Categories
Expert Analysis

Xinjiang Must Unite, Not Divide, China And Turkey

19 APRIL 2021

Xinjiang Must Unite, Not Divide, China And Turkey

Because of how sensitive the issue is both in general and for bilateral relations, it deserves to be discussed more thoroughly.

A controversy occurred earlier this month after two Turkish opposition politicians expressed support for separatism in Xinjiang. The Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned their counterproductive remarks, which in turn prompted Ankara to summon the Chinese Ambassador. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian then said that “We hope that people in Turkey from all walks of life can correctly, rationally and objectively view the firm position of China to protect its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Because of how sensitive the issue is both in general and for bilateral relations, it deserves to be discussed more thoroughly.

Turkey is presently rising as a regional power in accordance with its rich civilizational and historical influence. This has recently seen the country promote a hybrid model of secular and religious influence in order to broaden its appeal to traditional and prospective partners alike in North Africa, West Asia, and Central Asia. The last-mentioned region is comprised of former Soviet republics, many of whom are populated by Turkic people who feel a close kinship with their Turkish brethren. This ethnic outreach to what Ankara regards as the Turkic world is natural and should be encouraged by all so long as it doesn’t take any threatening form.

The problem is that there are some in Turkey who flirt with radical interpretations of their country’s newfound soft power strategy. Instead of respecting every country’s sovereign interests to govern themselves however their legitimate leaders believe is best, they arrogantly think that they know better those states or their own people do. Therein lies the issue with the latest Xinjiang controversy whereby two opposition politicians made counterproductive remarks in favor of separatist forces there. Considering the growing closeness of Chinese-Turkish relations, these statements were unwelcome and could have caused trouble between those two.

Thankfully, bilateral ties have matured enough to the point where such comments won’t affect those countries’ expanding partnership, but they still deserved to be condemned in order to remind everyone of how unacceptable they were. The individuals that made them were clearly misled by the US-led global information warfare campaign against the People’s Republic alleging that China is carrying out a so-called “genocide” against the Uyghurs, who are mostly fellow Muslims related to the Turkish people. In fact, one can argue that Turkey is one of the prime target audiences of this American Hybrid War narrative.

The US hopes to mislead the world, and especially Muslim countries, about the situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). The intended result is to pressure those states into distancing themselves from cooperating more closely with China, which could in turn provide a comparative competitive advantage to the US. In the Turkish context, American strategists want to manipulate influential Turkish figures into provoking more international controversies between their country and China over this manufactured fake news-driven issue. In reality, however, Xinjiang must unite, not divide, China and Turkey.

Upon learning more about the socio-economic renaissance of the Uyghur people and other minorities in the XUAR, more Turks will realize how badly they were misled by the US’ information warfare campaign. China isn’t “oppressing” the Uyghurs, not to mention committing “genocide” against them, but has unprecedentedly improved their living standards to the point where its efforts can objectively be described as the most successful minority empowerment campaign anywhere in the planet’s history. Life expectancy and overall population numbers have soared, household income is at its highest-ever levels, and security is guaranteed.

In fact, Turkey could even learn from China’s experiences with the Uyghurs to similarly improve the situation for its own minorities. This could in turn reduce separatist and terrorist threats in the same way as has recently happened in the XUAR. With this vision in mind, Turks should resist the US’ external pressure to exploit this situation for the purpose of dividing their country from China. If anything, they should learn more about the reality of what’s happening there in order to motivate them to take ties with China to the next level, including through more people-to-people interactions such as touring the XUAR once the pandemic finally ends.

It’s sad that some Turkish individuals were misled by American propaganda about Xinjiang, but their own government nowadays knows that these narratives aren’t true. That’s why ties remain strong between China and Turkey despite the latest controversy. Both countries are in a mutually beneficial partnership with potential strategic implications, which no single issue – let alone an artificially manufactured one – can sabotage. As time goes on, it’s hoped that more Turks will learn the truth about the XUAR, appreciate China’s historic efforts in improving the Uyghurs’ lives, and see Xinjiang as a natural bridge between their two countries.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: China, Turkey, Xinjiang, US, Fake News, Infowars, Hybrid War.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICS ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Lavrov Authoritatively Debunked The Fake News About Russian-‘Israeli’ Relations

19 MARCH 2021

Lavrov Authoritatively Debunked The Fake News About Russian-

Wednesday’s press conference in Moscow between the Russian and “Israeli” Foreign Ministers authoritatively debunked the rampant fake news that’s been virally spreading throughout the Alt-Media Community for years about the true nature of their bilateral relations, which remain excellent despite consistent efforts from some influential forces to misportray them as rivals for reasons that only such individuals can account for if publicly but politely challenged by their audience to do so.

Debunking The Latest Lie About Russian-”Israeli” Relations

Every member of the Alt-Media Community is familiar by now with the rampant fake news narrative that’s been virally spreading throughout their sphere of the information space for years already alleging that Russia and “Israel” are supposedly heated rivals with one another, so much so that President Putin might even be secretly plotting an all-out war against the self-professed “Jewish State”. The latest disinformation attack in that direction came late last month after it was falsely reported that Russian Special Envoy to Syria Alexander Lavrentiev threatened to shoot down “Israeli” jets over international airspace the next time that they bomb Syria. I responded to this ridiculous claim that even the most casual objective observer should have immediately known was unrealistic earlier this week in an analysis for The Alt World asking “Should Iran Be Worried About Russia’s Coordination With ‘Israel’ & The US In Syria?” That piece cites recent diplomatic developments and my prior work from late last month about the S-300s, the latter of which provides a list of my 15 most relevant analyses over the years for the reader to review at their leisure.

Relying On Lavrov’s Diplomatic Authority To Set The Record Straight

Despite my detailed analyses being based on objectively existing and easily verifiable facts that are always hyperlinked to their original source (which is usually an official one whenever possible), the most indoctrinated members of the Alt-Media Community still angrily claim that they’re “anti-Russian”, “divisive”, and/or “Zionist” “propaganda”, so powerful is the false narrative that they’ve been brainwashed into believing. That’s why it’s so important to review the highlights of Wednesday’s press conference between the Russian and “Israeli” Foreign Ministers as reported by the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which can’t credibly be accused of being “anti-Russian”, “divisive”, and/or “Zionist” “propaganda”. The purpose in doing so is to hopefully enlighten the “moderate” members of the Alt-Media Community who might be willing to finally listen to the truth about Russian-”Israeli” relations so long as it comes from none other than Foreign Minister Lavrov, the most authoritative source on Russian foreign policy by virtue of his position as its top diplomat. What follows is a list of bullet points summarizing the gist of his key statements, followed by the specific quotes themselves:

A Collection Of Key Quotes

* Russian-”Israeli” Relations Are Guided By Putin & Netanyahu’s Shared Vision:

We believe that Russian-Israeli bilateral ties are making progress in accordance with the agreements reached between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

* Russia & “Israel” Are Comprehensively Strengthening Their Relations, Including In The Defense Sphere:

We reiterated our commitment to promote interaction across all areas, including the economy, culture, science and education. Steady contacts have been established between the defence ministries.”

* Neither Supports The Dangerous Rehabilitation Of Nazism In Europe:

Russia and Israel have consistently opposed the increasingly frequent attempts to rewrite the history of WWII, to glorify Nazi war criminals and to revive neo-Nazism. We emphasised the importance of our acting jointly with the overwhelming majority of other countries in adopting the related annual resolution by the UN General Assembly.”

* Russia Supports The Arab-”Israeli” Normalization Process:

Moscow welcomes the normalisation of Israel’s relations with a number of Arab states and believes this should help advance a comprehensive settlement in the region, including the long-standing Palestinian problem.”

* Russia & “Israel” Are On The Same Page As Regards A Peaceful Resolution To The Syrian Conflict:

With regard to Syria, we have an overlapping position on the need for a political settlement based on the principles laid down in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We declared our principled support for Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, and the Syrians’ legitimate right to decide on their own future without outside interference.”

* Russia Briefed “Israel” On Sensitive Aspects Of The Syrian Peace Process, Including Constitutional Reform

We updated our Israeli friends on Russia’s activities as part of the Astana format and other channels in order to help overcome various aspects of the Syria crisis. We focused particularly on stepping up the Constitutional Committee’s activities and shared our steps designed to make the upcoming 6th meeting of the Constitutional Committee’s drafting committee productive.”

* Russia Hinted That “Israel” Might Be Interested In Providing Humanitarian Support To Syria:

We also spoke about the need to help overcome the humanitarian crisis in Syria, where the infrastructure has been destroyed and the people are suffering badly in the wake of crippling sanctions imposed by the United States and other countries.”

* Russia Also Hinted That “Israel” Might Join Moscow’s Proposed Gulf Collective Security System:

We mentioned Russia’s initiative to form a collective security system in the Gulf region with the potential to include neighbouring countries.”

* Russia Sincerely Trusts “Israel” And Vice-Versa:

I believe we had productive talks. We appreciate mutual trust in our contacts with our Israeli colleagues on all matters on the bilateral and multilateral agendas.”

* Russia Is Against The ICC’s Investigation Into “Israeli” War Crimes In Palestine, Believing It’s Politically Biased:

We have a negative impression of this body. This is our principled and consistent position. When the ICC was created, we hoped it would be an independent and professional judicial body with the potential to eventually become a universal body. In reality, it turned out to be the other way round.

The ICC has not lived up to our expectations. It has repeatedly demonstrated a political bias, a lack of professionalism or understanding of certain rules of international law, made mistakes in using them and, contrary to the Rome Statute provisions, unjustifiably tried to expand its competence by invading spheres that are beyond its terms of reference.”

Russia has refused to participate in this and has revoked its signature under statute. Israel did so even earlier. China, India and many other states are not part of the ICC. Even the countries that are parties to the Rome Statute recognise the systemic problems plaguing ICC functions. Unfortunately, the ICC has discredited itself and the mission that was entrusted to it. Any action taken in The Hague must be viewed through this lens and in light of the court’s tarnished reputation.”

Analytical Wrap-Up

As evidenced from the above, there’s no doubt that Russia and “Israel” are much more akin to allies than rivals nowadays. They sincerely trust one another and Moscow supports Tel Aviv on practically every issue of significance, including its opposition to the ICC’s investigation into the self-professed “Jewish State’s” war crimes in Palestine. The Eurasian Great Power hopes to see its de facto regional ally eventually incorporated into the proposed Gulf collective security system, and it also seemingly appreciates the insight that it provides about the Syrian peace process as well during their close consultations on this matter of mutual interest, especially as relates to the Arab Republic’s ongoing constitutional reform. Unlike what many in the Alt-Media Community have been falsely led to believe for years and even as most recently as last month, there exist no serious military disagreements between Russia and “Israel”, as confirmed by Lavrov himself when talking about the “steady contacts” that have been established between their Defense Ministries. This key quote crucially debunks the fake news about Russia allegedly threatening to shoot down “Israeli” jets.

Holding The Alt-Media Community To Account

Nevertheless, it’s all but certain that some of the Alt-Media Community’s key influencers – particularly those whose claim to fame is their coverage of the Syrian conflict – will either suspiciously ignore the objectively existing and easily verifiable policy facts presented in Wednesday’s joint Russian-”Israeli” Foreign Ministers press conference or concoct some crazed theory to protect their precious disinformation narrative about their ties. At all costs, the most responsible truth-seeking members of the Alt-Media Community must hold those said influencers (who in some cases might arguably be deliberate deceivers) to account by publicly but very politely challenging them about their response to this latest diplomatic development. They must be presented with the Russian Foreign Ministry’s official readout of Wednesday’s joint press conference that’s accessible here and asked to share their opinion about Lavrov’s official policy pronouncements. It’s time to find out who’s lying to themselves due to their own wishful thinking delusions as influenced by Alt-Media disinformation and who’s deliberately lying to others about this sensitive issue, including through suspicious omission of the facts.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, Israel, Lavrov, Fake News, Infowars, Alt-Media, Syria, Balancing, ICC, Palestine, Putin, Netanyahu.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

The UK Is Russia’s Greatest Security Threat In Europe Behind The US

18 MARCH 2021

The UK Is Russia

The UK’s recently completed Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy claimed that “Russia remains the most acute threat to our security”, but in reality it’s actually the UK that remains the most acute threat to Russia’s security in Europe behind the US of course.

The British are masterful perception managers and have a centuries-long history of reversing the truth. This strategic characteristic was on full display earlier this week after its recently completed Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy claimed that “Russia remains the most acute threat to our security”. As can be expected, the reality is actually the opposite: the UK remains the most acute threat to Russia’s security in Europe, though behind the US of course. I explained last summer how “MI6 Might Become The CIA’s Proxy For Stopping Europe From Moving Towards Russia” after London’s spree of fake news attacks against Moscow encompassing everything from the Skripal false flag saga to allegations of a secret Russian spy base in the French Alps. Last month, “Intrepid Journalists Exposed The UK’s Information-Driven Hybrid War On Russia”, which includes a continental network of media proxies in Latvia and other former Soviet countries.

From these revelations, it can be concluded that the UK considers itself to be in a “spy war” with Russia, which it’s waging both in pursuit of its own traditional divide-and-rule interests in Europe as well as on behalf of its American ally which shares the same goal. Manipulatively presenting Russia as the UK’s greatest threat is nothing more than a means of justifying further aggression against it under the pretext of so-called “self-defense”. It’s noteworthy to also point out that the same Integrated Review also disclosed London’s plans to increase its nuclear warhead arsenal by an astounding 40% in a move that Moscow decried as “a decision that harms international stability and strategic security” where “an ephemeral threat from Russia was voiced as justification.” The Eurasian Great Power might therefore have no choice but to defend its interests in line with international law by taking whatever countermeasures it considers to be appropriate in the face of this threat.

The present dynamic of British-Russian rivalry is a modern-day remix of their traditional competition all across the 19th century. At that time, the so-called “Great Game” mostly played out in Central Asia and parts of West and South Asia, the latter of which concerned the then-Persia and Afghanistan respectively. The British Empire was actively seeking to contain the Eurasian Great Power as a continuation of the historical trend whereby sea-based (thalassocratic) states seek to contain land-based (tellurocratic) ones. This International Relations theory is increasingly being confirmed as practically being akin to a law at this point as evidenced from this example and other related ones such as the US’ complementary efforts against other multipolar tellucorcatic civlization-states like China and Iran. It’s therefore understandable why the UK has submitted itself to being the US’ “Lead From Behind” junior partner to this end in Europe, though mostly in the Hybrid War sense.

With this in mind, the contours of the New Cold War are becoming increasingly apparent and might possibly remain enduring. The historical trend of thalassocracies versus tellucorcacies continues insofar as the US and its junior UK partner are actively seeking to contain Russia, China, and Iran. The Western Eurasian front of this global strategic competition remains complex considering the fact that Germany is dominated by thalassocratic influences despite being a tellucrocratic state. This explains its schizophrenic stance of simultaneously waging its own Hybrid War on Russia in parallel with attempting to stabilize relations with Moscow through Nord Stream II, which is vehemently opposed by its American patron. It can therefore be predicted that the outcome of the New Cold War in Europe will be greatly determined by Germany’s ability to promote its sovereign interests vis-a-vis Russia despite heavy pressure from the US and the UK to keep the two apart.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: UK, Russia, US, Europe, MI6, Hybrid War, Infowars, Latvia, Germany.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Bild’s Libelous Spy Claim Against RT Is Part Of The German Hybrid War On Russia

11 MARCH 2021

Bild

Russian-German relations continue to tank after Bild’s libelous spy claim against RT left little doubt that Germany is waging a Hybrid War on Russia, though Berlin still hopes to complete Nord Stream II in order to retain a limited degree of strategic autonomy in Europe vis-a-vis its Washington patron and enable the Central European country to possibly influence Moscow’s “balancing” act with Beijing.

The Gist Of Germany’s Hybrid War On Russia

Contrary to what many in the Alt-Media Community inaccurately claimed for years, Germany isn’t trying to partner with Russia as part of some “master plan” to remove American influence from Europe but is actively waging a Hybrid War against the Eurasian Great Power to expand Berlin’s influence there at Moscow’s expense. Bild’s libelous spy claim against RT are but the latest iteration of this comprehensive strategy, which follow in the footsteps of German banks refusing to do business with RT-affiliated companies shortly after the outlet announced its plans to launch RT Deutsche at the end of the year. It also shouldn’t be forgotten that not only did Germany earlier treat allegedly poisoned anti-corruption blogger and NATO agent Alexei Navalny, but it also supported the 2013-2014 urban spree of terrorism in Ukraine that’s commonly known as “EuroMaidan” as well as presently backs the spiritually similar Color Revolution movement that erupted in neighboring Belarus last summer. The Central European country still hopes to complete Nord Stream II, but only in order to retain a limited degree of strategic autonomy in Europe vis-a-vis its American patron and enable Germany to possibly influence Russia’s “balancing” act with China. All of this insight will now be explained in detail.

Bild’s Libelous Allegation Against RT

Regarding Bild’s libelous allegation, the tabloid claims that a former RT investigative journalist suspected that he was being exploited as a useful idiot to illegally spy on Navalny during his period of treatment in the German capital. Their full article in German can be read here. Upon reviewing the piece, it’s clear that the Russian outlet did nothing wrong. If anything, the only criticism that can be leveled against the company is that its management might have been so eager in their competitive drive to get the scoop about this globally relevant story that they unintentionally made one of their former employees feel uncomfortable. Their reported tactics, however, aren’t anything exceptional in this industry but are par for the course even if the average news consumer is largely unaware that this is how that line of work generally operates. Real-time brainstorming between some senior managers and the employee in question over Telegram is dishonestly misportrayed in a scandalous way akin to a spymaster giving their agent secret orders. RT vowed legal action to clear its name and seems to stand a solid chance at succeeding, especially since the former employee released a book about his experiences the day before the scandal broke and thus seems to have provoked all of this just for publicity.

Banking Obstacles

On the topic of German banks refusing to do business with RT-affiliated companies, this clearly seems to be part of the host country’s campaign against the Russian outlet. Bild’s libelous allegation adds fuel to the fire that RT’s network of affiliates is toxic to associate with, which might have also been one of the supplementary objectives behind the latest scandal. It’s evident that Germany is doing all that it can to impede the launch and subsequent activities of RT’s forthcoming German-language channel by the end of the year. There are also active efforts underway to discredit its activities far ahead of time, potentially to manufacture the supposedly “plausible pretext” for the government to promulgate legislation to prevent it from operating. That theory makes sense from a strategic standpoint because everything that the company has endured over the past month points to a concerted campaign aimed towards that end. German officials fear the influence that RT’s German-language channel could have on shaping the domestic debate, yet they’re currently powerless to apply existing legal mechanisms to stop it. That might soon change as a result of the latest scandals in addition to whatever other provocations might be still committed before the planned December launch.

Merkel’s Color Revolution Mania

Germany’s prior treatment of Navalny following his alleged poisoning was officially a humanitarian gesture but one that was politically exploited for the purpose of discrediting Russia after the patient’s speculative claims that his homeland’s security services were responsible for his medical emergency. German officials participated in this latest escalation of the West’s long-running information war against Russia, which served to incite unauthorized rallies across some of the Eurasian Great Power’s main cities, especially its capital. In fact, the Russian government even expelled a German diplomat alongside two of their Polish and Swedish counterparts who directly took part in those proto-Color Revolution events. This shouldn’t have been surprising since one mustn’t forget that Berlin supported the infamous 2014 “EuroMaidan” Color Revolution regime change operation and subsequent coup in Ukraine. The Central European country also backs a similar albeit much less successful movement in Belarus. An indisputable pattern of behavior is on full display in which Germany actively aids Eastern European Color Revolutions in Ukraine, Belarus, and nowadays even Russia itself as part of its efforts to assert itself as the continent’s hegemon at the “Lead From Behind” behest of its American patron.

Germany’s Ulterior Motives For Supporting Nord Stream II

Even so, Germany also doesn’t want to surrender all of its strategic autonomy to the US either, ergo why it continues to press ahead with Nord Stream II. Although that megaproject is officially apolitical, it’ll nevertheless enable Berlin to retain a limited degree of strategic autonomy upon its full completion, which explains why the US is so adamantly against it since Washington fears that Berlin might subsequently feel emboldened to undertake certain political courses that America doesn’t approve of. Some of these might speculatively relate to the Central European state leading an EU rapprochement with Russia that some countries like Poland fear would be at the eventual expense of their regional interests. The US in turn has been preemptively seeking to support the rise of the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) for the purpose of carving out a “sphere of influence” between the Adriatic, Baltic, and Black Seas that could serve as a pro-American geostrategic wedge between Germany and Russia in that scenario. In his country’s defense, German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass suspiciously claimed last month that Nord Stream II would actually enhance “Europe’s abilities to influence Russia” by not pushing the Eurasian Great Power into China’s arms like would happen if the project is scuttled.

It’s Against German Interests To Push Russia Into China’s Arms

Some further elaboration is required in order for the reader to better understand the complex strategic dynamics at play. To simplify, Russia’s 21st-century grand strategic ambition is to become the supreme “balancing” force in Eurasia, to which end it seeks to work a lot closer with China following the imposition of the West’s anti-Russian sanctions in 2014 but is nevertheless also seeking to “balance” the People’s Republic in a “friendly” manner via their fellow BRICS and SCO partner India. From the standpoint of EU-leader Germany, the continent’s full compliance with its American patron’s strategic demands to impose a policy of so-called “maximum pressure” against Moscow through the scuttling of Nord Stream II would accelerate Russia’s “Eastern Pivot” and ultimately be disadvantageous for German interests. This would be especially so if the Eurasian Great Power implemented some of the 20 proposals that the author shared last month for how it could “contain” the US in response to intensified Western pressure upon it. German rhetoric has been more aggressive against Russia lately, which is why the latter fears the seemingly inevitable establishment of an ideological wall between them as a consequence of the New Cold War, so this scenario isn’t purely speculative.

The German-American Strategic Divergence Over Russia

It’s here where the German and American strategies diverge in their joint Hybrid War on Russia. Berlin agrees with Washington insofar as keeping up the pressure on Moscow, but it doesn’t want to push Russia too far lest it risk the consequences of the Eurasian Great Power being compelled to abandon Europe per the gist of the 20 aforementioned proposals, wholeheartedly embracing China in response, and therefore qualitatively empowering the People’s Republic in its quest to become the leading force in the Eastern Hemisphere. Germany fears that such a state of affairs might eventually entail the EU making “concessions” to China or at the very least being caught up too closely in the New Cold War between Washington and Beijing, which it’s already in the middle of but has yet to become as intense of a scene for strategic competition as it could be in that scenario. Ideally, Germany would prefer for Russia to keep one foot in Europe through Nord Stream II and the other in Asia through its Sino-Indo “balancing” act, which could enable Berlin to “balance” between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing more adroitly. The US, however, prefers the EU’s full submission to its “sphere of influence” and doesn’t care about the consequences of intensified competition with China there.

Russia’s “Asian Pivot” Might Ruin Its Sino-Indo “Balancing” Act

As for Russia, while it’ll pivot eastward in support of its interests if the circumstances compel it to, the country also fears the long-term consequences of becoming strategically over-reliant on China. This explains its tricky “balancing” act between China and India, which it practices in an attempt to preserve as much of its strategic autonomy as possible, exactly as Germany is attempting to do vis-a-vis Russia and the US via Nord Stream II. If that megaproject is scuttled, however, then Russia wouldn’t have as effective of a means of “balancing” Eurasia since it’ll be forced to abandon the Western half of its strategy and thus become entirely dependent on its Eastern one. Russia can’t properly “balance” China and India in such a scenario since those two might inevitably enter into a rapid rapprochement if Washington sanctions New Delhi for its S-400 purchase like it threatened to and thus compels the South Asian state to implement what critics might describe as “concessions” towards the People’s Republic since it would lose the ability to militarily contain Beijing along the Line of Actual Control (seeing as how Moscow wouldn’t replace Washington’s role in this respect in order to avoid provoking a security dilemma with the People’s Republic). Russia might then become less relevant in Asian affairs.

The Convergence Of Russian, German, And American Interests

This strategic insight suggests that Russian, German, and American interests indirectly align over Nord Stream II. Its completion would bolster Moscow’s “balancing” capabilities vis-a-vis Beijing, thus preventing Berlin and Brussels from becoming intensified objects of competition between the US and China if Russia eventually becomes a second-rate geopolitical player in Eurasia as might happen if the project isn’t completed, which could in turn endanger the viability of Washington’s hegemony there. That outcome is entirely possible upon Russia being pushed out of Europe in the event that its pipeline is scuttled and then de facto transformed into the junior partner of what might then become the Asian-wide Sino-Indo alliance that could blossom following speculative “concessions” by New Delhi should Moscow’s tricky “balancing” act between them fail. The worst-case scenario for the US is that China pushes it out of Europe once Russia’s influence there is neutralized by the US first, which could in divide the world between Beijing and Washington along hemispheric axes. With time, China would inevitably win the New Cold War, but America could prevent this if it doesn’t “lose” Europe, which requires saving the viability of Russia’s “balancing” act by allowing Nord Stream II to be completed as planned.

Concluding Thoughts

It might be a lot for the reader to take in, so they should consider rereading the piece after putting it down for a while to ponder the complex strategic insight contained within it. What’s being argued is that Germany’s Hybrid War on Russia veritably exists as evidenced by Bild’s libelous accusation against RT, the country’s banks refusing to service RT-affiliated companies, Berlin’s support of Navalny, and the Central European state’s active backing of Color Revolutions in Ukraine, Belarus, and even Russia nowadays. Nevertheless, this Hybrid War does indeed have its limits since Germany still wants to preserve Nord Stream II so as to prevent the feared collapse of Russia’s Eurasian “balancing” act that could in turn lead to China becoming the preeminent superpower all across the Eastern Hemisphere (which entails speculative eventual “concessions” by Berlin and Brussels to Beijing). The US doesn’t see the situation the same way and arrogantly believes that its hegemonic control over Europe is best preserved by compelling its proxies to fully submit to its strategic diktats, not realizing that America actually needs Russia’s “balancing” act in order to comparatively keep China somewhat more at bay. The fate of Nord Stream II might therefore prove to be a game-changer for Eastern Hemispheric geopolitics.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, Germany, Merkel, Putin, RT. Fake News, Infowars, Hybrid War, Nord Stream II, China, Balancing, US, EU, Navalny, Color Revolutions, Ukraine, Belarus, Regime Change.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

There’s No Secret Chinese Hand In Myanmar’s State Of Emergency

4 FEBRUARY 2021

There

The People’s Republic isn’t involved in the Tatmadaw’s state of emergency, but falsely claiming otherwise is yet another attempt by self-interested forces to pressure Biden into continuing Trump’s anti-Chinese policies.

American media has gone wild speculating about a secret Chinese hand in Myanmar’s recent decision to announce a year-long state of emergency. The country’s military, known as the Tatmadaw, detained members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) on Monday in response to what it claimed was their refusal to seriously consider its concerns about November’s contested elections. The Tatmadaw legally justifies its actions as being in alignment with Chapter XI of the 2008 Constitution enabling it to take control during a state of emergency. The US has yet to officially condemn events as a coup, though it’s reportedly considering doing so.

President Joe Biden already released a statement, however, announcing that the US will review its prior decision to reverse sanctions against the country which was originally made in response to its governance reforms over the past decade in the direction of implementing a system more closely resembling a Western democratic one. He also promised that the US and its regional allies will “hold accountable those responsible for overturning Burma’s democratic transition.” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in response to a question about whether this is directed against China that it’s directed at all countries in the region.

This fueled media speculation that Myanmar might become the scene of a political proxy battle between the US and China. The most prominent examples of this include Bloomberg running stories sensationally titled “Myanmar’s Army Chief Challenges Biden, Bets Big on China” and “Myanmar Crisis Sets Stage for Biden-Xi Duel”. Politico, meanwhile, headlined one of its stories “An inconvenient insurrection tests Biden on China, democracy support”, and Foreign Policy published a piece provocatively asking “Is Beijing Backing the Myanmar Coup?

The new information warfare narrative very strongly implies that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Myanmar last month somehow signaled Beijing’s tacit approval for the Tatmadaw’s forthcoming decision to implement a state of emergency. Other variants claim that even if this wasn’t the case, that China will gleefully exploit the expected rift between Naypyidaw and Washington in order to boost its influence in Myanmar at the US’ expense. For these supposed reasons, the American media is encouraging Biden to keep China in mind when deliberating on his administration’s response to the Tatmadaw.

It would be an epic mistake if they fall for this media manipulation. There’s no better time than now for China and the US to patch up their prior disagreements and chart a new future of cooperation perfectly suited for the complex times in which humanity is presently living in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. Continuing the former Trump Administration’s trend of seeing a secret Chinese hand in everything that happens across the world which is regarded in one way or another (whether objectively so or not) as being detrimental to American interests could ruin the historic chance of a rapprochement between these two leading countries.

The fact is that China has nothing to do with Myanmar’s internal political developments. The neighboring countries closely cooperate on a range of issues, most importantly the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) and two oil and gas pipelines which run parallel to that project. Beijing’s response to its partner’s state of emergency was to express its sincere desire “that all sides in Myanmar can appropriately handle their differences under the constitution and legal framework and safeguard political and social stability.” Unlike the US and some other countries, it isn’t supporting one side over the other, which is the right position to take.

Regardless of whatever the US decides to do for whatever its reasons may be, it must see its decision as being completely separate from its larger strategy towards China. The People’s Republic isn’t involved in the Tatmadaw’s state of emergency, but falsely claiming otherwise is yet another attempt by self-interested forces to pressure Biden into continuing Trump’s anti-Chinese policies. America’s paranoia about a secret Chinese hand in everything across the world must stop as soon as possible. Reacting based on that delusion is a surefire way to ensure the failure of whatever policy the US ends up promulgating.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Myanmar, Tatmadaw, China, US, Biden, Infowars.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Categories
Expert Analysis

The Atlantic Council’s Anti-Chinese Containment Strategy Will Fail

The Atlantic Council’s Anti-Chinese Containment Strategy Will Fail

1 FEBRUARY 2021

The Atlantic Council

What the Atlantic Council doesn’t realize is that its unnamed author’s visceral hatred for the Chinese President is actually a powerful endorsement of his leadership successes.

The Atlantic Council, one of the US’ most powerful think tanks, published an extremely provocative anti-Chinese containment strategy proposal titled “The Longer Telegram: Toward a new American China strategy”. The title is purposely meant to evoke historical comparisons to George Kennan’s “Long Telegram” which set the stage for the US’ decades-long containment strategy against the former Soviet Union. Its author remains anonymous per their request, but their highly detailed document has already generated significant attention across America’s leading policy circles. The problem, however, is that it’s doomed to fail if implemented.

The strategy’s primary theses are several-fold: the US must retain self-belief in its global supremacy in all respects; America must assemble a global coalition to contain China; China must be forced to incur significant costs for refusing to abide by Washington’s envisioned liberal international order; and the consequences of these aggressive actions must be exploited for the purpose of dividing and ruling the Communist Party of China (CPC) so that they replace President Xi Jinping and transition to a collective leadership model that the Atlantic Council believes will agree to submit to America’s will. That final goal is nothing but a political delusion.

Some of the proposals to these ends are equally unrealistic. One of the organizing principles states that the US must rebalance its relations with Russia in order to divide it from China and provoke a security crisis along their shared border. A ridiculous red line is also suggested to make China responsible for any attack that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) might launch against its neighbors. On the topic of major national concerns, the US is encouraged to support India should its economic and/or military relations with China worsen. In other words, the Atlantic Council wants to revive the era of proxy warfare.

With that in mind, the mysterious author of “The Longer Telegram” implores his country to clinch mega trade pacts with the Asia-Pacific and EU in order to compete with China in a clear allusion to Beijing’s recently agreed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) respectively. They also propose scaling investment into the World Bank and regional development banks as a means of countering Beijing’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). In addition, there’s a strong appeal to double down on information warfare activities against China in what’s described as “the global battle for ideas”.

Most ominously, however, is the innuendo that a physical battle between China and the US might soon be in the cards, perhaps over the renegade island province of Taiwan, the South China Sea, or the Diaoyu Islands. The Atlantic Council speculates that China might not achieve a conclusive victory if the US militarily intervenes in any of these scenarios, which they claim would in turn diminish President Xi’s legitimacy. It’s not directly stated in the text, but the author strongly hints that a limited hot war between the two without any clear victory on China’s part could trigger the CPC intra-party coup against President Xi that they’re hoping for.

None of these proposals are all that novel, but the difference between this comprehensive set of them and others is the focus on trying to provoke regime change within the CPC against President Xi. The unnamed author even absurdly suggests that this might happen during next year’s Twentieth Party Congress. In order to improve the US’ odds of more effectively manipulating elite party officials to that end, the Atlantic Council proposes that “the public language and operational focus must be ‘Xi’s Communist Party’”, not the CPC in general. This is because the entire strategy is basically all about demonizing the Chinese leader himself.

What the Atlantic Council doesn’t realize is that its unnamed author’s visceral hatred for the Chinese President is actually a powerful endorsement of his leadership successes. He’s personally credited with defending China’s interests in all respects, which is of course portrayed in a highly negative way from the American grand strategic perspective. That said, while President Xi is at the core of the CPC, there are still approximately 91 million other people in the party who represent the over 1.3the longer billion citizens of China. The country’s recent ascent as one of the planet’s most influential forces in history is due to their collective efforts, not just one single man’s.

This makes the Atlantic Council’s strategy document inherently flawed since it strangely presupposes that President Xi’s countless successes aren’t popular at home, whether among average Chinese or the CPC elite. It also imagines that the US is still seen as the “city upon a hill” by the international community, not realizing that the majority of people actually perceive it as a spooky castle inhabited by the ghosts of imperialism’s past than any sort of inspiration to follow. In the dangerous event that elements of this policy are implemented, they’re doomed to fail and accelerate the US’ global decline, but it might temporarily unite its fractured political class.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: US, China, Xi, Atlantic Council, Color Revolution, Regime Change, Hybrid War, Coup, Infowars.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

MORE GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES:

GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL NEWS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Categories
Expert Analysis

The Future Of The Belt & Road Initiative In The Dual Circulation Era

The Future Of The Belt & Road Initiative In The Dual Circulation Era

11 DECEMBER 2020

The Future Of The Belt & Road Initiative In The Dual Circulation Era

China’s new development paradigm of dual circulation is not a repudiation of its prior BRI-driven model of globalization, but is actually complementary to it. Observers shouldn’t forget that many of the hundreds of billions of dollars of BRI-related loans are for long-term infrastructure investments.

The Financial Times published an article on Tuesday titled “China curtails overseas lending in face of geopolitical backlash”. It reported on a recent study by researchers at Boston University which found that the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China only lent $4 billion last year compared to $75 in 2016. The outlet then relies heavily on a report from the partially US government-funded “Overseas Development Institute” and a Chatham House expert to editorialize that this due to the alleged model of prioritizing Chinese interests over recipient countries’ and the “reputational damage” caused by Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) deals.

These interpretations are inaccurate and likely being promoted only to smear BRI. It’s also suspicious that the quoted Chatham House expert claimed without any evidence that the Chinese public is pressuring decision makers to curtail international lending in order to focus on revitalizing the domestic healthcare industry after COVID-19. The fact of the matter is that China’s healthcare system succeeded in containing the pandemic and saving countless lives. While every system in any country across the world continually seeks to improve, China’s has proven itself to be far superior to most of its peers in this respect, so that point is a propagandist one.

The only other element of value in the Financial Times’ article besides the statistics that they cited in the introduction was the explanation provided by Kevin Gallagher, director of the Boston University Global Development Policy Center, which compiled the data. He attributed this drastic decline in international lending to the US’ trade war against China. That development was the first serious structural change in the global economy since the end of the Cold War, hence why his theory that China wanted to keep dollar assets at home because of the prevailing uncertainty makes a lot of sense.

Still, these observations raise questions about BRI’s future, but there’s actually nothing to be worried about even if China’s international lending remains low for the foreseeable future. The global economy is in the midst of crisis due to the world’s uncoordinated efforts to contain COVID-19, and certain protectionist trends have proliferated to the point of becoming commonplace in many countries. That doesn’t mean that the era of globalization is over, but just that it’s presently undergoing a transformation, and it might still take some time for the entire world to recover to the pre-COVID-19 status quo.

As these complex processes unfold, China also recently unveiled its new development paradigm of dual circulation whereby domestic and international circulation will be equally prioritized. This pragmatic policy will enable the world’s largest marketplace to flexibly react to the forthcoming shocks that are expected to continue shaking the global economy during this era of uncertainty. It is not, however, a repudiation of its prior BRI-driven model of globalization, but is actually complementary to it. Observers shouldn’t forget that many of the hundreds of billions of dollars of BRI-related loans are for long-term infrastructure investments.

Many of these have yet to fully materialize, such as those connected to BRI’s flagship project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which has already attracted at least $60 billion worth of investments, but their projected implementation is such that they should all be completed by the end of the decade at the latest. That should be more than enough time for the global economy to recover, prior to which Pakistan and China’s other BRI partners will continue to develop as they finish constructing their planned large-scale infrastructure projects. These will in turn enable them to increase their exports to the growing Chinese economy.

The dual circulation paradigm wouldn’t be possible without BRI, and all BRI countries will benefit from this new development paradigm since they’ll have greater access to the Chinese economy. While China’s international lending might remain low as it prioritizes more domestic projects, the seeds that hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of BRI investments have planted across the world will continue to grow in the interim, thus mutually reinforcing each other’s economies. As China grows, so does the world, and vice-versa, with BRI being the bridge connecting them all together towards the ultimate goal of a community of shared future for mankind.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: China, Belt & Road Initiative, BRI, Dual Circulation, US, Fake News, Infowars.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.