by Elena Chernenko interview with Dmitry Trenin via: Kommersant

“Russia’s foreign policy—both under Yeltsin and Putin, including the Medvedev presidency—rested on the shoulders of Gorbachev’s policies. In one way or another, Russia continued integrating into the West, finding its place there, searching for a certain balance of interests in relations with the United States and other Western countries, with an emphasis on cooperation.”

—ARE WE ON THE BRINK OF AN ACTUAL MILITARY CONFLICT?

In the immediate future, say, the coming month, I think the answer is no. As for the longer term, I have questions for both sides.

A question for the West: Could the government in Kyiv—its constituent parts or some elements it doesn’t fully control, acting in concert with some shadow players—stage a provocation to draw Russia in? The answer to this question is likely negative. This scenario won’t do much good for those standing behind Kyiv. Any such provocation is certain to end with the defeat of Ukrainian forces.

The scale of this defeat for Ukraine may vary. And however high the cost of victory would be for Russia, that wouldn’t make up for the colossal reputational losses the Joe Biden administration would sustain, particularly on the domestic arena. After the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, losing another prominent regional ally would be extremely dangerous for the administration, especially in the domestic political context. In addition, there is the NATO context and the factor of U.S. international prestige. After all, countries like China and Iran have been monitoring the situation closely.

—IN OTHER WORDS, YOU BELIEVE THE GEORGIAN SCENARIO TO BE UNLIKELY?

Yes. I believe that the Americans have sufficient control over the Ukrainian government and other elements active in Ukraine [to make a provocation unlikely].

—AND WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION FOR RUSSIA?

I have many questions for Russia. I think everything comes down to how the commander-in-chief, the president of the Russian Federation appraises what’s happening right before our eyes. I am talking about all of the latest diplomatic efforts supplemented with military moves and allusions to measures in the military and military technology realm. Indeed, there are many questions here, since we can’t know what exactly is on Vladimir Putin’s mind. What’s his plan? What’s his strategy? What options does he see for various situational scenarios? It’s very hard to judge from the outside.

What’s clear is that the demands that Russia has advanced and describes as imperative cannot be met by the West, at least not as they were framed. And since that’s obvious to everyone, the president certainly knows it too. The question is what his answer will be to the rejection of those demands.

-SO YOU ARE RULING OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES COULD IN SOME FORM AGREE TO RUSSIA’S DEMAND TO GUARANTEE NATO NON-EXPANSION?

There will be no legally binding agreement on non-expansion. Nor will there be written political guarantees—as Russia insists—that Ukraine and Georgia will “never ever” be admitted to NATO. The question is how Russia will act when it becomes completely clear that the demands that Russian officials have frequently described as an “absolute imperative” will be rejected by Western states.

—WHAT DO YOU SEE AS POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR HOW THE SITUATION MIGHT DEVELOP?

The first scenario is ostensibly a logical one. It will be announced that we actually didn’t expect them to agree to that. We are sensible people and understand everything perfectly, but we had to break the impasse, shake up the Western political and diplomatic scene, especially in Washington, and demonstrate our seriousness to them. And we managed to get something out of it. First, they didn’t reject our proposals outright, but started responding. Moreover, they agreed to submit a written response to our proposals, which is a major step. This means that they effectively recognize the seriousness of our concernsand demands.

Second, they agreed to discuss important subjects that they previously ignored, for instance, our proposals for a moratorium on the deployment of INF-range missiles. They previously wouldn’t even hear of it, but now they themselves propose to negotiate. They are also prepared to discuss limitations on military exercises in close proximity to our borders: all those naval and air force training exercises, including the ones imitating nuclear missile launches. We have proposed mutual restraint in this sphere numerous times, but they have only taken heed now. There have been responses to some other Russian initiatives as well.

Russia presented its demands in such a decisive fashion to induce Western powers, primarily the United States, to take action that benefits us from the security standpoint. It was important for us not just to diffuse the situation on our Western borders but, above all, to force the West to finally negotiate with us on issues of European security.

This has already happened: a dialogue is underway. For the first time since talks on German reunification, the West has agreed to discuss European security with Russia.From 1999 to 2021, European security hinged on the goodwill—or its opposite—of the United States, which relied on NATO as its main instrument. Now, just as at the times of the Yalta and Helsinki summits, the United States and NATO have been negotiating European security with Russia, so the security rests on two pillars rather than one.

—UNDER THIS SCENARIO, SHOULD WE EXPECT THE WEST AND PRIMARILY THE UNITED STATES TO PUT MEANINGFUL PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO COMPLY WITH THE MINSK AGREEMENTS [AIMED AT ENDING THE CONFLICT IN EASTERN UKRAINE]?

I really hope so but wouldn’t count on it at this time. The Minsk Agreements are a Russian diplomatic victory that followed on from the military victory that the Donbas militia and its supporters scored against the Ukrainian military in February 2015. I am not sure that the United States realizes that the key to diffusing the situation around Ukraine is complying with the Minsk Agreements, although this is certainly the case.

Essentially, these agreements can still be implemented. Donbas can return to Ukraine under the terms of the Minsk Agreements, which would guarantee the rights of those living in the area and preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity within Russia-recognized borders. But for the time being, I don’t see willingness from Washington to pressure Kyiv into complying with the Minsk Agreements.

The lack of resolution in the Donbas conflict is the best formal pretext for continuing to put pressure on Moscow. In recent years, U.S. policies have been aimed at intensifying pressure on Russia, and Ukraine is but one element of that. If I understand the Western strategy correctly, this pressure will peak when the transfer of power in Russia gets underway. Amid its confrontation with China, the United States needs a more compliant Russia. But that’s a long-term goal.

—OKAY, THAT’S THE FIRST SCENARIO. WE’VE SHAKEN THINGS UP, AND WE SETTLE FOR WHAT THEY GIVE US.

Yes. In this regard, we could also remember that politics is the art of the possible, as well as a host of other arguments in support of this scenario.

As for the second scenario, it assumes that things have actually gotten way too serious, and we’ve reached the point when new politics have come to replace the old ones in Russia. In my book The New Balance of Forces, I wrote that Russia’s foreign policy—both under Yeltsin and Putin, including the Medvedev presidency—rested on the shoulders of Gorbachev’s policies. In one way or another, Russia continued integrating into the West, finding its place there, searching for a certain balance of interests in relations with the United States and other Western countries, with an emphasis on cooperation.

But what if this course is being radically overhauled now? This relates not only to foreign policy, but Russia’s general direction. What if we are distancing ourselves from the period in which the main goal was to integrate into the world at large, albeit on our own terms?What’s more, what if the severance from the West that President Putin talked about in response to the prospects of U.S. “sanctions from hell” becomes reality? What if Russia eventually embarks on a completely different foreign and domestic policy course, which would also include the economic, social, and ideological spheres?

Perhaps a separate “Russian project” is already being constructed, and it no longer anticipates integration into the world where the West still plays a leading, though not dominant, role. Given its rupture with the West, Russia may establish much closer and even de facto allied relations with key non-Western states, primarily with China, as well as Iran and U.S. adversaries in the Western hemisphere: Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Under this scenario, Russia may conduct a significantly more active foreign policy. Moscow may start doing the very thing that the West has so often accused it of doing.

—ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CREATING SPHERES OF INFLUENCE?

Both spheres of influence and the right to use force to overthrow unwanted regimes. For instance, the United States overthrew a dictatorial regime in Iraq. True, they found no weapons of mass destruction there, but, on the whole, the West believes that it did a good thing by eliminating a dictator.

I’ve noticed now that Russian diplomats and the foreign minister have been increasingly using the term “regime,” especially when talking about the Ukrainian government. Regime is something illegitimate, at least from a moral standpoint. And if the government is illegitimate, why not help the forces of good to overthrow it?

I have a feeling that Russia has been looking for a new starting point around which to reassemble territories in the post-Soviet space. A variety of options could be employed here. For instance, Russia could expand on the concept of the Union State [which currently consists of Russia and Belarus] by incorporating new territories into it. Loosely speaking, if the Russian authorities come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to get the Minsk Agreements implemented, they may recognize the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics as one or two states and incorporate them into the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Hypothetically, that entity may also include Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

This will happen if Russia decides to destroy what it dislikes and use force since it can’t get what it wants nicely. The United States most likely won’t be able to do much about it. It won’t engage in a direct confrontation with Russia.

—YOU HAVE DESCRIBED TWO VERY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. TO DRAW A CHESS ANALOGY, THE FIRST ONE IS А SHREWD GAME WITH DELIBERATE MOVES AND CALCULATED RISKS. IN THE SECOND, ONE OF THE PLAYERS SIMPLY OVERTURNS THE CHESSBOARD AND ALL THE PIECES ON IT. SO WHICH OF THE SCENARIOS IS BEING IMPLEMENTED NOW?

I don’t know. Only one person in our country can answer this question. It’s impossible to figure out his answer from the outside. Russia has the capabilities to implement both scenarios. The Russian state and its armed forces will be prepared to accomplish any task assigned to them.

Both scenarios come at a certain cost and involve known risks. In the first case, we are talking about reputational losses, both internationally and domestically. If Russia abandons its demands, which it declared to be an “absolute imperative,” it may be accused of bluffing. Great powers don’t bluff. If Russia is bluffing, it’s descending to some other level in terms of its global status. But even if some sections of the population view this negatively, it’s no big deal overall. The government’s position at home is quite strong. It will be more of a blow to its international reputation: Russia may be taken less seriously in the future. But we can live with this too.

The second scenario, which entails the use of force, calls for a very serious rupture in relations, including within Russia itself. It would destroy the hopes of a small but influential part of the Russian elite that still hopes that relations with the West will be normalized someday. In the radical form described by some Western think tanks— the “Ukraine occupation” scenario—it would also test broader segments of the Russian population.

—THIS WILL HAPPEN IF RUSSIA GOES BEYOND RECOGNIZING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE DONETSK AND LUHANSK PEOPLE’S REPUBLICS?

Yes, if the Russian authorities decide that the only guarantee of Ukraine not joining NATO and not having American missile bases on its territory is Russia’s direct control over Ukraine or establishing a friendly regime in Kyiv. In any event, the use of force scenario won’t be similar to what happened in Crimea, where not a single shot was fired, and there were no casualties.

—DO YOU BELIEVE THIS USE OF FORCE SCENARIO TO BE AT ALL PROBABLE?

I think it’s unlikely. It’s fraught with many negative consequences, and great human and financial losses.

—IS IT THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO?

It all depends on your preferences and interests. For some, it’s the best-case scenario, for others, it’s the worst. In my view, it would entail a tremendous risk for Russia itself.

—FROM YOUR BOOK I CONCLUDED THAT, IN YOUR VIEW, NATO EXPANSION DOESN’T POSE SUCH A BIG THREAT TO RUSSIA. IS THAT SO?

No degree of NATO expansion, including to incorporate Ukraine, will threaten the military balance and deterrence stability. The United States won’t gain a serious strategic advantage over the Russian Federation by deploying missiles close to Kharkov.

—WHAT ABOUT ALL THE STATEMENTS ABOUT SHORTENED FLIGHT TIME: 5–7 MINUTES FOR A MISSILE TO REACH MOSCOW?

They don’t contradict what I have said. Because what’s going to happen in that situation? Russia will deploy its hypersonic missiles—say, Zirkon—on its submarines that will cruise along the U.S. coast, thereby ensuring the same flight time to reach the most important American targets. [It’s much more expensive to have missiles on subs and you can never reach the same mass. Also they can be sunk especially if they’re being taxied off the US coast and not in heavily-protected bastion seas off the coast of Russia as is the Russian-Soviet missile sub doctrine.] Deterrence will be preserved, albeit at a higher and more dangerous level. Nor can a U.S. army brigade in Poland or a NATO battalion in the Baltics seriously diminish Russia’s security. The only aspect that could be of serious concern to Russia is the missile defense elements in Romania and Poland. Nothing else poses a significant threat.

Therefore, in terms of military security, it’s correct to say I don’t see NATO expansion as such a terrible threat.

But there is another factor: a country that becomes a NATO member undergoes profound reformatting, which touches upon all walks of life. The country transforms politically and ideologically. While Ukraine is outside of NATO, it’s still possible that the entire country or some part of it may decide that the Slavic identity, the “Russian world,” and other things matter, and this may lead to a normalization of relations with Russia, and even closer relations with it. At least, from Moscow’s vantage point, such a possibility remains. But if a country joins NATO, that’s it: that ship has sailed. In this sense, yes, there is a threat but not a military one; rather, it’s geopolitical and geocultural. Then again, judging by the articles published, the commander-in-chief and the country’s military and political establishment have completely different ideas on this subject, and that must be taken seriously too.

—RUSSIA HAS THREATENED THE WEST WITH A “MILITARY TECHNOLOGY RESPONSE” IF ITS DEMANDS ARE NOT MET. BESIDES THE THINGS YOU ALREADY MENTIONED, WHAT MIGHT THAT BE?

If the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics follows the Abkhazia scenario, Russian troops and military bases may be deployed there. But I think that the bulk of the “military technology response” will have to do with deploying some weapons systems to new locations.

—FOR EXAMPLE?

For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that if Russia was unhappy about some military components in Europe, it might deploy additional missiles in Kaliningrad. The Kaliningrad region was seen as a frontline base of operations. From there Russia could threaten all kinds of enemies. But Kaliningrad is physically separated from the rest of Russian territory. It’s hard to deliver things there and maintain communication lines, especially amid antagonism with the West. It’s possible, but not easy. It’s much easier to deploy something on the territory of friendly Belarus: an ally that hasn’t hosted any Russian military bases or missiles, never mind nuclear missiles, so far. Especially since the Belarusian president himself…

—…IS INVITING RUSSIA TO DO SO?

Yes. He has great political acumen and is willing to provide such an opportunity to Russia for an unstated but easily discernible price. That’s one possibility.

There are other, more global options, for instance, close cooperation with China, close coordination between Moscow and Beijing in the military sphere, more active cooperation on military technology. Closer ties on military issues with countries like Iran are also possible. Finally, in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian president has had phone conversations with the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba.

—SO RUSSIA MAY ACT AS A SPOILER IN A SITUATION WHERE THE UNITED STATES EXPECTS IT TO REMAIN QUIET AND STAY OUT OF ITS CONFRONTATION WITH CHINA?

That’s a possibility, of course. And this would be normal practice. Countries that are hostile to each other, like Russia and the United States today, influence each other through force. That’s the reality. They don’t use reason and persuasion; they resort to force—not necessarily military force. Apart from its military capabilities, the United States possesses economic and financial strength, and increasingly uses this instrument against Russia. For its part, Russia’s strength lies in geopolitics, the energy sector, the military, and military technology.

—THERE HAS BEEN SPECULATION THAT RUSSIA MAY DEPLOY MISSILES TO VENEZUELA OR CUBA.

I don’t think that South or Central America are being seriously considered as possible Russian missile bases. Essentially, there is no need for that. In fact, if Russia starts making efforts in this regard, it will create the exact threat it’s trying to avoid. If Moscow begins to bother the United States in Latin America, Washington will respond in Europe, where a number of countries would gladly host INF-range missiles on their territory. Why would Russia need that?

—WHAT HAS HAPPENED THAT WE ARE SUDDENLY TALKING ABOUT SUCH DISTURBING SCENARIOS? WHERE IS THE WORLD HEADED?

It’s moving along a very dangerous trajectory, but I don’t know where it’s heading.However, if we look back at history, it’s obvious that if, after any large-scale confrontation—be it “hot” or “cold”—the losing side is not included in the new security arrangement on conditions it finds acceptable, its pride will be wounded and it will not be prepared to give up on its sovereignty. Then, having gained strength 20–30 years down the line, it will demand respect for its national interests.

—AND NOW THAT TIME HAS COME?

Yes, I think that time has come. It took thirty years to reach this juncture. The Cold War victors initially believed that Russia had lost its prior significance; they were no longer interested in it, and no one really wanted to engage with the difficult task of integrating it into the Western world.

Moreover, such integration would require Western powers—primarily the United States—to agree to substantial limitations on their own influence, to granting Russia the right to cast the deciding vote. The United States wasn’t ready for that. It wasn’t ready to share its influence, even with its closest allies. Washington always had to have the final say. So Russia chose not to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic on the terms of uneven partnership offered by the West. No one particularly regretted that back then: it was believed that Russia had a weak economy, bad demographics, and a fragile political system that may collapse a few more times. So there was no real need…

—…TO CARE MUCH?

Yes. Attitudes toward Russia started to change after the annexation of Crimea, and especially after the beginning of the military operation in Syria. You remember that Barack Obama called Russia a “regional power.” Then everyone saw that not only had it come back as an actor on the international stage, but also that it can act far beyond its own borders.

But here Moscow’s actions diverged from the interests of the West. Russia came to be seen as an adversary that must be punished and put in its place through pressure, especially through sanctions. Conciliatory gestures or concessions to Russia came to be viewed as appeasing an aggressor. Feeling its weakness, the West has generally become much less amenable to compromise, less willing to sit down with other competing and even hostile regimes, and to negotiate with them on equal terms. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has not negotiated with anyone on equal terms, not even with China.

You can understand the West, too. It’s going through tough times; we really are talking about the twilight of Western dominance and eventual end of its global leadership. It’s hard for them. I think we are moving toward a serious crisis in international relations. We can probably gain some degree of clarity after serious tests of strength in different regions and domains. Not all issues will be resolved at the negotiating table, but the outcomes can be formalized. That’s how the new world order is going to emerge.

by  Thierry Meyssan via VoltaireNet

Wendy Sherman and Sergey Riabkov have found that the U.S. does not want to talk with Russia

During the whole week, Moscow has been waiting for an answer to its proposal for a Treaty guaranteeing peace. Washington has never mentioned it. On the contrary, it has accused Russia of preparing to attack Ukraine and of planning a false flag operation to justify it. Russia can no longer back down, but any action on its part risks opening a third world conflict.

This article is a follow-up to :
1. “Russia wants to force the US to respect the UN Charter,” January 4, 2022.
2. “Washington pursues RAND plan in Kazakhstan, then in Transnistria,” by January 11, 2022.

The Western press fails to follow the relationships between the Big Three (China, the United States and Russia) because it segments them. It considers each issue separately and ignores the links between them. Above all, it ignores the difference between Anglo-Saxon and UN law, which leads to many misinterpretations.

The United States and Russia met three times this week to discuss peace guarantees:
in Geneva at the level of deputy foreign ministers ;
in Brussels in the NATO-Russia Commission ;
and finally in Vienna, at the OSCE.

The United States reiterated its warning against the stationing of 100,000 Russian troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border, while Russia expressed indignation at the US refusal to discuss its peace proposal.

At the same time, the US Congress debated sanctions against Russia, while the State Department extended its attitude towards Russia to China, and the Department of Defense is considering increasing its nuclear arsenal.

In the background, Washington has been conducting a destabilization operation in Kazakhstan and the European Union has set up a total economic blockade of Transnistria.

If the United States refuses further to take into account the reproaches addressed to it and to respond to Russian arguments, Moscow is now threatening to deploy troops in the Caribbean basin.

The only positive step forward is a possible relaunch of U.S.-Russian negotiations on the control of intermediate-range nuclear missiles, a treaty rejected by President Donald Trump.

THE CONTENT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS

When the U.S. delegation arrived in Geneva, it first had a friendly dinner with its Russian counterparts and then, the next morning at the start of the talks, informed them that its mandate was limited to discussing the deployment of U.S. and Russian troops in Ukraine.

“Other priorities are more important for us: non-expansion of Nato, elimination of the infrastructure created, refusal of certain measures, and not on a reciprocal basis, but on a unilateral basis on the part of the West”, Sergey Riabkov had already declared on arriving in Geneva [1].

So the Russians responded that the mandate of the US delegation was only incidental to the official purpose of the meeting: guarantees for world peace. Then Wendy Sherman and Sergey Riabkov reviewed the topics they could discuss later and found only one: a new Intermediate Nuclear Missile Reduction Treaty; the INF Treaty having been denounced by President Donald Trump.

The next day Wendy Sherman attended the NATO-Russia Commission meeting in Brussels. Allied ambassadors were having difficulty assessing Washington’s intentions after its abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban and its betrayal of France with the AUKUS agreement. Ms. Sherman let them speak first, and then she told the Russian delegation: “Of course, there are thirty of us here facing you, but we are only one on our positions”. Then she drew a picture of what Europe would become if Washington gave in to Moscow: once again a continent divided into two zones of influence, one Atlanticist, the other Russian, as during the Cold War.

This presentation awakened terrible memories so that the Allied ambassadors heard nothing else. The Russian delegation’s denials that it was not Soviet and did not want to share the continent were just background noise. Perhaps the Russians again presented their demands to respect the UN Charter and their word, nobody remembers.

The US press commented on this meeting by saying that it had given Nato, decried by Presidents Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron, a new reason to exist: to fight Russia.

Under these conditions, the third meeting, that of the OSCE in Vienna, was only – in the words of Sergey Lavrov – “dilatory”. The OSCE has no decision-making power, it is just a forum created during the Cold War to evaluate positions. The Swedish chairmanship of its Permanent Council reflected the image of this country, officially neutral, but internally debating its next membership in NATO. The allies were on the defensive, while the United States itself sought to gain time. The meeting did not even produce a final communiqué.

Moscow was expecting a wholesale rejection of its proposals by Washington, but it was astonished by the way US diplomats managed to manipulate the members of NATO and the OSCE. This is the second time that Vladimir Putin has come up against the irrational behavior of the European Union. Remember, in 2007, he thought he could distance Western Europeans from their American overlord by going to the Munich Security Conference and asking them to ask themselves what their interests were [2]. He mistakenly believed that he would get their attention, especially that of the Germans. The same thing is happening today.

It is clear that most European leaders, with the notable exception of the Russians, do not want to be independent. They renounce their own responsibility and prefer to grovel before an illegitimate and cruel world order.

HYSTERIA IN WASHINGTON

In Washington, the White House is aware that it can no longer afford its global policy, but the ruling class is not. Congress has been the scene of grandiloquent pronouncements denouncing Russian impudence and particularly that of its president, Vladimir Putin. Parliamentarians have gone so far as to discuss sanctioning him in name, which would mean breaking off diplomatic relations with his country. None of them seem to be aware that the United States is no longer the world’s leading military power and that Russia and China have replaced it.

Less stupid than sanctions against President Putin, Congress has mostly been squabbling over the possible reinstatement of sanctions against the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Republican Senator Marco Rubio defended the idea that the Germans should be punished for making a pact with “the devil”, including the former Social Democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who piloted the construction of the pipeline, so that they would have no choice [3]. Instead, the Democrats, on the advice of the White House, argued that it would be better to get the Germans to choose the right side themselves, rather than forcing them to do so. The Ukrainian government supported this common sense approach by pointing out that the Germans had negotiated guarantees with Russia that it would not use its gas supplies as a weapon [4].

This ludicrous debate was only possible because everyone has forgotten the reason that led President Joe Biden to lift the sanctions against Nord Stream 2 just before the Russian-US summit in Geneva [5]: it was a way to pass on to the Europeans the bill for the war damage in Syria. They would pay for cheap Russian gas, but a little less cheap than expected. Nobody even remembers that the United States lost this war.

EVERYTHING CONTINUES AS IF NOTHING HAD HAPPENED

Far from giving in on the substance, the State Department has extended its Russian narrative in the face of China, which supports Russia. Not only would Russia like to invade Ukraine and extend its rule to all of Eastern and Central Europe, but China would like to conquer the entire China Sea.

While the dispute with Russia post-dates the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the dispute with China goes back much further, to the tragic colonial period.

The State Department relies on a 2016 Hague Court of Arbitration decision, condemning China in a territorial dispute with the Philippines, to dismiss Beijing’s arguments [6]. However, an arbitration court is not a tribunal, and since China does not recognize this court, it did not arbitrate anything, but only endorsed the Philippine version of the dispute. Far from establishing anything, this episode attests to the way the United States interprets international law in general and the UN Charter in particular.

China rightfully claims the islands it ruled in the 18th century and abandoned when it collapsed under the onslaught of colonization. Most of them remained uninhabited until about 30 years ago, that is, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The United States, in claiming them for its allies in this area, is demonstrating the same conquering imperialism as in placing Central and Eastern Europe under the command of Nato.

Moreover, during this week, Washington has continued its operation of destabilization of Kazakhstan and support to the calls for the overthrow of the regime proclaimed by Mukhtar Ablyazov from Paris. Finally, it encouraged the European Union to organize a blockade of Transnistria, the unrecognized state wedged between Ukraine and Moldova [7]. If it seems to have lost in Kazakhstan, it is already preparing the next episode in Transnistria.

The United States is cloistered in its denial and is sending emissaries to each of its vassals to warn them of an imminent Russian attack on Ukraine following a false flag provocation.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSION

This week has predictably shown that the United States does not intend to respect either the UN Charter or its word. It will not back down anywhere on its own. Its proposals are at best aimed at preserving the status quo.

The US strategy seems to be based on the idea that the Russians and the Chinese will not dare to confront. It is the “madman theory” once used by President Richard Nixon against the Soviet Union: yes, I am wrong and I may not be the strongest, but I am crazy and my reactions are irrational and unpredictable. I don’t care if I win, I can break everything. This attitude is like a gamble. It did not allow the USA to win the Vietnam war.

Russia had obviously foreseen the next move when it published its draft treaty guaranteeing peace. However, it will have to adapt it because Washington has succeeded in rallying all its frightened vassals. If there is to be a confrontation, it will be nuclear and will surely result in hundreds of millions of victims.

If Washington is planning the next skirmish in Transnistria, Moscow is preparing to play the next move, probably in the Caribbean basin, on the model of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It would be a matter of provoking a shock that would make the American ruling class realize that it no longer has the superiority that it has been using and abusing so much.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

[1] “Riabkov expects US to face up to its responsibilities”, Voltaire Network, 10 January 2022.

[2] “The unipolar governance is illegal and immoral”, by Vladimir Putin, Voltaire Network, 11 February 2007.

[3] Fact Sheet on the Ted Cruz bill on Nord Stream 2, Voltaire Network, January 12, 2022

[4] Document send by Naftogaz to the US Congress, Voltaire Network, January 12, 2022

[5] “Biden-Putin, a Yalta II rather than a new Berlin”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 22 June 2021.

[6] “Propaganda: the Chinese are expansionists”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 14 July 2016.

[7] “Josep Borrell sets up siege of Donbass and Transnistria”, Voltaire Network, 10 January 2022.

By Layla Guest

2022 is a year for crisis between Moscow and Washington, according to one of Russia’s most senior senators

Hopes that rock-bottom relations between Moscow and Washington can be turned around are unlikely at present, a top Russian politician has claimed, arguing that only when a new world order is established will there be less conflict between the two states.

Speaking as part of an interview with Ukraina.ru earlier this week, Aleksey Pushkov, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, who previously served as chairman of the State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, cast his view on the current power dynamic on the world stage.

“The US is a hegemon that is gradually losing its position in the world,” he claimed. “They suffered a very serious defeat in the Middle East, they lost Syria, they lost the battle for Afghanistan, they were forced to withdraw almost all of their troops from Iraq at the end of 2021.”

According to the Russian senator, US officials “are trying to maintain their dominant influence by having conflicts simultaneously with Russia and China, although with different degrees of intensity.” Pushkov noted that this creates a nervous environment both in America and the rest of the world.

“The US no longer treats us as a secondary power,” he explained. “They treat us as a paramount power, which is why they cite Russia, not China, as one of the main problems facing the Biden administration in 2022.” Pushkov warned that it will be “a year of crisis between Washington and Moscow.”

“As I understand it, they now want to solve the ‘Russian problem,’ that is, to subjugate practically all of Europe, pushing Russia to its very outskirts,” he said. “This is exactly what they need Ukraine for. The next phase will be a political or even military confrontation with China.”

Pushkov added that America’s political and financial elite “believe that they are the only ones who can run the world,” and do not intend to let anyone else take the helms. “So, until a new world order is established in which the US is weaker and its role is diminished, we will be in more or less acute political conflict with them.”

His remarks come amid an increasingly tense stand-off between East and West, with senior American officials accusing Moscow of amassing troops and hardware near the Ukrainian border ahead of an invasion. Last week, Biden threatened to hit Russian President Vladimir Putin with sanctions like “he’s never seen” before in the event of an incursion, which the Kremlin has repeatedly denied having any plans of staging.

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, warned against a move such as this earlier this month, stating that “the imposition of sanctions against the head of state and against the leader of Russia … is a measure that is comparable to severing relations.”

The Biden administration says sanctions that it plans to introduce against Russia in the event of a hypothetical war with Ukraine would target Russian industry and key public figures, but not ordinary people.

“We can’t preview every action, but the intent there really is to have measures that we think will degrade Russia’s industrial capabilities and industrial production capacity over time, not to go after individual, everyday Russian consumers,” White House national security official Peter Harrell said in a speech to the Massachusetts Export Center on Thursday, as cited by Reuters.

Harrell also stated that in the event of military escalation, Washington is ready to immediately impose “crippling financial costs on major Russian financial institutions as well as to impose a range of quite sweeping export controls that will degrade Russian industrial capacity over the mid- and long term.” He went on to specify that the US strategy includes sanctions against major Russian financial institutions aiming “to trigger capital flight, to trigger inflation, to make the Russian Central Bank provide bailouts to its banks… so [Russian President Vladimir] Putin feels costs on day one.” Harrell’s remarks narrow the scope of measures that may be introduced, however, it appears unlikely that the ordinary consumer in Russia would not be affected by the collapse of the country’s economy, as Washington proposes.

Harrell did say he hoped measures would never have to be implemented, but stressed that Washington is fully prepared to introduce them if need be. According to the official, the measures aim to “degrade Russia’s ability to have industrial production in a couple of key sectors.” He did not specify the sectors, but other White House officials did mention the aviation, maritime, robotics, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and defense industries. According to various sources, the US has the means to stop firms worldwide from shipping items like semiconductor chips made with US technology to Russia, as it did with China’s Huawei. Talks regarding the matter have reportedly been held with Taiwan and South Korea, major manufacturers of chips.

On Friday, Commerce Department official Thea Kendler noted that sanctions would also target Russia’s “key people,” while US President Joe Biden earlier this week vowed to consider personal sanctions against the Russian leader himself.

The talk of potential sanctions against Russia comes amid the global hype over Moscow’s recent amassing of troops in its regions bordering with neighboring Ukraine. Western states, largely at the behest of Washington, view it as a preface to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin, however, repeatedly stressed that no such intentions exist and the movement of a country’s troops within its borders should not concern outsiders.

via RT

Victor Davis Hanson via The Epoch Times

It is a very realistic possibility that America might be heading towards a systems collapse. There are quite a few indicators adding weight to this highly probable event.

Numerous countries have experienced “systems collapse” in contemporary eras, much as they did in ancient Rome. The word refers to a population’s unexpected incapacity to continue doing what had previously assured their way of life, reports The Epoch Times.

Suddenly, the population is unable to purchase or even locate formerly abundant necessities. They believe their streets are dangerous. Laws are either not enforced at all or are enforced unfairly. Things break down on a daily basis. The government shifts from being dependable to being erratic, if not antagonistic.

Take the Venezuela of today. By 2010, the once prosperous oil-exporting nation had gotten itself into a quagmire. Food was in short supply, and criminality was rampant.

The perpetrators were radical socialism, nationalization, corruption, incarceration of critics, and the abolition of constitutional principles.

Between 2009 and 2016, Greece, which had previously been reasonably stable, was on the verge of becoming a Third World nation. So did the United Kingdom during its socialist era in the 1970s.

Joe Biden’s budding presidency could potentially be bringing the United States to its knees.

The concept of a border has been all but demolished by hard left “woke” thinking. Throughout a pandemic, millions of destitute immigrants are unlawfully entering the United States, with no COVID-19 checks or immunizations.

Official communiques on masks, herd and acquired immunity, immunizations, and comorbidities appear to vary and react to perceived political circumstances, resulting in a loss of confidence for health authorities.

America is reverting back into a pre-modern tribal system after generations of improving race relations.

Crime is on the rise. Inflation is raging. Meritocracy has been delegitimized, and we are now governed more often by ideology and tribalism.

The working class is being strangled by skyrocketing prices for the necessities of life—fuel, food, housing, health care, and transportation.

Millions of people stay at home, pleased to be compensated by the government to not work. The new normal is supply shortages and bare shelves.

Train burglaries in the style of the nineteenth century are making a comeback. Looting, car thefts, and indiscriminate murders of the innocent were all part of 1970s urban violence.

Following the failure in Afghanistan, we have reverted to the dark ages following the loss in Vietnam, when U.S. deterrence was destroyed as well, and worldwide extremism and instability were really the norms.

Who’d have guessed a year back that America would be begging Saudi Arabia and Russia to pump more oil while pulling our existing oil licenses, pipelines, and oil fields?

It’s not really an earthquake, climate change, nuclear war, or even the COVID-19 outbreak that will bring our systems down.

The majority of our ailments, on the other hand, are self-inflicted. They’re the outcome of woke ideas which are simultaneously brutal and diametrically opposed to conventional American pragmatism.

Thousands of criminals have been apprehended, but hard-left district attorneys in our big cities have refused to prosecute them, rather depending on defunct social justice notions.

Law enforcement has already been defunded and libeled indiscriminately. As a result of the loss of police deterrent, looters, vandals, thieves, and killers are more willing to prey on the population.

“Modern monetary theory” brainwashes ideologues into believing that printing trillions of dollars will empower the public while it actually is inflating the public’s wealth and making them poorer.

The absurdity of “critical race theory” is that present “good” racism can undo the effects of past bad racism. A formerly tolerant, multiracial nation is emulating the former Yugoslavia’s factionalism.

The cause is once again a brutal woke philosophy that places little importance on individuals and places the so-called collective agenda above all else.

“Equity,” or enforced equality of outcome, is woke’s trademark. In practice, we’re turning into a comic-book version of victims and perpetrators, with awakened opportunists playing the roles of our superheroes.

Weirdest of all in 2021 was the relentless onslaught on our historic institutions, as we blamed our forefathers for our own failures.

The woke have conducted a veritable warfare against the 233-year-old Electoral College and states’ power to create their individual balloting regulations in national elections, as well as the 180-year-old filibuster, the 150-year-old nine-person Supreme Court, and the 60-year-old 50-state union.

Until recent times, the United States military, Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, Center for Disease Control, and National Institutes of Health were held in high regard. Their highest levels were manned by career experts who were primarily unaffected by the politics of the day.

Not right now. The public’s trust and support for these bureaucracies and institutions are eroding. Citizens dread, rather than appreciate, Washington power brokers who have turned politics into a weapon rather than a tool for public service.

Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Merrick Garland, former FBI directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe, retired CIA director John Brennan, and Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have all politicized and massively surpassed their professional responsibilities.

They spoke out in public forums as if they were appointed lawmakers seeking reelection. Some people have lied under oath. Others cast aspersions on critics. The majority of them aspired to be media darlings.

A painfully befuddled, petulant, and inept president is in charge of this governmental rapid decline. In his perplexity, President Joe Biden, who is becoming progressively unpopular, appears to believe that his divisive turmoil is working, dismissing his political adversaries as racist Confederate insurgents.

Who will prevent our spiral into communal poverty, divisiveness, and self-inflicted craziness as we approach the 2022 midterm elections?