we’re buying oil from Venezuela. So we’re making a dictator very rich. Can you believe this? Nobody can believe it”, he added. Trump made these remarks on June 10, at a speech for a convention organized by the North Carolina Republican Party. The US government initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela in 2019. The Trump administration appointed a little-known right-wing opposition politician, Juan Guaidó, as the supposed “interim president” of the South American nation, despite the fact that he had never participated in a presidential election. Venezuela has the world’s largest known oil reserves – although its crude is very heavy, and in order to be used it must be mixed with lighter crude or diluents, which the country is often incapable of importing due to illegal, unilateral US sanctions. As president, Trump made it clear that Washington seeks to control the natural resources of foreign countries. In a January 2020 interview on Fox News, Trump boasted that he was militarily occupying Syria’s crude-rich regions in order to “take the oil”: DONALD TRUMP: And then they say he left troops in Syria. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil. … Maybe we should take it. But we have the oil. Right now, the United States has the oil. So they say he left troops in Syria. No, I got rid of all of them, other than we’re protecting the oil. We have the oil. Here's irrefutable video evidence of Trump "fighting the deep state" ? "I left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They're protecting the oil. I took over the oil… We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil" pic.twitter.com/IYaep53GP5 — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 31, 2023 Other members of the Donald Trump administration made similar comments. Trump’s neoconservative National Security Advisor John Bolton stated clearly at the beginning of the coup attempt in January 2019, in an interview on Fox News, that Washington and US corporations wanted to profit off of Venezuela’s oil: JOHN BOLTON: We’re looking at the oil assets. That’s the single most important income stream to the government of Venezuela. We’re looking at what to do to that. We want everybody to know. We’re looking at all this very seriously. We don’t want any American businesses or investors caught by surprise. They can see what President Trump did yesterday. We’re following through on it. … We’re in conversation with major American companies now, that are either in Venezuela or in the case of Citgo here in the United States. I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. You know, Venezuela is one of the three countries I called the “Troika of Tyranny”. It’ll make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and  produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. It would be good for the people of Venezuela. It would be good for the people of the United States. We both have a lot at stake here making this come out the right way. Trump's neoconservative National Security Advisor John Bolton made it clear from the beginning of the US coup attempt against Venezuela in January 2019 that US corporations wanted to exploit its massive oil reserves, which had been nationalized by President Hugo Chávez. Bolton… pic.twitter.com/gp7pkzweHT — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 13, 2023 Venezuela’s massive oil reserves were nationalized by former President Hugo Chávez, who launched the country’s leftist Bolivarian Revolution. Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA used the revenue from the oil sales in order to fund social programs, public housing, transportation, health care, and education. Academic studies have found that countries with large oil reserves are more likely to suffer wars and foreign military interventions. In April 2002, there was a briefly successful military coup which overthrew democratically elected President Chávez. But the leader was so popular that the people of Venezuela stormed the streets, overthrew the coup regime, and demanded that Chávez be reinstated as president. The George Bush administration was deeply involved in supporting this 2002 coup in Venezuela. Since then, Washington has sponsored several more coup attempts, including violent riots in 2014 and 2017, culminating in the 2019 designation of Juan Guaidó as supposed “interim president”. The fact that this was a coup attempt was admitted by Trump’s national security advisor himself. In a 2022 interview on CNN, Bolton boasted of how difficult it was to organize the coup attempt: JAKE TAPPER: One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup. JOHN BOLTON: I disagree with that, as somebody who has helped plan coups d’etat – not here, but, you know, other places. It takes a lot of work. JAKE TAPPER: I do want to ask a follow up. When we were talking about what is capable, or what you need to do to be able to plan a coup, and you cited your expertise having planned coups. JOHN BOLTON: I’m not going to get into the specifics, but uh… JAKE TAPPER: Successful coups? JOHN BOLTON: Well, I wrote about Venezuela in the book. And it turned out not to be successful – not that we had all that much to do with it. But I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president, and they failed. The notion that Donald Trump was half as competent as the Venezuelan opposition is laughable. But I think there’s another – JAKE TAPPER: I feel like there’s other stuff you’re not telling me, though. JOHN BOLTON: I think – I’m sure there is. Bolton’s 2020 memoir, “The Room Where It Happened”, mentions Venezuela and Venezuelans more than 300 times, and has a 35-page chapter recounting the coup attempt in the country, titled “Venezuela Libre” (Free Venezuela). Bolton wrote that President Trump had repeatedly asked for a military attack on Venezuela. Trump advisor John Bolton admits planning US coups in Venezuela and beyond This was further confirmed by Trump’s former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who wrote in his 2022 memoir “A Sacred Oath” that “Trump had been fixated on Venezuela since the early days of his administration”. “Again and again, Trump would ask for military options” to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro, Esper recalled. Trump’s National Security Council meetings on Venezuela “always began with the consideration of military options, rather than on the other end of the spectrum—diplomacy”, Esper wrote. Trump wanted US military attacks on Venezuela, Defense Secretary Mark Esper details in book There in fact was an attempted invasion of Venezuela in May 2020, known as Operation Gideon. The figures involved in planning this botched invasion admitted they had the support of the Trump White House and were in contact with the CIA, other US government agencies, and Colombian intelligence services. CIA backed failed 2020 invasion of Venezuela, top coup-plotter says In response to Trump’s admission in June 2023 that he wanted to “take over” Venezuela and its oil, the country’s foreign minister, Yvan Gil, responded: “Trump confesses that his intention was to take over Venezuela’s oil. All the damage that the United States has done to our people, with the support of its lackeys, here has had one objective: to steal our resources! They were not able to, and they will not be able to. We will always overcome!” Venezuela’s vice minister for North America, Carlos Ron, declared, “What further evidence do we need? Here’s Trump confessing that his aim, all along, was to take over Venezuela’s oil. The Biden [administration] keeps his illegal sanctions policy still in place. Venezuela has and will continue to prevail!” What further evidence do we need? Here’s Trump confessing that his aim, all along, was to take over Venezuela’s oil. The Biden Administracion keeps his illegal sanctions policy still in place. Venezuela has and will continue to prevail! https://t.co/kLO3INnm57 — Carlos Ron (@CarlosJRonVE) June 11, 2023 Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, stated, “Trump took the mask off of 60 satellite countries, the international propaganda, and all of those politicians and intellectuals who supported a puppet [Juan Guaidó] to govern Venezuela. The only aim has been to pillage the oil of the Venezuelan people. How shameful! This is the confession of a criminal”. The “60 satellite countries” that Moncada referenced were those that joined the United States in formally recognizing unelected coup leader Guaidó as supposed “interim president” of Venezuela. Venezuela’s former foreign minister, Jorge Arreaza, who served during the 2019 coup attempt, said Trump’s confession was legal evidence that the US was motivated to try to steal his country’s natural resources. “The international justice system must act”, Arreaza implored.