Forgotten History

George Orwell on Reading the News

1 Comment

…….Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed.

I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.

George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War, Chapter 4.

“It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.” – Kissinger

Saving Ukrainians from Themselves

The collapse of Kiev

1 Comment

by Thierry Meyssan via Voltaire Net

The fate of arms has decided. The moment of truth has spoken. The Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed miserably. NATO’s considerable armaments were useless. The battlefield is littered with corpses. All for nothing. The territories that joined the Russian Federation by referendum will remain Russian.

This “checkmate” not only marks the end of Ukraine as we have known it, but of Western domination that had staked its future on its lies.
The multipolar world may be born this summer at several international summits. A new way of thinking in which might no longer makes right.

In six days, from June 4 to 10, 2023, the Ukrainian army launched its counter-offensive and suffered a terrible defeat.

During the summer, Russian forces built two defense lines in the part of Novorossia they liberated and in the Donbass. They prevent the passage of all armored vehicles.

Ukrainian forces have chosen a dozen points of attack to retake “enemy-occupied” territory. Their armored vehicles were unable to get through the first line of Russian defenses and piled up in front of it, where they were destroyed one by one by Russian artillery and suicide drones.

At the same time, the Russian army targeted missiles at command centers and arsenals inside Ukrainian territory and destroyed them.

The Ukrainian air defense system was destroyed by hypersonic missiles as soon as it was installed. In its absence, the Ukrainians were unable to carry out the maneuvers planned by Nato.

Russia did not use any of its new weapons, apart from its NATO weapons jamming system and some of its hypersonic missiles.

The border is now a long graveyard of tanks and men. Airports are full of smoking Mig-29 and F-16 wrecks.

The staffs of the United States, the Atlantic Alliance and Ukraine are passing the buck for this historic disaster. Hundreds of thousands of human lives and 500 billion dollars have been wasted for nothing. Western weapons, which shook the world in the 90s, are now worthless compared to the Russian arsenal of today. Strength has changed sides.

Two conclusions can already be drawn:

DO NOT CONFUSE THE UKRAINIAN ARMY WITH THE “INTEGRAL NATIONALISTS”

While there is no longer a Ukrainian army capable of high-intensity warfare, there are still the forces of the “integral nationalists” (sometimes called “Banderists” or “Ukrainian-Nazis”). But they are only trained for low-intensity warfare. Its leaders went to fight in Chechnya in the late 90s on behalf of the CIA and NATO secret services, and sometimes in Syria in the 2020s. They are trained in targeted assassinations, sabotage and civilian massacres. Nothing more.

They succeeded
1. In sabotaging the Russian-German-French-Dutch Nord Stream gas pipeline, plunging Germany and then the European Union into recession on September 26, 2022.
2. In sabotaging the Kerch Strait bridge (known as the “Crimean Bridge”), on October 8, 2022.
3. In attacking the Kremlin with drones, May 3, 2023
4. In using drones to attack the Ivan Kurs, the intelligence vessel defending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline in the Black Sea, on May 26, 2023.
5. In sabotaging the Kakhovka dam to split Novorossia in two, on June 6, 2023.
6. In sabotaging the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline to destroy the Russian mineral fertilizer industry, on June 7, 2023.

Just as in the two World Wars and the Cold War, they proved their terrorist capabilities, but played no decisive role on the battlefield.

Now more than ever, we need to distinguish between Ukrainians who thought they were defending their people, and the “integral nationalists” [1], who don’t care about their compatriots and have been trying for a century to eradicate Russians and their culture.

THE UKRAINE WE KNEW IS DEAD

Until now, Ukraine has been above all a power of communication. Kiev succeeded in making people believe that the 2014 coup d’état that overthrew a democratically elected president in favor of integral nationalists was a revolution. Likewise, it has managed to make people forget the way it crushed its citizens in the Donbass, refusing to give them access to public services, to pay civil servants’ salaries and pensions to the elderly and, ultimately, bombing its cities. Finally, it succeeded in convincing Westerners that Ukraine was a homogenous country with a single population living a common history.

As in most wars, there is also a “civil war” aspect [2]. Today, everyone can see that, contrary to what was claimed, Vladimir Putin’s analysis was not a reconstruction of history, but a factual truth. The people of Donbass are profoundly Russian. The people of Novorossia (including Crimea) are of Russian culture, albeit with a different history (they have never known serfdom). Ukraine has never existed as an independent state in history, apart from one decade, during the periods 1917-22 and 1941-45, and three other decades, since 1991.

During these three experiences, Kiev never stopped purging its people and massacring its citizens when the full nationalists were in power (1917-22 with Simon Petliura, 1941-45 with Stepan Bandera, and 2014-22 with Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky). In total, over the course of a century, the “integral nationalists” – as they call themselves – have murdered more than 3 million of their compatriots.

During the First World War, the people of Novorossia had already risen up around the anarchist Nestor Makhno; during the Second World War, the people of Donbass and Novorossia rose up as Soviets; while this time, they are fighting against the “integral nationalists” in Kiev with Russian forces.

The only way to stop these massacres is to separate the “integral nationalists” from the population of Russian culture they want to kill [3]. Since Nato staged a coup in 2014 and put them in power, there’s no other way but to note the country’s current division and leave them in power in Kiev. It is the Ukrainians, and they alone, who will have to overthrow them.

Current military operations have already done so. The part of the country liberated by the Russians voted in a referendum to join the Federation. However, last year’s Russian advance was halted by President Vladimir Putin as part of negotiations with Ukraine, conducted first in Belarus, then in Turkey. Odessa is still Ukrainian in law, even though it is culturally Russian. Transnistria is still Moldavian, even though it is culturally Russian.

The war is technically over. No offensive can alter the current borders. Admittedly, the fighting may drag on and a peace treaty is a long way off, but the die is cast. There is still a problem in Ukraine and Moldavia: Odessa and Transnistria are still not Russian. Above all, there remains a fundamental problem: in violation of their oral and written commitments, the members of the Atlantic Alliance have stockpiled US weapons on Russia’s borders, jeopardizing its security.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

Fabricated Narratives

“Global Warming” and the Confrontation between the West and the Rest

2 Comments

by Thierry Meyssan via Voltaire Net

The theory of the anthropogenic cause of global warming will soon be at the center of the confrontation between the West and Russia. While no one denies that some parts of the world are warming, there is currently no alternative explanation for this phenomenon. But renowned scientists will be presenting another at COP-28 in Dubai. They happen to be members of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The theory that global warming is observable all over the planet and that it is caused by human activity has been popularized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); a United Nations commission.

I have no expertise in climate issues and I don’t presume to judge whether this theory is true or false, but I am an expert in international politics and I can assess the work of this UN commission.

Ten years ago, I wrote that, as its name suggests, the IPCC is not a learned academy at all, but an intergovernmental group [1]. Its conclusions are therefore not the fruit of a scientific approach, but of a political debate.

The IPCC was created on the initiative of the British Prime Minister, Margareth Thatcher, to support her fight against the miners’ unions. Unsurprisingly, it concluded that coal is bad for the environment, while nuclear power is desirable. This is not a scientific theorem, but a political statement.

Furthermore, I pointed out that the creation of greenhouse gas emission rights is not an intergovernmental initiative, but an idea of the Joyce Foundation, implemented by Climate Exchange Ltd. [2]. Each state drafts its own legislation on the subject. It receives a certain quantity of emission rights, which it allocates as it sees fit to companies. Companies that only partially use their rights can resell them on a specialized stock exchange in Chicago.

The articles of association for this exchange were drafted by a then unknown Joyce Foundation lawyer, a certain Barack Obama (future President of the United States). The call for investors to launch the exchange was organized by Al Gore (future vice-president of the United States), and David Blood (former director of Goldman Sachs bank). Whether you consider these people to be bona fide environmental activists or high-flying swindlers is a matter of perspective.

Over time, this political device has been cloaked in a veneer of science and good intentions, making it difficult to question. Yet there is an alternative scientific theory to explain global warming. It was put forward by Croatian geophysicist Milutin Milanković between the wars.

The Earth’s orbit varies according to three natural cycles: eccentricity, obliquity and the precession of the equinoxes. Each of these variations follows a cycle, between 20,000 and 100,000 years, which is perfectly calculable. Combined, these three variations influence the Earth’s insolation and hence its climate. This theory was confirmed in 1976 by the study of ice cores from the Vostok drilling project in Antarctica. But it doesn’t explain everything.

The Russian Academy of Sciences has just put forward a third theory, also based on observation of nature. According to it, “The main cause of local climatic catastrophes is the increasing emission of natural hydrogen due to the alternating gravitational forces of the moon and sun, which cause holes in the ozone layer. The resulting rise in temperature and the mixing of ozone and hydrogen are the main causes of forest and steppe fires” [3]].

The Académie des Sciences not only questions the dogma of the IPCC, it also challenges the mechanism for reducing holes in the ozone layer. Namely, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol “whose implementation has wiped out entire sub-industries of the chemical industry without affecting the size of ozone holes, which have only increased”.

The Russian Academy of Sciences’ theory is also based on the idea that global warming is not a comparable phenomenon in different parts of the world. Contrary to popular belief, the temperature of the Pacific Ocean is actually cooling [4].

The findings of the Russian Academy of Sciences will be presented at COP-28 in Dubai in late November/early December. A political battle is already underway to silence the scientists. It concerns the appointment of the session chairman, who will be able to give the floor to the troublemakers or, on the contrary, silence them. Mohammed ben Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, is in charge of choosing the chairman. He has appointed Sultan al-Jaber, his Minister of Industry. US and EU parliamentarians immediately wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, asking him to oppose the move. Their argument, as ever, is irrelevant to their objective. They argue that Sultan al-Jaber is also Chairman of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). He would therefore be judge and jury. Instead, they recommend appointing a non-fossil fuel lobbyist. He would also be judge and jury, but for the opposing camp.

If Russian scientists speak out at COP-28, the assembly is likely to split in two, not along scientific but political lines. Anglo-Saxon supporters versus Russian supporters (the rest of the world). There’s no doubt that the IPCC dogma will soon become the idée fixe of the West and the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

Military Affairs

Removal of Russian Army’s Deadwood Holdovers?

Leave a comment

We try our best not to deal in rumours. However, it is clear that the deal with the Wagner PMC’s insurrectionists could not have been reached without terms. The following are the likely parameters of the new reality that we will see in short order:

—”Wagner PMC” troops will be incorporated into and merged with the Russian Armed Forces.

—Gerasimov and Shoigu will resign, to be replaced by Surovikin (as Chief of Staff) and Dyumin, Governor of Tula, highly respected in the Russian Armed Forces, who played a key role the Crimea operation that led to the Republic’s reunification with Russia (as Minister of Defence).

—Criminal proceedings against Prigozhin will be terminated, and “Wagner PMC” fighters will be given immunity.

The most complete version of the terms of this resolution has been published by @Condottieros, but various details have been reiterated by other sources.

Military Affairs

Is the US Readying for a Nuclear War?

1 Comment

If the Ukraine conflict continues on its current trajectory, it will end in a total disaster for humanity

Dmitry Trenin is a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council.

Professor Sergey Karaganov’s “Tough-but-necessary decision” article – which claims that by using its nuclear weapons, Russia could save humanity from a global catastrophe – has provoked plenty of reaction both at home and abroad. Partly because of the author’s status – he has been an advisor to both President Boris Yeltsin and President Vladimir Putin – and also due to the belief that his opinion may possibly be shared by some people in positions of power.

Dmitry Trenin, an extremely respected Russian expert who served in the Soviet military gives his response.

***

Professor Sergey Karaganov’s recent article brought into public focus the thorny issue of the use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict. Many reactions to the piece boil down to the well-known reasoning that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and thus it cannot be fought.

Against this background, President Vladimir Putin, responding to a question at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, said that nuclear weapons are a deterrent and the conditions for their use is defined in a published doctrine. He explained that the theoretical possibility of using these weapons exists, but there is no need to use them now.

In principle, nuclear weapons have been “on the table” for Russia from the very beginning of the Ukrainian conflict precisely as a means of deterring the US and its allies from becoming directly involved. Nevertheless, repeated public reminders from Putin and other officials about Russia’s nuclear status have so far not prevented a growing escalation of NATO’s participation. As a result, it has become clear that nuclear deterrence, on which many in Moscow have relied as a credible means of securing the country’s vital interests, has proven to be a much more limited tool than they expected.

In fact, the US has now set itself the task – unthinkable during the Cold War – of trying to defeat another nuclear superpower in a strategically important region, without resorting to atomic weapons, but instead by arming and controlling a third country. The Americans are proceeding cautiously, testing Moscow’s responses and consistently pushing the boundaries of what is possible in terms of arms supplied to Kiev, as well as the choice of targets for them. From starting with anti-tank ‘Javelins,’ to eventually cajoling allies to send actual tanks, the US is now apparently pondering transferring F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles.

It is likely that this US strategy is based on the belief that the Russian leadership would not dare use nuclear weapons in the current conflict, and that its references to the nuclear arsenal at its disposal are nothing more than a bluff. The Americans have even been calm – at least outwardly about the deployment of Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus. Such “fearlessness” is a direct result of the geopolitical changes of the last three decades and the change of generations in power in the US and the West in general.

The fear of the atomic bomb, present in the second half of the twentieth century, has disappeared. Nuclear weapons have been taken out of the equation. The practical conclusion is clear: there is no need to be afraid of such a Russian response.

This is an extremely dangerous misconception. The trajectory of the Ukrainian war points to an escalation of the conflict both horizontally (by expanding the theater of military action) and vertically (by increasing the power of the weapons used and the intensity of their use). It must be soberly acknowledged that this momentum is heading towards a direct armed confrontation between Russia and NATO. If the accumulated inertia is not stopped, such a clash will take place, and in this case the war, having spread to Western Europe, will almost inevitably become nuclear. And after some time, a nuclear war in Europe will most likely lead to an exchange of blows between Russia and the US.

The Americans and their allies are truly playing Russian roulette. Yes, so far the Russian response to the bombing of Nord Stream, the drone attack on the strategic Engels airbase, the entry of Western-armed saboteurs into the Belgorod region and many other actions by the Washington-backed and controlled side has been relatively restrained.

As Putin recently made clear, there are good reasons for this restraint. Russia, the president said, is capable of destroying any building in Kiev, but will not stoop to the methods of terror used by the enemy. But Putin added that Russia was considering various options for destroying Western warplanes if they are based in NATO countries and directly take part in the war in Ukraine.

It could well be that the calculation just described would ultimately be correct. But it is unlikely.

Yes, a US nuclear strike on Russia would probably not follow immediately. It is unlikely that the Americans would sacrifice Boston for Poznan, just as they were not going to sacrifice Chicago for Hamburg during the Cold War. But there will probably be some sort of response from Washington. Perhaps of the non-atomic type, which, without speculating too wildly, could be sensitive and painful for us. It is likely that with it, Washington would try to pursue a goal similar to ours: paralyzing the Russian leadership’s will to continue the war and creating panic in our society.

Moscow’s leadership is unlikely to capitulate after such a blow, since, at this stage, Russia’s very existence would be at stake. It is more likely that a retaliatory strike would follow, and this time, one can assume, against the main adversary rather than its satellites.

Let us pause before this point of no return and summarize our analysis tentatively.

Should the nuclear bullet be demonstrably inserted into the cylinder of the revolver that the US leadership is recklessly playing with today? To paraphrase a late American statesman: Why do we need nuclear weapons if we refuse to use them in the face of an existential threat?

On the other hand, there is no need to scare others with words. Instead, we have to prepare practically for any possible turn of events by carefully considering the options and their consequences.

The war in Ukraine has become protracted. As far as we can tell from the actions of the Russian leadership, it expects to achieve strategic success by relying on Russian resources, which are many times greater than those in Ukraine. It also relies on the fact that Moscow has much more at stake in this war than the West. This calculation is probably correct, but it should be taken into account that the opponent assesses Russia’s chances differently than we do and may take steps which could lead to a direct armed clash between Russia and the US/NATO.

We must be prepared for such a development. To avoid a general catastrophe, it is necessary to put fear of armageddon back into politics and the public consciousness.

In the nuclear age, it is the only guarantee of preserving humanity.

This post was originally published by Russia in Global Affairs

Military Affairs

Moscow Ready for a Conflict with NATO

2 Comments

Strengthening the armed forces is one of Russia’s top priorities, President Vladimir Putin told a meeting with military academy graduates in Moscow on Wednesday. The nation’s military will evolve on the basis of the “priceless experience” provided by the ongoing military operation in Ukraine, as well as the modern challenges Russia is facing, he added.

Russia’s nuclear triad will continue to be a focus, Putin confirmed, adding that it remains “a key guarantee of Russia’s military security and global stability.”Around half of Russia’s strategic land-based missile units have already been equipped with state-of-the-art Yars missiles – some of Russia’s most modern nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, Putin revealed.

The troops also continue to receive the hypersonic Avangard gliders, the president said. Such systems are fitted on silo-based ICBMs. The military will also be further supplied with hypersonic anti-ship Zircon missiles, to be used by the Navy, as well as air-launched Kinzhal hypersonic missiles. New Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles are also about to enter combat duty, Putin added.

The modernization will not be limited to nuclear weapons only, the president explained. Heavy armor, air defense systems, and the production of drones will all be upgraded, he said. “We have yet to do much for a quality upgrade of all parts of our Armed Forces,” Putin said, adding that Russia “is delivering on those plans to the fullest.”

The Russian defense industries in particular are expected to “boost mass production” of drones and “robotized strike systems” that have “demonstrated good results in combat,” the president said. According to Putin, every Russian military unit down to a platoon should be equipped with such systems.

His words came a day after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow is potentially ready for a conflict with NATO if the military bloc decides to attack Russia. “Well, let them fight, we are ready for this,” he said.

Putin has described the conflict in Ukraine as a hybrid war between Russia and “the entire Western military machine.”

The statements came amid the continued Ukrainian offensive, which was launched earlier in June. The operation had been touted by Ukrainian and Western officials for several months but has so far failed to yield any major results. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, Kiev’s troops have suffered heavy casualties in their attacks on Russian positions. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg also described the Russian defense as “well prepared.”

via RT

Economics/Statistics

Consequences of Cheap Obesity-Inducing Junk Food in Britain

1 Comment

British five-year-olds who grew up in the era of austerity are shorter than their peers in other developed nations by as much as 7cm (2.76in), according to data from the Non-Communicable Diseases Risk Factor Collaboration published by The Times on Tuesday.

Since 1985, when British boys and girls both ranked 69 for average height at five years out of 200 listed countries, their ranking has plummeted dramatically – to 102 for boys and 96 for girls, putting them behind countries as diverse as Canada, Kyrgyzstan, and Cuba.

Comparing the numbers to data on 19-year-olds, Professor Tim Cole of University College London’s Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health suggested to The Times that growing up in the 2010s “period of austerity” was what “clobbered the height of children in the UK.” The height of British five-year-olds peaked in 2011 at 112.8cm (44.4in) and has been falling ever since, the statistics show.

Because height is affected not just by quality and quantity of food but also stress, poverty, illness, and even sleep quality, Cole argued it is a uniquely “sensitive” indicator of living conditions. “It’s quite clear we are falling behind, relative to Europe,” he said.

“In modern Britain, the way we eat is one of the clearest markers of inequality,”former UK government food adviser Henry Dimbleby told The Times, pointing out that “children in the poorest areas of England are both fatter and significantly shorter than those in the richest areas at age ten to eleven.”

Family doctors in low-income areas have reported an “extraordinary” surge in the kind of nutritional-deficiency-borne diseases prevalent during Victorian times, Dimbleby explained. According to NHS data, 700 children are admitted to English hospitals every year with rickets, scurvy, or other forms of malnutrition, while nutrition charity The Food Foundation has found higher rates of type 2 diabetes and dental decay as well as obesity in poorer children.

A diet of cheap junk food has the peculiar quality that it can make you simultaneously overweight and undernourished.

It is not just European countries like the Netherlands and Lithuania which outperform Britain. According to the study, China and North Korea both raise taller five-year-olds than the UK. Even five-year-olds in Libya – born and raised after the NATO bombing campaign that helped to overthrow their government and turn the country into a failed state – are taller (boys) or as tall (girls) compared to their British counterparts.

Austerity has been linked to a host of socioeconomic problems in the UK, from soaring inequality to declining educational achievement. While supporters argue the program enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis was necessary to rescue a floundering economy, critics have countered that the damage done outweighs any benefits.

Western Hegemony's Collapse

U.S. Admits Defeat In War On Russia And China

Leave a comment

via Moon of Alabama

Confronted with the realities of life the Biden administration has in the last days acknowledged defeat in two on its most egregious and delusional foreign policy games.

The Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed. Its army is getting slaughtered on the battlefield. The ‘counteroffensive’ of the ‘NATO trained’ Ukrainian brigades has made no real progress on any front. The high level of losses of men and material make it impossible that it will ever again regain the initiative.

The U.S. aim was to integrate the Ukraine into NATO. It would then have been able to station U.S. troops in Ukraine and to put its weapons into reach of Moscow so that any independent Russian move could be countered with a threat of imminent annihilation.

After more than 20 years of pursuing that aim the U.S. threw the towel:

President Biden on Saturday said he won’t make it easier for Ukraine to join NATO, adding that the country at war with Russia has to meet the requirements to be a member.“They got to meet the same standards. So, I’m not going to make it easier,” Biden told reporters. “I think they’ve done everything relating to demonstrating the ability to coordinate militarily, but there’s a whole issue of is their system secure? Is it noncorrupt? Does it meet all the standards … every other nation in NATO does.”

And yes, that is a change. A big one:

Biden has reportedly previously expressed that he is open to removing the Member Action Plan hurdle for Ukraine to join NATO, which requires countries that want to join the alliance make reforms militarily and democratically.

Still, it is not enough:

Biden has not said anything new. Biden senses that the US lost the proxy war but he must not and cannot admit it. So, in the absence of a time machine, which could have taken him all the way back to 1999 when the NATO’s expansion began unfolding, Biden simply walked back to the default position of the 2008 NATO Summit at Bucharest welcoming Ukraine into the alliance via the MAP route — as if that moment fifteen years ago is now the past and cannot be pulled back to the present. Russia is not going to accept it.

Though packaged in nice words the European Union gave Ukraine a similar negative outlook (machine translation):

An EU report on Ukraine’s membership bid states that Kiev has so far met two of the seven conditions required to start formal EU accession negotiations.
…
“There is progress. The report will be moderately positive. This is not about embellishing reality, but about recognizing progress, for example, there are well-known anti-corruption cases. In particular, in the case of the head of the Supreme Court Knyazev,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
…
“In terms of reforms, the glass would be half full, we would never take a negative tone towards Ukraine at the moment. Judicial reforms have made some progress, although there are still key ones that need to be carried out. Not everything is satisfactory.”

The much hyped counter-offensive has indeed become a death trap for the U.S. EU and NATO.

The other U.S. defeat was acknowledged by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at the end of his trip to Bejing:

The United States will not support Taiwan breaking away from China, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said, amid a series of confusing statements by Joe Biden on the issue.’We do not support Taiwan independence,’ America’s top diplomat said in Beijing after meeting with Chinese president Xi Jingping.

This was more than a verbal change in Blinken’s pronouncements:

The US State Department has updated its fact sheet on Taiwan again to reinstate a line about not supporting formal independence for the Chinese-claimed, democratically governed island.
…
“We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means,” according to the document, referring to the strait separating the island from the Asian mainland.Last month, the State Department changed its website on Taiwan, removing wording both on not supporting Taiwan independence and on acknowledging Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of China, which angered Beijing.

Blinken’s change of heart came after an extremely short meeting with President Xi which had followed a series of lectures by other high ranking Chinese officials:

Wang gave a comprehensive explanation of the historical logic and inevitable trend of China’s development and rejuvenation, and elaborated on the distinctive features of Chinese modernization and the rich substance of China’s whole-process people’s democracy.

He urged the U.S. side not to project onto China the assumption that a strong country is bound to seek hegemony and not to misjudge China with the beaten path of traditional Western powers. “This is key to whether the United States can truly return to an objective and rational policy toward China.”

Wang demanded that the United States stop playing up the so-called “China threat”, lift illegal unilateral sanctions against China, stop suppressing China’s scientific and technological advances, and do not wantonly interfere in China’s internal affairs.

He stressed that safeguarding national unity has always been the core of China’s core interests. It is where the future of the Chinese nation lies and the abiding historical mission of the CPC.

On the Taiwan question, China has no room for compromise or concession, Wang said.

The Chinese language readout of the Blinken-Wang meetings is reportedly even more scornful than its English translation.

The next step for China is to stop the provocative ‘innocent passage’ drive-bys by U.S. military ships and airplanes in the Taiwan Straits. To do that it simply has to apply the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

Article 38
Right of transit passage1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

A view on a map shows that this evidently applies to the strait between mainland China and the Chinese island named Taiwan.


bigger

If the U.S. really has a One China policy it will have to accept that the Strait is off limits.

This double whammy of defeat in its wars on Russia and China will take some time to stick.

In the Ukraine conflict there are still dreams of creating some kind of stalemate, of implementing some kind of a Korean cease-fire demarcation line on the 38th parallel:

U.S. officials are planning for the growing possibility that the Russia-Ukraine war will turn into a frozen conflict that lasts many years — perhaps decades — and joins the ranks of similar lengthy face-offs in the Korean peninsula, South Asia and beyond.The options discussed within the Biden administration for a long-term “freeze” include where to set potential lines that Ukraine and Russia would agree not to cross, but which would not have to be official borders. The discussions — while provisional — have taken place across various U.S. agencies and in the White House.

Russia wont have any of that. It will thoroughly defeat the Ukrainian army. It will retake the parts of Ukraine which for centuries had been Russian before the communists assigned those administratively to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

The rest of a then neutral Ukraine, cut off from the sea and the mineral riches of the east, will be handed over to the underling that Russia is willing to accept.

The double defeat in its wars against the ‘rest of the world’ marks the end of the Wolfowitz doctrine:

The doctrine announces the U.S.’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

The end of ‘unilateral moment’ is there for anyone to see.

The Republicans will of course loudly blame Biden for this even though they are just as guilty of overreach as the other side of the isle. Biden may well have to sacrifice Blinken as the pawn guilty of losing the game.

Anyway, neither will help him to get reelected.

It is, by the way, not just a coincident that Israel, on the same day of the U.S. admission of defeat, got whacked by fighters of the Palestinian resistance. This another of those U.S. sponsored global problems that China is eager to solve.

Cultural/Ideological Divide

Don’t Count on a Lasting Thaw Between the US and China

Leave a comment

by Timur Fomenko, a political analyst, via RT

Over the weekend, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made an official visit to China.

It’s the first trip by a senior US representative to the country since 2019, just as relations between the two powers began to fall off a cliff. Since then, the global geopolitical environment has deteriorated. Covid-19, the Ukraine conflict, the Taiwan crisis, you name it. The world has changed.

In Blinken’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart Qin Gang, there was little well-wishing, no forgiveness or self-reflection, only talk of “guardrails” and “lines of communication.” The idea is that the US, while pursuing aggression against China, at least wants to talk and make sure things don’t go “really wrong.”

Even the most optimistic view of ties between the two countries will note that little was achieved in this meeting, and things will certainly not change. The US will continue to sanction Chinese companies, sail warships in the Taiwan Strait, build new alliances around it, and force countries to accept more military bases. There was no commitment to stopping any of that.

However, for the time being, the US has softened its stance, or at least is pretending to do so. Beijing had refused any engagement with Washington since the start of this year, after an alleged Chinese “spy balloon” sent US officials into a frenzy and the original date of Blinken’s trip was postponed. Beijing sought to teach Washington a lesson by making a point that if hostility is the prevailing wisdom of the day, there isn’t much to be discussed.

The US has since been making peaceful overtures, but it’s not just because of China’s position. There is a sense that allied countries may also have “pushed back” against Washington for going too hard on Beijing, in a way which threatens their own fundamental interests. At the recent G7 summit, the US adopted the term “de-risking,” invented by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as a softer alternative to “decoupling” from China. Washington wants to reassure its allies it isn’t aiming to force Beijing out of the global economy, or divide the world into two distinct blocs.

In line with that, the US also made some small concessions. It is letting chip making firms in South Korea and Taiwan expand capacity in China, despite having vowed to coerce them into not doing so. US chipmaker Micron, recently subject to a ban on participating in Chinese infrastructure, will also build a new plant in the country, as well as a Swiss company. The US may have temporarily relented from its efforts to completely crush China’s semiconductor industry, judging that it wasn’t working, and was angering too many of its friends.

Will it last? Don’t bet on it. The US doesn’t do reconciliation. It does temporary reprieves, it does détente, it does strategic patience, but it never relents on its fundamental strategic goals, ever. The US still views China as its biggest geopolitical competitor, a rival to be contained and subjugated, and no amount of warm rhetoric or calls for a “constructive relationship” will ever change that. Even if US strategy is a failure, the US will continue to double down on that failure for a long time, just ask the Afghans how long it took for the Americans to give up and go home.

Consequently, if the US is reconciliatory now, it will only become hostile again when the time suits it. Of course, that isn’t too far away, because by the end of this year, the US election cycle starts again, and what is that election going to come down to? It’s going to be about who can shout the loudest on China, who can be the most hawkish, or the least soft. Despite Biden’s pursuit of being tough on Beijing, do you think those Republican contenders are going to give Joe a pat on the back and say “well done?” Definitely not. They’re going to deride him for “appeasing” Beijing and “betraying” America.

So what that means is that any so-called constructive engagement resulting from this meeting just won’t last. New sanctions will be on the way as the silly season of US hysteria, paranoia and frenzy is whipped up again and politicians play to the gallery. China’s foreign minister Qin Gang called for a constructive relationship, but to the US, a constructive relationship is just building more bases around China and, well… making sure nothing silly happens like an accidental war over Taiwan while Washington is still in the process of containing Beijing.

On the Road to Serfdom ?

USA and China: Détente?

Leave a comment

USA and China. The negotiations look like a breakthrough.

China has stated that it will not fight the US in the global space. China will respect US interests. And will not challenge these US interests. And will not try to replace the United States. That is, will it recognize the role of the United States as a global leader?

The US has stated that the US will not take steps to recognize Taiwan’s independence. And the US will not try to change China’s political system. If so, then the parties may have agreed that the United States remains the only global superpower.

And China will be sure that Taiwan is China and there will be no more friction between China and the United States over Taiwan. And China will not be under attack by the US in the sense of “color revolutions.”

If these statements reflect reality, this could be bad news for Russia.

And that could be good news for the global economy.

Xi said that humanity needs good relations between China and the United States, and the fate of mankind depends on these relations.