Even Israeli media is very clearly attributing achievement of the Gaza ceasefire deal to President-elect Donald Trump and his team. President Biden too at one point in an afternoon press conference hailing the deal acknowledged that he spoke as ‘one team’ with Trump on the Gaza deal. According to The Times of Israel:

A “tense” weekend meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and incoming Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff led to a breakthrough in the hostage negotiations, with the top aide to US President-elect Donald Trump doing more to sway the premier in a single sit-down than outgoing President Joe Biden did all year, two Arab officials told The Times of Israel on Tuesday.
Witkoff has been in Doha for the past week to take part in the hostage negotiations, as mediators try to secure a deal before Trump’s January 20 inauguration. On Saturday, Witkoff flew to Israel for a meeting with Netanyahu at the premier’s Jerusalem office.
During the meeting, Witkoff urged Netanyahu to accept key compromises necessary for an agreement, the two Arab officials on Monday told The Times of Israel on condition of anonymity. Neither Witkoff nor Netanyahu’s office responded to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, the uber genocider Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich said:

‘It seems as if everyone suddenly found out that you cannot defeat terrorist movements by fighting a war or eliminating them.
The only solution to secure Israel is settling in Gaza & expelling the inhabitants to Sinai or Jordan. But now, we have signed our defeat.’

While a High-ranking IDF Official, speaking on the condition of anonymity said:

‘This is an absolute disaster deal. For over a year, we resisted against a deal like this. It renders any progress we made in Gaza as useless and in vain. 
There is no mechanism to remove Hamas from power. According to this deal, the way it is structured now, Hamas will keep ruling the Gaza Strip. They will likely rearm and recruit more fighters than before. 
I tell you one word: Embarassment. We surrendered to the terrorists of Hamas.’ 

Congratulations to the sacrifices by one people, the Palestinians of Gaza, who died horrific deaths to save us all from the Specter of Beast.

Ed Note: If this piece of news proves to be accurate, this a very significant telltale about the real state of affairs as far as Russia’s standing up to the West. Every hopeful pundit in support of Russia is focused on counting the Ukrainian villages taken by the Russians, and already predicting the winner, but why would Serbia give in and throw in the towel after so many decades of sacrifice since the late 1980s? Is it because, in the grand bargain foreseen between Trump and Putin, the latter may have secured a win in Ukraine as a face-saving token, while retreating in all other spheres?

by Andrew Korybko via Korybko Substack

This could easily lead to a more profound pivot that undoes decades of strategic ties with Russia in just a few years.

Chief of the Serbian General Staff General Milan Mojsilovic explained his country’s military calculations in light of last summer’s multibillion-dollar Rafale warplane deal and Western sanctions against Russia in a recent interview with local media. According to him, the first was “primarily based on a tactical study” that allegedly concluded that this was the best option for ensuring his nation’s security needs, which entails “complex preparations” with France that informally amount to a pro-Western military pivot.

After answering the question about that deal, he was then asked about the effect that Western sanctions have had on military-technical cooperation with Moscow, to which he responded by revealing that “We terminated some contracts and postponed some” since “the delivery of weapons” from Russia “is practically impossible at the moment.” Paired with his previous answer, it becomes clear that Serbia’s pro-Western military pivot is being carried out under sanctions duress, not purely anti-Russian reasons.

To be sure, Serbia had already been leaning towards the West even before last summer’s multibillion-dollar deal as evidenced by it voting against Russia on Ukraine at the UNGA and reportedly even arming Kiev through indirect means, but Mojsilovic’s revelation of terminated and postponed military deals takes this to an altogether different level. Before discussing the potential consequences, the reader should review these background briefings about Serbia’s clumsy “balancing act”:

Read more here

via Financial Times

Excerpt
Russian President Vladimir Putin conveys that he believes he has time to compel Ukraine’s western allies to accommodate his demands. However, the reality of Russia’s war economy is precarious, with concerns voiced by prominent figures like Sergei Chemezov of Rostec and central bank head Elvira Nabiullina regarding the impact of expensive credit on their operations. 

Russia is utilizing a mix of borrowing, inflation, and expropriation to fund the war, but this strategy is revealing inherent flaws as corporate debt surges and public finances remain concealed. A recent report indicates that corporate debt has increased by 71% since 2022, with state-controlled banks providing credit at below-market rates, essentially resulting in hidden money printing.

Putin is avoiding a significant budget deficit while managing high inflation through controlled interest rates. Yet, this approach risks creating a credit crisis as borrowing costs soar. The Kremlin must maintain stability to prevent a loss of legitimacy, which could occur if banks collapse or deposits lose value.

Ultimately, Putin does not have time on his side, as he faces a financial crisis. The West’s sanctions, which block access to $300 billion in reserves and disrupt oil trade, are crucial in limiting Russia’s resources. Intensifying these sanctions and transferring reserves to Ukraine would further strain Russia’s economy. The West must ensure that Putin understands that any relief from sanctions is not forthcoming, forcing him to choose between continuing the war and maintaining his power domestically.

Read more  Financial Times

By John Helmer, Moscow  via Helmer

Excerpt

In a single line expressed through a reporter, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov explained the defeat in Syria as a tactical withdrawal in preparation for a “military conflict with NATO in the next 10 years.” He emphasized that Russia currently needs solutions to ensure at least a long-term balance in the global confrontation. This statement appeared in the Kremlin-funded security analysis platform Vzglyad on January 3, with no mention of Syria. To highlight its significance, Vzglyad added an editorial note in italics: “In a prolonged confrontation with the West, it is essential to skillfully combine economic and military strategies. Judging by the initial results of economist Belousov’s activities as Minister of Defense, this is precisely what we observe.”

A political source in Moscow concurs: “Russia has to confront all of NATO head-on within the next ten years. If a deal can be made now to buy some time for rearmament, that’s a strategic choice that will have to be made.”

However, not all military sources in Moscow agree. Some believe that during discussions in October and November, when President Vladimir Putin listened to arguments from the General Staff and the Foreign Ministry against the Turkish plan to break out of Idlib and capture Damascus, the Kremlin underestimated the message that Russia’s acquiescence would send to the US and NATO allies. “Anyone now thinking Russia can be counted on as an ally,” comments one source, “is mistaken.”

These sources believe that the pressure on Putin to make fresh concessions in Ukraine will intensify. “The US and NATO used the time we conceded in Minsk to prepare for a war we weren’t as prepared to fight as they were in February 2022. Delay was our mistake. They want time now to rearm the Kiev regime for the next round. Our aim should be capitulation in Kiev and no future for the enemy. For us, that’s the strategy.”

In support of the Kremlin’s refusal to defend Syria and the government of Bashar al-Assad, the Kremlin’s supporters among Anglo-American podcasters have become experts on Arab, Syrian, and Iranian politics; one of them has even relocated to Beirut.

An independent timeline of events produced by French analyst Thierry Meyssan omits analysis of Russian actions but confirms that President Assad flew to Moscow on November 29. This was a secret kept by the Kremlin and the Russian press. “On November 30, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad went to Russia—not to attend his son Hafez’s exam at Moscow University, where he is continuing his studies, but to call for help. The Russian forces in Syria could only bomb the jihadists’ convoys because their capabilities were limited to aerial operations. Therefore, they tried to block the roads to HTS [Hayat Tahrir al-Sham] and Turkey but could not intervene on the ground against them. Aleppo was truly lost.”

An eyewitness, Kamel Saqr, provided a detailed account of what happened, in what sequence, and with what implications. Saqr is exceptional because he was present as a senior member of Assad’s staff at the secret meeting between Assad and Putin in Moscow on November 29. He listened to Putin’s telephone call with General Valery Gerasimov during the meeting and continued negotiating with Putin’s subordinates through the evening of November 29 and the morning of November 30, before Assad and his staff left Moscow at 4 p.m. that day.

Nothing comparable to this account has appeared in public from any other credible source. Saqr’s interpretation of what he calls “the state of disavowal” is disputable; the facts, however, are less so. Saqr states that Assad directly told him that when he was at his Moscow residence in the Four Seasons Hotel, Putin had sent him a message to keep the visit a secret, canceling Saqr’s negotiations with the Kremlin press office on a joint communiqué for public release.

Furthermore, according to Saqr, Putin’s message to Assad was that “the [Russian] military was not in a position to wage war, either psychologically or logistically.” In retrospect, Saqr interprets Putin as having decided, before the fall of Aleppo to the Turkish-led forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) on December 2, not to prevent their southward advance toward Damascus and to reject accepting Iranian reinforcements through the Khmeimim airbase. From Saqr’s record of the last meetings in Damascus between Assad and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi on December 5-6, he admits he does not know how coordinated the Russian and Iranian decision-making had been, or for how long. During that week, Saqr reports that Assad tried to contact Putin on December 3, 4, and 5, and on each occasion, Putin reportedly refused to answer. Assad then reached out to the French, asking them to inform Putin that he was trying to make contact. The French replied after several hours, stating that Putin was visiting Belarus “and therefore cannot talk to you.”

This was false. The Kremlin record shows that Putin was in Moscow on all three days.

On the evening of December 3, after Saqr claims Assad’s call had been rejected, Putin spoke by telephone with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had initiated the call. In their discussion, according to the Kremlin release, Putin asked Erdogan to “stop the radical groups’ terrorist aggression against the Syrian state and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate authorities’ efforts to restore stability and constitutional order across the country, including using Ankara’s capabilities in the region.” Erdogan reportedly agreed on “strengthening cooperation both bilaterally and within the framework of the Astana process, emphasizing the key importance of further close coordination between Russia, Turkey, and Iran to normalize the situation in Syria.”

Erdogan’s claims were misleading. According to Saqr’s account of what Assad had been told by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mohammed al-Sudani, Erdogan had declared that the time for mediation was over.

Putin remained in Moscow to meet with the Security Council on December 5, without any acknowledgment in the communiqué that the situation in Syria was discussed. Putin then flew to Minsk on the afternoon of December 6 and continued meetings there the following day. The Kremlin record of his movements and meetings is then silent until December 9 when Putin returned to Moscow. So did Assad.

Saqr adds that the Russian military attaché in Damascus, Rear Admiral Oleg Kornienko, met with Assad at his residence “in the last hours of his rule,” on December 7-8. They appear to have discussed arrangements for Assad’s evacuation from Khmeimim and the terms of his asylum in Russia. Saqr’s publication is politically significant because his interpretation of Russian actions, particularly Putin’s decision-making, was broadcast on January 7 by the Saudi Arabian state-owned media platform, Al Arabiya.

Syria’s former media chief and top aide to Bashar al-Assad claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have “tricked” the ousted Syrian president in his final days as leader. Speaking to Mazeej Studios, a podcast produced by the Saudi channel Al Arabiya, Kamel Saqr stated that Assad was in Moscow in late November, just over a week before Syrian rebels captured Damascus. By that time, the rebels had already captured much of Aleppo.

There, Saqr said, Assad asked for Putin’s support in helping Iran transport equipment and support to strengthen his government’s positions against the opposition. “Bashar al-Assad’s request to Putin was for him to personally handle securing the aerial transportation necessary to deliver military aid to support or stop the advance of the Syrian opposition,” Saqr stated. This request came as Iran reduced its forces and militias’ presence in Syria, and Hezbollah suffered heavy losses in its battles against Israel in Lebanon. Saqr believes neither Russia nor Iran wanted to intervene heavily in this battle, but Assad informed him that Putin had instructed his chief of staff [General Valery Gerasimov] to prepare to support any transport needed for Iran at Russia’s Khmeimim base in Latakia.

“But what happened was that the Iranians told Bashar al-Assad, ‘We did not receive any signals to proceed with moving Iranian aircraft to the Khmeimim base [or to] fly through Iraqi airspace to land there,’” Saqr told Mazeej. “The question was relayed to Moscow, but no answer came.” When asked whether this was a “trick by Putin,” Saqr remarked that there was “no other explanation.”

Regardless, Saqr said the Iranians informed Assad that they had sent a plane through Iraq but were warned by the US that the aircraft would be shot down if it continued. Saqr claims Putin did not answer any of Assad’s calls between December 3-5, before his fall, and that despite having planned a 400-word speech addressing the situation, the former Syrian president ultimately decided against speaking to the public.

As rebel forces neared Damascus, Assad spoke to his media office for the last time on December 7, discussing a military meeting at the Khmeimim base between him and the Russians. Saqr believes Assad left “from Damascus airport via a private plane, taking the southern bypass road and then the airport road to reach the airport.”

Saqr added, “My information suggests that he stayed at the base for several hours until the plane was secured, prepared, and its takeoff and flight to Moscow were ensured.”

What were the Iranians thinking and doing in parallel? An audio recording, purportedly of a speech given by Brigadier General Behrouz Esbati of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at a Tehran mosque on December 31, surfaced in Iranian media a week later. Excerpts of the speech, though not a full authenticated recording or transcript, have been highlighted in interpretations by the New York Times and the Israeli press, alongside anti-Russian commentaries from Kiev to Washington.

In the brief excerpt reported by Abdi Media, Esbati criticized Russian policy in Syria: “Russia was one of the factors that led to the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. Russia turned off all radar systems so that Israel could strike the intelligence headquarters of Shahid Sadiq. The Russians were bombing the deserts instead of targeting the headquarters of Tahrir al-Sham [HTS].”

Longer excerpts of Esbati’s speech have been covered by the New York Times. In that report, “tensions surrounding these competing views on Syria preoccupied officials enough that they embarked on a campaign of damage control with the public last week. Senior military commanders and pundits close to the government held speeches and question-and-answer sessions with audiences in mosques and community centers in several cities…[Esbati] is a top commander of Iran’s Armed Forces, which includes the military and the Revolutionary Guards Corps, and has held prominent roles including commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces’ cyber division. In Syria, he supervised Iran’s military operations and coordinated closely with Syrian ministers and defense officials, outranking even the commander-in-chief of the Quds Forces, Gen. Ismail Ghaani, who oversees the network of regional militias backed by Iran.”

The following is a verbatim excerpt from the Times report.

General Esbati’s speech, on December 31 at the Valiasr mosque in central Tehran, addressed the rank and file of the military and constituents of the mosque, according to a public notice of the event titled “Answering Questions about Syria’s Collapse.” The session began with General Esbati telling the crowd that he left Syria on the last military plane to Tehran the night before Damascus fell to rebels. It concluded with him responding to questions from audience members. He offered a sobering assessment of Iran’s military capability in fighting Israel and the United States.

For the time being, Moscow analysts with military and intelligence sources who will not have overlooked Saqr’s and Esbati’s testimonies are not acknowledging them. Instead, Vzglyad has published a disclaimer regarding the Russian Army’s readiness under former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the time and priority tasks required by his successor, Andrei Belousov. The following text is a verbatim translation into English, with added illustrations and captions to assist English readers in understanding the Russian references.

For the full article click here.

Ed. Note: Is this the first escalatory move towards naval blockade of Russia? Under the pretext of protecting the undersea cables are we now witnessing the militarization of the Baltic Sea?

via ZeroHedge

NATO is strengthening its military presence in the Baltic Sea in response to the Christmas Day severing of the Estlink 2 electricity cable and four telecom cables linking Finland and Estonia.

A month prior to that incident, in November, two other submarine telecommunication cables, the BCS East-West Interlink and C-Lion1 fiber-optic cables, were damaged. 

Soon after the alleged sabotage the West charged that a Russian ‘shadow ship’ intentionally dragged its anchor on the sea bed in order to damage the vital telecoms links. The vessel in Finnish custody is the Cook Islands-flagged Eagle S.

European media reported that as of days ago the initial cables which were damaged connecting Estonia and Finland have been repaired. However, another damaged cable, reportedly sabotaged later in December could yet to months more to be up and running.

“Estlink 2, the power cable damaged on December 25, has not yet been repaired, with work expected to take several months, according to Finnish operator Fingrid and Elering of Estonia,” DW reports.

On Friday Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen announced that the NATO military alliance is sending “two vessels and we are also increasing other activities and presence in the area.”

At the start of this week the the British-led Joint Expeditionary Force had announced it would be ramping up its surveillance of undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea.

“Finland has long been concerned about the risks to environmental and maritime safety posed by the shadow fleet used by Russia,” Valtonen said Friday. “It is clear that the shadow fleet is also a threat to critical underwater infrastructure.”

European authorities are still investigating the matter and questioning the crew. There have been reports that the anchor has been recovered from the bottom of the ocean floor.

The West has loudly condemned what it’s calling Russia’s ‘hybrid warfare’ targeting key infrastructure in European telecoms. However, officials also still speak in terms of ‘assumptions’…

Germany’s defense minister was quick to announce that “no one believes that these cables were cut accidentally,” hammering the point home by adding that “we have to assume … it is sabotage.”

The Kremlin has of course denied all of these allegations and has condemned what it calls a Russophobic witch hunt which blames any and all Western infrastructure failure on Moscow.

The seas of northern Europe have been closely watched ever since the biggest single sabotage event of the Ukraine war – the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. In the case of Nord Stream, the latest consensus is that it was not Russia… but either the CIA or Ukraine.

by Claudiu Secara

Interesting to read the reaction from Russian pundits close to the Kremlin in connection with the Trump Neo-neocons’ outrageous expansionist land-grab designs. 

One would expect the Russians to be on high alert for many reasons. Besides the purely economic threat of grabbing important natural resources for nothing, and the immoral act of snatching Greenland from a 1000-year history of being discovered, populated and developed by the European peoples of Denmark, such a demand by Trump would amount to another modern-day settler annexation of other people’s property, just what Israel is now openly pursuing in its own sphere.

But there is another dimension to this kind of appropriation of historical property rights. And that is the military value of Greenland. Yes, people like Sergey Markov are more afraid of China than of the US. The Chinese never had a history of expansionism, unlike Russia and the Anglo-Saxons – as the Russian like to recall. So, are we now seeing the first signs of Russia’s traditional turncoat policy of betraying its allies, as it recently  did when Russia threw Assad under the bus after he’d been a loyal friend in difficult times?

Where is Markov‘s outrage? Instead of reviling this proposition, he would be happy with getting back a rump, utterly destroyed Ukraine, a short-term gain in exchange for a long-term super Russia’s vulnerability only in order to hurt China a bit. Obviously, Greenland’s military significance is enormous first of all against Russia itself as a monitoring station targeting all of Russia’s commercial shipping and its navy, especially its submarine fleet. If this goes forward, all three of Russia’s exits to the Atlantic Ocean are vulnerable and could be shut on short notice. The Bosphorus Strait, the Baltic ports, and now the Northern routes. Russia is obviously surrounded, with no further recourse.

Greenland’s takeover alone should tell Russia that Trump is more dangerous than any attack through Ukraine perpetrated by the Biden administration. But, no, there is a nefarious idea that it is China that is bad. And why is that? Because China is smart, and strong, and unbeatable.

Trump and Greenland (by Markov)

Trump and Greenland. The world is in an uproar. Russia can support Trump’s intentions. They are reasonable. Trump, in his style, sets a tough goal – to annex Greenland to the United States. But Trump’s actual goal is different. It is to prevent China from establishing control over Greenland by taking advantage of Europe’s political and economic weakness.
Eventually, they will come to this model: Denmark will sign an agreement with the United States on cooperation in Greenland. According to it, the United States will establish a military base in Greenland, extract natural resources there, and ensure that the Chinese are not in Greenland. Rational goals. The United States has the right to participate in controlling its strategically important environment.
Russia also has the right to demand that Ukraine, as Russia’s neighbor, not have the right to be a member of NATO.
And China has the right to demand that there be no foreign military bases in neighboring countries.

Trump and the Panama Canal (by Markov)

Trump and the Panama Canal. And here Trump’s demands are reasonable. Trump does not want to allow China to take control of this most important canal for the US economy. It is through this canal that the coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico are connected. And there together 80% of the US economy.
And Trump also wants that US ships not be charged too high duties. And this is also reasonable. After all, the US built this canal.
But Russia can recognize the reasonableness of these demands only after the US gets out of Ukraine. The US must leave there and surrender its neo-fascist puppet junta at the feet of Russia.
Only after that can Russia recognize anything from the US. Until that moment, “Yankee, go home” should be heard from Russia every day and for any reason. The junta at the feet of Russia!

by Claudiu Secara

Let’s face it, the idea that Russia by itself can confront the West and win is not borne out by a realistic analysis. Let’s start with the population. Russia, as a country of 146 million people, is dwarfed by the 450 million European population. Furthermore, the actual ethnic Russians are only 103 million. The rest are very much restless subgroups. The Tatars are the second, with just about 3 percent, but the remainder is divided among dozens of ethnic groups, mostly of ambivalent loyalty. Now, the actual Russian population is also fractured between the nationalists, even some ultra nationalists, and a substantial percentage of philo-Westerners. A back of the envelope calculation shows that the big, supposedly domineering Russia is actually on a par with Germany. Yes, there are some 80 million Germans, just about the same as 80 million Russian nationalists.

And that is not even counting France and the UK, or any of the non-core European nations, like Poland.

Then, there is the economic power comparison. We learned that Russia is the Number One economy in Europe on a PPP basis, that is under 7 trillion dollars in 2024. Maybe. On the basis of its energy resources and vast natural resources, it is an equal match with Germany, let’s say. But then, the question is: are we comparing Russia to Germany ($6.5 trillion on the basis of PPP), or France, or are we looking at the rivalry between Russia’s nominal $2.182 trillion GDP vs. EU’s nominal $19.5 trillion GDP?

Let’s add to that the US economy, at $29 trillion, and you get the picture. Roughly speaking, it’s 2 trillion against 50 trillion, more or less, for the Transatlantic alliance. A weak hand. A very weak hand.

But that is not all. On top of that, there are some 52 countries which are directly allied with the West, from Japan to Australia. We don’t need to add their GDP to understand where the balance of power is, here.

Still, Russia could not be defeated and it would probably never be defeated militarily, on its own front. But the confrontation is not really military. So far, the West is only probing the Russian defenses without actually engaging in a shooting war with Russia. In that sense, Russia is able to claim victory by just standing its ground.

Now, we’re seeing the start of the next level of the economic war against Russia. All Russia’s international ties to the West are severed. All its exports of oil and gas are being cut. A full-spectrum embargo is being put in place. Yes, Russia can still defend itself. And it can still live under minimum interactions with the West, but at a very severe cost to its progress and its population in the long run. Just the same as happened to the Soviet Union.

So, where are we? Is Russia’s defeat a given?

Enter China.

Now, that’s the big gorilla waiting outside of the fighting ring. At 1.4 billion, China’s population dwarfs the entire population of the West, Europe and the US with all its Anglophone sphere combined. Its GDP, nominally at $18 trillion, is less than half of the EU and the US in dollar terms. But, in this case, the real PPP comparison is meaningful because on those terms, China’s GDP is on a different planet. At 37 trillion, according to reliable sources such as https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-worlds-20-largest-economies-by-gdp-ppp/, it is a good match for the entire sclerotic West.

So, now we can really compare apples to apples. An ultra dynamic economy, with a super-motivated work force, endless cohorts of educated engineering talent, and organized top-down in order to mobilize all national resources, China is quietly blazing ahead. Unlike the Russians, who are mostly provincial, traditionalist, uncouth country bumpkins — a semi-shamanistic society (with a population that spent more on fortune-tellers last year than on food) — China has penetrated every corner of the West. China’s diaspora is found in every walk of life in the Western societies. From Chinese restaurants in every hamlet to high-tech professionals in big companies, research universities and R&D positions at every level, the Chinese have acquired a deep understanding of the average American and they know how the Western economy and its political structure function. There are 60 million Chinese in this diaspora alone, which is equal to the entire population of the UK or France.

There are many ways to look at the US vs. China and highlight points of weakness. The national debt is one. The US accumulates roughly 8 trillion dollars extra debt every 4 years and at a rate that is still growing. It has reached the point where the interest payments alone, $1 trillion in 2024, are higher than the military expenditures. China’s debt? It is almost impossible to get a real number from the Western media. And that’s because it is always mixed with local government debt, corporate debt, other liabilities, etc. Strictly, China’s federal government debt at the end of 2023 was $4.2 trillion. Compare that to $35 trillion debt by the US federal government at the end of 2023. You get the picture!

So where is China vis-à-vis Russia’s confrontation with the West? Does it prefer a stronger Russia or a weaker Russia? In terms of the geopolitics and national interests, China should prefer a weaker Russia, unable to fight on its western borders and defend its vastly underdeveloped eastern territories.

While the West aims to diminish Russia, even to partition it, probably China does too. Given, of course, that Russia is not totally taken over and made into a Western colony. But China can partake in exploring Eastern Siberia, thank you very much.

In this scenario, one can envision the next-level confrontation between the Talmudic West and China taking place over the remains of a wounded Russia. And only then to be followed by the inevitable one-on-one between the West and China.