After Chimerica And EuRussia

The EU are already slaves of the Amerikastani Empire. The increasingly fashionable idea that the Amerikastani Empire wants to break up the EU is ridiculous. The end of the EU would free the economic hands of countries which might then want to mend relations with Russia. Now they’re enslaved and Amerikastan owns the slaveowners.

Despite having repeatedly reiterated that Russia is its own civilisation different from so-called “Western civilisation” which is liberal/terrorist Ziocorporate financial mercantilism, leaning towards Ziocorporate singularity on a global scale, Putin has been as complacent with the West as Medvedev, as can be seen in these UNSC anti-Iran sanctions when Putin was president in 2007:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2007/03/213372-security-council-tightens-sanctions-against-iran-over-uranium-enrichment

That one has to wonder when “complacent” became complicit. But Ziocorporate establishment institutions and media would have us remember the Holohoax rather than actual history, because, then, business like Nordstream2 can go ahead even under circumstances like the EUkraine shitshow.

Then again, modern China isn’t simply the result of Mao’s and the CCP’s genius, there were lots of investment, tech transfers and trade schemes with the Western Ziocorporate terrorists involved.

The corporatised mass-surveillance state is in place everywhere, its consolidation being greatly smoothed by plandemic terrorism; is there a clear US/EU/NATO vs Russia/China break on that issue? Certainly not so far, and until the day business is not as usual in any of the senses it’s been since WW2.

We are only one global shock away from seeing how socioeconomically senile Europe and US are. Covid-19 is already showing the world where the rot is as the so called “developed countries” watch helpless citizens die or fall into poverty. Even after coordinating with their vassals to deflate economies to hide US decline, it is open to all that the US economy is still not doing well.

They are not the historical contingencies that define a nation, a union of great population like China or Russia is better definitive from their long stories, so long to have forged a soul, that way of being together and to confront the rest of the world , which always comes out in the moments of difficulty and always allows a rebirth. The United States and the EU do not have a soul, their peoples have always been divided and conflicted, to resolve conflicts, irredimizable within them, they are always inevitably facing criminally outward way, this is the history of empires Colonials. When President Putin in Munich in 2007 he recited his famous speech, he clarified that the state of things would be terminated, since then the colonial empires have begun to down, what we see today is exactly as President Putin had declared, and is always going faster, and without any chance to return to the past.

“The future course of global politics still chiefly depends on choices made in Washington, it remains to be seen whether the resistance their policies have provoked will actually lead to genuine and lasting moderation and recognition of equal status of other major international actors.”

lmao saved myself a lot of reading time by reading the last sentence first.

a very good article, very well done! I will put it in my bookmarks and forward around.

Heidegger observed it was not “Russianism that would destroy western Europe but Americanism—” he described amerikanism as “putrefaction”….amerikans have coca-colonized the feudal autocracies of Denmark, Germany, France, UK, etc “world domination manifests itself as an intellectual or if you prefer a cultural diktat. this is why the amerikans have so zealously tried to bring down the intellectual and cultural common denominator of the entire world down to their own level. try to convince an amerikan that their values (they have none) will destroy Russia–you will be unable”. Alexandr Zinoviev

Long story short…KICK THE TEETH IN of the anglo-jewish cardboard”empire” and NUKE ALL the anglo-saxon paedophilic,perverse&pervert , capitalist-fascist white sacks of s*** along with israHell and the World will turn like magic in PARADISE! Otherwise this 2 SCUM races will delete us! What u prefere? I do certainly choose the first option and i CANNOT WAIT to have the option delete any scum low anglo-saxon lifes myself in one of the dirty infected anglo-saxon hubs I’m living in! Amen!

When people’s everywhere are at liberty to pursue their comparative advantage in free and open trade relations with floating currencies, in a state of international peace, the greatest good is achieved.

The greatest waste of talent, life, resources, and emotions is war. The costs of maintaining the various national war machines referred to in this article are enormous. If those machines are ever put in gear against each other the costs will be incalculable.

John Lenin’s song “Imagine”, is worth revisiting.

He says Imagine no religion. This is of course unrealistic. The world is a web of incompatible cultures and only if tolerance becomes the number one universal value can the human race free itself from militant nationalism.

You forget America’s enslavement to Israel, the originators of genocide and bigotry.

I SAID IT OVER A DECADE AGO….in these same DISQUS platform….RUSSIA SHOULD ABANDON ANY NOTIONS of “being part of europe or the west …it s NATURAL future …and PAST and reality…is to the EAST”>…

the so called “unipolar world order …and rules-based international system” is NOTHIN MORE THAN ANGLO-MERIKAN delusion (albeit with more than 200 years of practice…everyone knows about)….

the ANCIENT PERSIANS CHINESE ARABS…RUSSIANS JAPANESE..INDIANS…DID NOT initiate THAT idea…THE ANGLOS from a small island DID…that ought to be clear by now…

HERE THEY GO …AGAIN………CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE…..

BRITS PUSH WAR WAR AGAINST RUSSIA… by Finian Cunningham 241055 Subscribe The United States backed off sending two warships to the Black Sea last week after Russia warned of a naval showdown. Days later, however, Britain is reportedly stepping in with plans to send warships.

Talk about “Mad Dogs and Englishmen”, the proposed British military intervention is a reckless provocation in a situation that is already spiralling out of control.

Violence is exploding in Ukraine’s seven-year civil war between the NATO-backed Kiev regime and ethnic Russians in the eastern Donbas region; Russia has mobilized its army for defence drills, and the US and European Union are expelling Russian diplomats, and vice versa.

Then the British announce they are sending warships to the Black Sea in the coming weeks to “defend” Ukraine against alleged Russian aggression, according to media reports.

Moscow has declared it is going to close off parts of the Black Sea in Russia’s territorial waters to foreign shipping as part of defensive measures. This includes the sea around Crimea, the peninsula which joined the Russian Federation after a referendum in March 2014.

Since the US, Britain, and EU refuse to recognize Crimea as legitimate Russian territory – always referring to it as “annexed” by Russia from Ukraine – it is possible that British warships will try to ignore Moscow’s naval restrictions in the Black Sea. If an incursion occurs, it could spark a military confrontation between Russia and NATO-member Britain. Then in that case all bets are off for a wider war between nuclear powers.

The folly evokes the Charge of the Light Brigade when British cavalry was slaughtered during the 1853-56 Crimean War fighting against Russia.

The USS Destroyer Donald Cook is seen at the Constanta shipyard in the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta, on April 14, 2014 © AFP 2021 / PETRUT CALINESCU US Reportedly Dropped Plans to Send Warships to Black Sea Amid ‘Concerns’ About Russia’s Reaction The utter madness of it is highlighted by the social crisis unfolding in Britain from the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of people are out of work, the economy has tanked and the public health service is overwhelmed from over-worked and under-paid staff. The buffoonish prime minister Boris Johnson and his sleazy Tory government – scandalized by corruption and cronyism – are planning to slash £30 billion ($40 billion) from the National Health Service.

And yet in the midst of this social disaster, the British rulers are prioritizing the dispatch of warships “to confront” Russia in the Black Sea. The criminal recklessness of it is astounding. Of course, part to the logic is to distract public anger with an overseas adventure, in a time-honoured British imperialist fashion.

But there is also the effort by the British elite to promote “Global Britain” in the era of Brexit. That is, to revamp Britain’s image as a global power by conjuring notions of “Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Waves”. There’s nothing like a bit of swashbuckling and sabre-rattling to burnish British national pride and advertise Britain as a relevant global player.

The corrupt and inept British rulers are exploiting the conflict in the Ukraine and tensions with Russia as a vanity opportunity to project British “Greatness”.

In a recent foreign policy review, the British government labelled Russia as “an acute threat”. And it made all sorts of bravado statements about “deterring” Russia’s “hostility”. Moscow slammed the British depictions as baseless slander, demonizing Russia without any foundation.

Britain has already sent naval forces to “support” the Kiev regime and recently deployed SAS commando units to back the Ukrainian army in its fight against ethnic Russians defending their Donbas territory.

It is also indicative of British dirty tricks that the latest claims by the Czech Republic of Russian malign conduct were prompted by an investigation by Bellingcat, the supposed private media group. Bellingcat (or rather more appropriately “Smellingrat”) is a front for British MI6 military intelligence. The Brits are claiming that the alleged Russian operatives were the same men who were allegedly involved in poisoning Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, England, in 2018.

The tenuous accusations against Russia, which Moscow has condemned as a “dirty fabrication”, have led to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the Czech Republic and calls for more expulsions across the European Union. The tit-for-tat sanctions on diplomats is provoking tensions that already are inflamed over Ukraine.

Britain’s foreign minister Dominic Raab said: “The UK stands in full support of our Czech allies, who have exposed the lengths that the GRU [Russian military intelligence] will go to in their attempts to conduct dangerous and malign operations – and highlights a disturbing pattern of behaviour following the attack in Salisbury.”

The British are past masters in the black arts of disinformation and psychological warfare. Doubtless, the British ruling class sees an opportune way to advance British interests in today’s economically challenging climate – especially post-Brexit and with the pandemic raging – by posturing as a “defender of democracy” against “evil Russia”.

It’s a cynical morality play that the British establishment is expert at. But their cynicism – as seen in sowing two world wars – is once again endangering global security and peace.

The Biggest Threat To US Hegemony: China, Russia, Or Debt? Tyler Durden’s Photo BY TYLER DURDEN TUESDAY, APR 20, 2021 – 10:45 PM Via The Mises Institute,

Now that the Biden administration has settled in, it is time to reassess American policy towards Russia, China and the wider Asian scene. Is it going to be a continuation of the Trump administration’s policies, or is there something new going on? Given the continued tenure of staffers at the Pentagon from before the Trump presidency, it seems unlikely there will be much in the way of détente: it is game-on for the cold war to continue.

Before delving into geopolitics, we must be careful to define a neutral position from which to observe developments. You cannot be objective in these matters if you justify an uninvited invasion of a foreign territory to take out a proclaimed public enemy, as America did with Osama Bin Laden and then condemn Russia for attempting to murder an ex-KGB officer living in Salisbury, or for that matter the dismembering of a journalist in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey. You must be aware that it is an established part of what Kipling called The Great Game, and always has been.

Acts of this type are the product of states and their agents acting above any laws and are therefore permitted to ignore them. We must dismiss from our minds the concept that there are good and bad guys—when it comes to foreign operations, they all behave the same way. We must dismiss nationalistic justifications. Nor can we believe propaganda from any state when it comes to geopolitics, and particularly in a cold war. Know that our news is carefully managed for us. As far as possible we must work from facts and use reasoned deduction.

We are now equipped to ask an important question: the US status quo, with its dollar hegemony is seen by the new Biden administration as an unchallengeable right, and its position as the world’s hegemon is vital for … what? The benefit of the world, or the benefit of the US at the world’s expense? To answer this, we must consider it from the point of view of the US military and intelligence complex.

The problem facing us is that the Pentagon became fully institutionalized in managing America’s external security following the second world war. When the Soviets extended their sphere of influence into the three great undeveloped continents, Asia, Africa and South America, there was a case for defending capitalism and freedom—or at least freedom in an American sense by keeping minor nations on side. This was done by fair means and often foul for expediency’s sake.

But the fall of the Berlin Wall and the death of Mao Zedong made the American military and intelligence functions largely superfluous, other than matters more directly related to national defense. But it is in the nature of government departments and their private sector contractors to do everything in their power to retain both influence and budgets, and the argument that new threats will arise is always hard for politicians to resist. And what do the statists in a government department do when they have secured their survival? Their retention of power without real purpose descends into alternative military objectives. And from the first Bush president, they were all firmly on-message.

President Trump was the first president for some time not to start military engagements abroad. His attempts to wind down foreign operations were strongly resisted by defence and intelligence services. And his efforts to obtain a détente with North Korea were met with disdain—even horror at Langley.

Whatever the truth in these matters, it is highly unlikely that the power conferred by the ability to initiate unchallengeable cover-ups, information management, subversion of foreign states and secret intelligence operations is not abused. The proliferation and traction of conspiracy theories, attributed in their origin to Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation, is a consequence of one’s own government continually bending the truth to the point where large sections of the population begin to believe it is its own government’s propaganda.

This brings us to the change in administration. As a senator, Biden had interests in foreign affairs dating back to the late 1970s and was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1997 and subsequently became its chairman. As such a long-standing politician in this field it is almost certain that the Pentagon establishment regards Biden as a safe pair of hands; in other words, a president who is likely to support Langley’s role in setting geopolitical and defence priorities. Surely, for them this is a welcome change from the off-message President Trump.

Policies to Contain the Russian Threat Despite the Navalny affair, Putin is still unchallengeable as Russian leader, having emerged from the post-Soviet turmoil where chaos and organised crime were the order of the day. No western leader has had such a tough political background and Putin is a survivor, a strongman firmly in control. This matters for America and NATO with respect to policies in Ukraine, the Caucasus, Syria, Iran and Turkey. Any attempt by America to complete unfinished business in Ukraine (a triparty scrap involving Russia, Germany/EU and the US over the Nord Stream pipelines depriving Ukraine of transition revenues is already brewing) is likely to lead to confrontations with Russia on the ground. And Russia signed a military cooperation pact with Iran in 2015. Like a cat with a mouse, Putin is playing with Turkey, interested in laying pipelines to southern Europe, and getting it to drift out of NATO. Russia’s interest in Syria is to keep it out of America’s sphere of influence, which with Turkey’s help it has managed to do.

For some time, military analysts have been telling us that we are now in a cyber war with Russia, accusing it of interfering in elections and promoting conspiracy theories—the US presidential election last November being the most recent assertion. As with all these allegations there is no proof offered, just statements from government sources which have a track record of being economical with the truth. Whatever the truth may be, cyber wars are closely intertwined with propaganda.

Attacks on Russia since the millennium have been by disrupting dollar payments, and less importantly, by sanctioning individuals close to Putin. The monetary threat was originally justified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, leading to the collapse of the rouble and a hike in interest rates. The new cold war had taken a financial turn. Russia’s response was to reduce the economy’s dependence on dollars as much as possible, with the central bank selling dollar reserves and adding gold in their place. It also set up a new payments system to reduce its dependence on the SWIFT interbank payments system.

Russia has survived all financial attacks and is now better insulated against them for the future. One-nil to the Russians. But the cost has been hidden, with western investment restricted to being mainly from the EU (particularly directed at the oil and gas industries). With the nation being fundamentally a kleptocracy, economic progress is severely constrained. Furthermore, with Russia being the world’s largest energy exporter, the west’s policy of decarbonisation is a medium to long term threat, leading to the demise of Russia’s USP. For these and other reasons Russia has turned to China as both a partner and an economic protector. In return, Russia is resource-rich, an energy provider, and therefore of great value to China.

Russia’s history of assassinating leading dissidents on foreign soil has been its greatest mistake. It took years after the Litvinenko assassination for diplomatic relations with the UK to be fully restored. The deaths of several Russian oligarchs in recent years on British soil were thought to be the actions of organised crime and not attributed to the Russian state. But the clumsy assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal in Salisbury by GRU officers three years ago is unlikely to lead to a rapprochement anytime soon.

the RUSSIAN AND CHINESE GEOPOLITICAL PARTNERSHIP One of the first persons to identify the geopolitical importance of Russia’s resources was Halford Mackinder in a paper for the Royal Geographical Society in 1904. He later developed it into his Heartland theory. Mackinder argued that control of the Heartland, which stretched from the Volga to the Yangtze, would control the “World-Island”, which was his term for all Europe, Asia and Africa. Over a century later, Mackinder’s theory resonates with the two leading nations behind the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

The underlying point is that North and South America, Britain, Japan and Australasia in the final analysis are peripheral and less important than Mackinder’s World-Island. There was a time when British and then American primacy outweighed its importance, but this may no longer be true. If Mackinder’s vision is valid about the overriding importance of undeveloped resources, Russia is positioned to become with China the most powerful national partnership on earth.

The SCO is the greatest challenge yet mounted to American economic power and technological supremacy. And Russia and China are clearly determined to ditch the dollar. We don’t yet know what will replace it. However, the fact that the Russian central bank and nearly all the other central banks and governments in the SCO have been increasing their gold reserves for some time could be an important clue as to how the representatives of three billion Euro-Asians—almost half the world’s population—see the future of trans-Asian money.

In terms of GDP per capita the United States is a long way ahead of the field. But it is also the most indebted at the national level. The difference with the SCO is at the purchasing power parity level, making market prices of secondary importance. While prices regionally vary considerably the costs of goods in the SCO are as an average considerably less than in the US and EU, so that on a PPP basis the SCO’s GDP is significantly greater than that of the US or the EU.

The inclusion of the EU in Figure 1 is a post-Brexit nod to the fact that the EU can no longer be automatically regarded as being in the US sphere of influence. The commercial ties to the SCO, with both energy reliance from Russia and silk road rail terminals in various EU states are clearly the trade future for the EU. The EU is advanced in its plans to bring national forces under its combined flag, which by giving them an EU identity can only loosen NATO ties with America. While not an active threat to America’s power, one can envisage the EU sitting on the fence in an intensifying cold war.

The SCO started life in 2001 as a security partnership between Russia and China, incorporating the ‘stans to the east of the Caspian Sea. Born out an earlier organisation, the Shanghai Five Group, it was set up to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism. It is still a platform for joint military exercises, but none have taken place since 2007 and it has morphed into a loose economic partnership instead.

Since the founding Shanghai Five, the SCO now includes India and Pakistan. Observer status includes Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia. These nations can attend SCO conferences, but their participation is very limited. Dialogue partners include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey. These nations can participate actively in SCO conferences, and this status is seen as a preliminary to full membership. Egypt and Syria have applied for observer status and Israel, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have applied to be dialog partners. Apart from South East Asian nations, which are dominated by a Chinese diaspora anyway, SCO members and their influence covers almost all of Halford Mackinder’s World Island, with the exception of the European Union.

This is the reality that faces American hegemony; there are twenty-one nations across Asia in a non-American alliance, or on the cusp of joining it. All the other European and Asian nations are within the SCO’s sphere of influence through trade, even if not politically affiliated. It is getting more difficult to define the nations definitely in the US pocket, other than its five-eyes partners (Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand). This simple fact places severe limitations on US action against China, and to a lesser extent Russia.

It is an exaggeration to suggest that an attack on one member state is an attack on them all. Their cooperation is fundamentally economic rather than military; except, as stated above, the SCO’s original function remains to eliminate terrorism, separatism and extremism. Indeed, India and Pakistan are at loggerheads over Kashmir, and China and India have border disputes in the Himalayas. But attempts, by, say, the US to prize India away from the SCO is bound to generate wider issues, and perhaps a response, from the other members.

The Biden presidency faces significant challenges in the ongoing cold war and America is unlikely to retain its hegemonic status. During Trump’s presidency, attempts to curtail China’s trade and technological development did not succeed, and has only emboldened both China and Russia to stand firm and as much as possible to do without America and its dollar.

Their senior advisors are, or should be, acutely aware of the debt and inflation traps facing the US and also the EU. Following the Fed’s policies of accelerated monetary expansion announced last March, China increased her purchases of commodities and raw materials, in effect signalling she prefers them to dollar liquidity. As a policy, it is likely to be extended further, given China’s existing stockpile of dollars and dollar-denominated debt. Her dilemma is not just the fragile state of the US economy, but that of the EU which on any dispassionate analysis is a state failing economically and politically as well. China will not want to be blamed for triggering a series of events which will get everyone reaching out for their forgotten copy of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

As events take their course, the risk of a dollar collapse and a matching crisis in the euro, though for different reasons, increases. For Mackinder’s heartland theory to be proved and for the Russian and Chinese partnership to be in control of it, a mega-crisis facing the profligate money-printers must happen. All history and a priori economic theory confirm it will happen. The SCO’s Plan B will be a continuance of Plan A, hatched out of the Shanghai Five Group, making the World Island a self-contained unit not dependent on the peripherals—principally, the five eyes. For money, they must give up western ways with unbacked state currencies. Between them they have enough state-owned declared and undeclared gold to back the yuan, and the rouble. Give these two currencies free convertibility into gold, and they will be accepted everywhere, so their old cold war enemies can trade their way back to prosperity. The US has, or says it has, enough gold to put a failing dollar back on a gold standard, but for it to be credible it must radically cut spending, its geopolitical ambitions, and return its budget into balance. With luck, that is how the new cold war ends.

9,75296 NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHKlikruJmU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0KNGNZwZi0

the BRITS …still mourning the passing of ”ONE of OURS” —the parasites they adored/….

Sunday Times apologises for saying Brits ‘secretly enjoyed’ Prince Philip’s ‘slitty eyes’ comment about Asians 20 Apr, 2021 16:11 Get short URL Sunday Times apologises for saying Brits ‘secretly enjoyed’ Prince Philip’s ‘slitty eyes’ comment about Asians FILE PHOTO: Britain’s Prince Harry (L) and Prince Philip attend an event at the Field of Rememberance in front of Westminster Abbey in London, November 10, 2016. © REUTERS / Toby Melville 191 Follow RT onRT The Sunday Times newspaper has apologised for publishing a front-page article in the wake of Prince Philip’s death that claimed people had secretly “enjoyed” his 1986 comment about Asians having “slitty eyes” and similar “gaffes.” The Duke of Edinburgh was “an often crotchety figure, offending people with gaffes about slitty eyes, even if secretly we rather enjoyed them,” Sunday Times Chief Foreign Correspondent Christina Lamb penned in an article about Prince Philip’s funeral on Saturday.

It was a reference to a 1986 incident during which the Duke told British students studying Mandarin in China, “By the time you go back home you’ll have slitty eyes.”

Lamb’s article sparked outrage on social media, and the Sunday Times apologised on Tuesday for the offensive wording.

“This so-called ‘gaffe’ made by Prince Philip was a well-known aspect of his life story. The Sunday Times did not intend to condone it,” said Sunday Times editor Emma Tucker. Tucker said the line was identified by editors on Saturday evening as being “offensive” and was subsequently “not published in digital editions.”

“Christina Lamb has spent her whole career reporting on discrimination and injustices against people in every part of the world and never intended to make light of his remark in any way,” Tucker continued.

An updated digital version of the article kept the line about Brits secretly laughing about Prince Philip’s many controversial comments, but removed the “slitty eyes” example.

Outraged Brits, including those of Asian descent, had condemned Lamb’s article and called for her to be fired this past weekend.

“I’m one of those ‘slitty eyed’ folk you secretly guffaw about. It’s people like you that perpetuate racism and make casual mockery of our lives. Shame on you,” tweeted one woman, while another person wrote, “Please Christina, look me in my slitty eyes… actually look at all the British asians in their slitty eyes and tell us how much you enjoyed Prince Philip’s racist comments.”

Prince Philip died at Windsor Castle on April 9, aged 99, just two months before his 100th birthday. Lamb has not personally responded to the controversy, despite being bombarded with negative tweets about it.

ALSO ON RT.COM ‘Ridiculously over the top’: BBC creates special complaint form as viewers decry ‘too much coverage’ of Prince Philip’s death Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

s they adore….

the CHINESE LANGUAGE ,,,put in focus as Mandarin….EXISTED since 5,000 years ago….spoken in one form or another by 17% of world population…the most by any ONE civilization or culture…WHEN was english invented …again? …..

CYRILLIC — OF RUSSIANS AND SLAVS…was created SPECIFICALLY to mark their DIFFERENTIATION from LATINATE alphabet….to contain CONCEPT and expression …ALIEN to the west….

that is FUNDAMENTAL to a civilization…so ..WHAT MAKES ANGLO SAXONS believe or imagine they SHARE any values with ”THOSE EASTERN BARBARIANS” namely RUSSIANS…?

America’s domestic political turmoil is making world unstable & fueling conflicts with its main adversaries – Iran, China & Russia 21 Apr, 2021 07:19 Get short URL America’s domestic political turmoil is making world unstable & fueling conflicts with its main adversaries – Iran, China & Russia FILE PHOTO. The White House. © Getty Images / Caroline Purser 3 Follow RT onRT By Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen

America’s internal political battles have smothered consensus and led to Washington being asleep at the wheel in foreign affairs for many years now. The lack of US strategic clarity only fuels uncertainty and instability globally. The Afghanistan Papers, published by the Washington Post in 2019, revealed that the US has for many years been aware that it cannot win the war in Afghanistan, yet it has been reluctant to accept defeat and withdraw.

US policy has been defined in indecisiveness, as neither victory or defeat has been an option. The continued waste of money and blood has merely resulted in a corrupt government in Kabul dependent on the influx of US funding, a hardened and militarized opposition, and neighbouring states frustrated with the unpredictability of the enduring US presence.

A similar lack of strategic direction is also setting the US on the path to a possible war with its three major adversaries in Eurasia – Iran, China and Russia.

READ MORE Iran identifies suspect behind ‘EXPLOSION’ at Natanz nuclear site, says he’s fled the countryIran identifies suspect behind ‘EXPLOSION’ at Natanz nuclear site, says he’s fled the country Iran – in or out of the JCPOA? Washington’s ambiguous policies towards Iran have created uncertainty that incentivises regional actors to take aggressive steps. Joe Biden fiercely criticised Trump’s abandonment of the Iranian nuclear agreement – the The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA – as a major mistake that had to be reversed, yet Biden has not been in a hurry to re-join the international agreement. This is partly the fault of Trump’s convoluted sanctions against Iran that will be difficult to untangle, although Biden’s efforts to make Tehran take the first steps to return to compliance and increase the demands on Iran further contributes to the impasse. Washington is neither in nor out.

Power abhors a vacuum. Washington’s indecisiveness provides Israel with an incentive to escalate tensions to push US policies towards a more confrontational stand against Iran. Tel Aviv increases hostilities towards Tehran, hoping that tensions with Iran will further prevent the US’ return to the nuclear agreement. The consequence is a situation spinning out of control.

Israeli media now warns that after Israel sabotaging Iranian ships for three years, Tehran is finally retaliating by going after Israeli ships. Furthermore, the alleged Israeli cyber-attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility has been lambasted by Tehran as “nuclear terrorism” and Iran will respond. It turns out that the only thing that can cause greater instability than abandoning the nuclear agreement is to merely sit on the fence.

China – abandon or maintain the One-China policy? Washington is also ambiguous about abandoning its more than four-decades long One-China policy, which recognises Taiwan as part of China. The US has supported the de-facto sovereignty of Taiwan as an ally against China, although officially abandoning the practice creates the conditions for a war with China.

A fragile peace has existed, as the US has been careful not to push for Taiwan’s official independence while China has pursued the re-integration of Taipei by peaceful means. The US deters China from invading Taiwan by providing weapons and the possibility of a US intervention, while Beijing deters Taipei from declaring independence by threatening military force. A careful balancing act has kept the peace as excessive military support for Taiwan emboldens independence movements, which could trigger a red line and China will likely retake the island by force. This would lead to the real prospect of a US-China war.

Back in 2016, Trump shook the fragile balance when he argued that the US commitment to the One-China policy would depend on Beijing accepting the economic conditions of Washington: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘One China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.” In November last year, then-US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, appeared to officially cancel the One-China policy by claiming: “Taiwan has not been a part of China.” Trump has dealt Biden a bad hand, yet Biden remains ambiguous about his commitment to China’s territorial integrity.

Washington cannot recognise Taiwanese independence as it would likely push China to use military force. Yet, without a clear commitment to the One-China policy, it creates incentives for domestic forces in the US and foreign actors to influence the indecisive US. Furthermore, Beijing’s need to display its capabilities and communicate its red line regarding Taiwan creates pressure for Washington to also show strength for allies – and an accidental war becomes a growing prospect.

ALSO ON RT.COM US is whipping up fear of China because Washington simply cannot contemplate a world it does not dominate Russia – buffer states or new frontlines? The tensions between the US and Russia are defined by continued uncertainty. The post-Cold War era has not simply been defined as an unfavourable status-quo for Russia, rather it is the absence of a new status-quo. NATO has rejected limitations on its expansionism and the development of missile defences to negate Russia’s retaliatory capabilities. Not to mention the need for a UN mandate for military interventions. In such an environment, no international agreements can be made that cement the status quo to promote predictability and stability.

US ambiguity towards the Minsk Protocol has contributed greatly to bringing us to the brink of a major war in Ukraine. The peace agreement compels Kiev to establish a dialogue with the self-declared republics in eastern Ukraine and enact constitutional reform to increase the autonomous powers of Donbass. Kiev has walked back its commitments to the Minsk Protocol fearing it could cause major domestic divisions since it is fiercely rejected by the nationalists, who gained considerable power following the US-backed Maidan in 2014. Furthermore, autonomy for Donbass could block Ukraine’s proposed absorption into NATO.

The US has for the same reasons openly challenged the Minsk deal, yet it also signed on to the recent G7 statement that supports the “full implementation of the Minsk agreements, which is the only way forward for a lasting political solution to the conflict.” Washington has been hesitant to support the peace agreement, yet is cautious not to alienate its European allies who support it.

READ MORE Biden’s new ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine with Russia runs risk of Moscow deciding it has nothing to gain from good US relationsBiden’s new ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine with Russia runs risk of Moscow deciding it has nothing to gain from good US relations The ambiguity towards the Minsk agreements is dangerous as there are no alternatives. Russia considers NATO’s expansion into Ukraine to be a threat and it would not be accepted any more than the US accepted Soviet missiles in Cuba. Russia’s willingness to risk a major war must be considered in lieu of the alternative. If NATO expands into Ukraine, Moscow believes there is a greater possibility for a war with the alliance and Russia would be in a weaker position. In Putin’s “Crimea speech” in March 2014, he argued, “Are we ready to consistently defend our national interests, or will we forever give in, retreat to who knows where?” Russia has set its red line regarding further NATO expansionism.

The US reluctance to fully support and push the Minsk agreements has set Ukraine on the path to the only alternative – a war it cannot win. Washington expressed support for Ukraine’s mobilisation of military forces towards Donbass, which is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians, yet when Russia predictably responded, Washington had neither the intention nor capability to fight Russia. The humiliating retreat must now be offset by Washington with new anti-Russian sanctions and by Kiev with erratic behaviour such as the threat of developing nuclear weapons.

The world is undergoing tremendous changes and the US, Iran, Israel, China, Russia and Ukraine all have legitimate security concerns that must be addressed and balanced. As tensions between the US and its major adversaries intensify, there is a need for political imagination and diplomatic giants.

Unfortunately, a key discussion in the US, right now, is whether a future US-Russia summit would be an unacceptable “reward” to Putin.

Thus, a summit to restore predictable and cordial relations must therefore be offset with more sanctions to deny Putin the “victory” of a meeting with Biden. Which he may not even strongy desire.

So much for American political imagination, strategic clarity and the decisiveness of a country which believes itself to be diplomatic giant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ7hxOu9w0k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qy9PyD1rrY

DAILY LIVESTREAM from st petersburg….LOOK……NAVALY ANGLO AMERICAN fomented “freedom protest”