By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-europe-as-the-main-front-of-the-hybrid-war/
The fact of a global hybrid standoff between Russia and the US hasn’t been denied by anybody for a long time. Allies can change and come over to the other side, but the issue can be definitively resolved only by the defeat of one of these two powers. However, so far politicians and experts, proceeding from personal preferences or specialisation, highlight various private crises (that are, in fact, fronts of a global standoff) as the main one, calculating the options for victory or defeat depending on the succession of events in a concrete direction.
Some crises, like, for example, Middle Eastern ones (which is the most pronounced in the Syrian civil war), are indeed a key to the defeat of one of the parties. A victory for the Americans in Syria would guarantee them control over the Big Middle East and unimpeded penetration into the Caucasus and Central Asia. In turn, it would ensure the blocking of Russia-China transit routes and would nullify the trans-Eurasian political-economic project, which, in fact, is indeed the main competitor to the Anglo-Saxon oceanic one. After this any particular successes in any other directions wouldn’t mean anything.
The victory of Russia and allies – which in the military sphere has already been gained, but it still has to be cemented diplomatically (and this is a no less complex challenge) – guarantees to Russia and China reliable (even superfluous) control over trans-Eurasian trade routes. From this point of view the US has suffered a defeat. Their efforts in the Far East and in Ukraine can change nothing. Even a hot war with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the sinking of Ukraine into fully-fledged Makhnovshchina can’t tear up all transport arteries.
Ukraine is being quietly bypassed in several directions at once. And the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea even more so lies at a distance from the strategic transport routes connecting the West and the East of Eurasia. Nevertheless, the involvement of Washington in the designated crises (the Korean and Ukrainian ones) doesn’t weaken. It only acquires new forms. If Obama’s administration worked for the creation of stable, hostile to Russia structures, then Trump’s administration, on the contrary, destabilises and chaotisizes the situation on the borders of Russia and China.
Such chaotization when the Syrian crisis hadn’t yet been solved could’ve played an essential role in the distraction of the forces of Moscow and Beijing in secondary directions and giving a free hand to the US in a strategically important point — in the Middle East. But, as was said above, in the military-political plan the destiny of the Syrian crisis has already been decided. As for the diplomatic settlement, these crises, even in their worst variant, won’t be able to significantly affect the position of Moscow and Beijing at the negotiating table any more.
Therefore, supporting the processes of chaotization on the Russian and Chinese borders, the US tries to achieve another new (other) objective. This objective is obvious. In both cases of the US hopes that Europe, being integrated into NATO, will have to support America’s actions in one way or another. A new period of deterioration in Russian-European relations and deep cooling between the EU and China will become the consequence of this. Or so it seems to Washington.
What does it give to America?
The entire project of Big Eurasia is based on three components:
- European technologies and market;
- Chinese commodity production;
- Russian transit, resource base, and military-political umbrella.
The US didn’t succeed to tear the Russian-Chinese union apart. Similarly, Washington wasn’t able to block trans-Eurasian trade routes. However, if to force the European link out from the project, then it will sag.
Theoretically, Russia, after a while, will be able to replace Europe as the technological base of the project. However, there is nothing to replace the capacious and solvent half-billion European market. If Chinese goods aren’t purchased in Europe, then there is no need to transport them there. This calls into question the program of the development of transit corridors. Moreover, then the US will remain the main buyer of Chinese goods, which gives them the chance to significantly influence the policy of Beijing and to even try to change it in their own favor.
It is clear that China won’t opt for a confrontation with Russia. But its neutrality and economic dependence on the US is enough to radically change the direction of the flow of goods and to push Russia out to the roadside of global trade. With this move the ambitious modernisation projects of Moscow will be immediately called into question and its global influence will decrease. Controlling the Middle East as the intersection of global trade routes is one thing. But it is another matter if these routes are laid across the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, and the Middle East remains nothing more than a zone of permanent instability.
In fact, this global conflict is over the EU. And the slogan “We need Berlin!”, which Ura-patriots from the era of the Russian spring in Ukraine like to laugh at, not only didn’t lose its relevance, but on the contrary, after victory in Syria it finally comes to the forefront. Obtaining control over trade routes and, as a result, learning that at the end of these routes no trade partner is to be found, will be more than regrettable.
However, the actions of the US in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ukraine, and the Middle East – where they provoked another episode in the Muslim-Israeli conflict, and not Arab-Israeli conflict, (the main operators of which become the not at all Arabian Turkey and Iran), are rather transparent. Meanwhile Europe resists these actions by calling on the US to act more moderately in the dispute with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, condemning the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and having practically stopped its active participation in the Ukrainian crisis. Theoretically Washington can put more pressure on the EU, but there is no guarantee that its resistance will be broken. It’s possible that Europe may not involve itself in a confrontation against Russia and China, having kept its neutrality, which is formally favorable for the US, but in practice disrupts the scheme of Washington.
I think that the US surely understands the unsteadiness of placing a stake on the voluntary involvement of the EU in a crisis that isn’t just unprofitable for it, but is also economically deadly. Brussels, Berlin, and Paris already showed that they are able to politically support and thus bureaucratically sink the most elaborated American projects (for example, the Transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), which didn’t happen because of the EU’s sabotage). Since the battle for transit routes was lost by the US, the only option that doesn’t allow the creation of Big Eurasia is to yank Europe out of the scheme at any cost, as the weakest link of the developing chain.
If Europe doesn’t desire to voluntary close its doors to the Russian-Chinese project, and it is also impossible to force it to do so, then all that remains is the option for the disappearance of Europe. Of course, not the physical disappearance of European States from the political map, but of peoples from history. Just the disappearance of Europe as an economic partner. For this purpose ensuring the chaotization of Europe is enough.
The task becomes simpler by the fact that Europe is far from being united, and the EU is experiencing serious economic difficulties. The problem of diluting the European identity via the liberal-globalist ideology of permanent tolerance and rejecting traditional values is superimposed on top of this. Besides this, the EU is the traditional economic partner and military-political ally of the US, and it is a younger partner and younger ally too. I.e., Washington has considerable-enough freedom of hands to influence the development of both the policies of certain European states and general European policies. Finally, the liberal elites that are still in power feel the breath on their necks of conservative nationalists, which are scoring more and more points both in national and in general European elections. Without having the possibility to prevent their political opponents from coming to power in the near future at the expense of an internal resource, the liberal elites are obliged to lean on the US, sacrificing the interests of their States and the European Union in general in favor of personal and party interests.
Thus, it is possible to expect that if the declared policy of the EU aimed at gradually exiting the sanctions regime and normalising relations with Russia doesn’t change, then the US – leaning on strong positions inside the European Union – will start active work for the disintegration and chaotization of Europe. In the soft option this must destroy the united economic structure and plunge EU countries into a deep economic crisis that will depreciate them as economic partners. In the hard option there can be talk of a series of political and military conflicts on the European continent. The result will be the same, but the economy will be destroyed more reliably, and the purchasing power of the population will collapse no less than Ukraine’s did.
The US has two directions for active actions:
- Following the line of contradictions between the rich North and the poor South: the PIGS group countries, which are up to their ears in debt, and the countries adjoining them, which for a long time haven’t been enthusiastic about the German policy of austerity and control over the deficiencies of national budgets. However, in order to throw them against Germany, they need to offer to them the equivalent financing. I will remind that Alexis Tsipras, since becoming the Prime Minister of Greece using slogans of resistance to the German dictatorship, immediately went to Russia to ask for money. As soon as it became clear that Russia doesn’t plan to finance the Greek deficiency, Tsipras gave up and accepted all of Germany’s demands documented as the requirements of the EU. It is unlikely that Washington, feeling a need for available funds, will want to finance a very expensive mutiny of the European South against the North.
- Following the line of contradictions between the West and the East (or Old Europe and New Europe). Eastern European countries entered the EU as clients of Washington and repeatedly entered into conflicts with the leaders of the EU, supporting the position of the US. And now their elites, who built their political career on the back of Russophobia, categorically oppose normalising relations with Russia. Rare exceptions (like the president of the Czech Republic and the Prime Ministers of Slovakia and Hungary, who are also situational allies and not completely free in their actions) don’t play a role.
The fact that Washington chose precisely the Eastern option and placed a stake on Eastern European limitrophes, strengthening America’s military presence in these States, testifies to this. Moreover, a considerable part of these troops (except the division that was additionally transferred from America) simply change their location, leaving garrisons in Western Europe and moving to Eastern ones.
Stories about this being done in the name of defending the small, but proud Eastern Europeans from a Russia that dreams of occupying them don’t invoke trust. Not only because Russia has no reason to attack NATO if it seeks to set an economic partnership with the EU in motion, but also because NATO Generals themselves don’t hide the fact that even if the created groups are increased threefold in size, they won’t be able to prevent an almost instant occupation at least of the Baltics (and then all of Eastern Europe) by Russia if the latter suddenly has the desire to attack. Moreover, in both the US and in Old Europe politicians almost openly say that they won’t risk a global nuclear conflict because of Riga, Warsaw, or Bucharest.
Thus, the American troops don’t increase the stability of the Eastern European regimes in relation to Russia. On the contrary, they create a nervous situation inside the country, reducing the support of voters for Russophobic parties. The population is simply afraid that some badly though over provocation can indeed result in a military conflict.
But the American garrisons sharply increase the stability of Eastern Europe in discussion with Western Europe. Limitrophes act as priority allies of the US in the defence of the “free world”, and they demand the preservation of and even an increase in financial support from general European funds, because they supposedly are “frontline States”.
At the same time, Germany seriously intends to completely stop giving this support by 2020. France supports Germany in this, and even the “poor South” isn’t at all against believing that it will be able to lay claim to for the saved money or, at worst, to avoid the sequestration of the general European payments in its advantage.
Meanwhile, many rounds of negotiations and consultations showed that the parties aren’t inclined to a compromise, taking hard lines instead. Paris and Berlin are already ready to switch from talking about “a Europe of different speeds” to the implementation of the project “of two Europes”. It assumes that rich EU countries with stable economies will unite around Paris and Berlin into a certain federal European State, and the others, having formally remained members of the EU, but dropping out of the circle of further integration, in essence will turn for Old Europe into a colonial periphery approximately under the same conditions that the EU imposed on the countries of the Eastern Partnership in agreements on association.
And what’s more, Eastern Europe can resist such a succession of events only by leaning on the US and destroying the EU. Moreover, not discussing, like Britain did, the Brexit points of order, but solving problems on the spur of the moment. The American military-political umbrella will allow them to ignore the European rules and the discontent of partners.
But the chaotic destruction of the European Union will inevitably entail the destruction of an economy that wasn’t re-constructed in time (usually reforms in the EU last for years) and the crash of the Euro system. At worst there will be separatist movements (when a country votes for an exit from the EU, but some regions are against it), and also border conflicts. These conflicts can easily develop into military ones, and American bases won’t be able to prevent them (even if Washington wants to, the US won’t want to).
If the fragile structure of the EU starts to crumble – it is already experiencing considerable strain – and it isn’t known what new hair will break the camel’s back, then it will be almost impossible to stabilise the situation and to reverse the already begun process. It will mean an economic and political disaster for Europe.
In such a succession of events, the US practically wins nothing, destroying its last serious ally and losing its European bridgehead. But they don’t allow Russia to win either. Should Europe drop out, the project of Big Eurasia with a high share of probability will break up into two projects. China will start recreating the “sphere of co-prosperity” that was left unfinished by the Japanese in the first half of the 20th century in Southeast Asia and in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia will try to rally Central Asia and the Middle East around itself, and also to manoeuvre in the shattered Europe. The interests of these two systems will meet in Africa and India. But the Americans will try to return to the doctrine of “America for Americans” and force out China and Russia from the bridgeheads occupied by them in Latin America.
In general, the world will become multipolar, but more confrontational, and Washington will have the possibility to play on the contradictions between the former allies in the Eurasian project.
The battle for Europe promises to become the heaviest and unpredictable battle of the 4th world hybrid war (the 3rd one being a cold war). Thus, Russia and China need only a victory, but for the US a draw will be enough. A draw will also give them a neutral result in the geopolitical standoff, as well as the opportunity to be reconstructed and start everything anew.
‘Trump’s administration, on the contrary, destabilises and chaotisizes the situation on the borders of Russia’ – Trump isn’t really interested in ukraine, and ukraine is self-destabilised by the thieving and incompetent idiots in kiev – & his vp is in no way comparable to the previous arrogant warmongering idiot and loser; Pence isn’t interested. Basically, the USG doesn’t know how to handle the situation in either sphere, having been smartly outplayed by Putin, and all the USG can effectively do is announce sanctions, so weak and dumb it is.
‘Just the disappearance of Europe as an economic partner’ etc – seriously? You think American companies won’t mind to see an established market of about 500 million consumers be trashed? And if so, how will they be able to increase defence spending as Trump told them he wants?
This isn’t about a draw either, as it implies a set time limit; this is not a sport. It means a drift, a change in the balance of power, moving ever eastwards. It’s also about population numbers, the ratio of at least 5:1 in favour of Eurasia.
Hah, I’d copied to use the first part of that quote:
” If Obama’s administration worked for the creation of stable, hostile to Russia structures, …”
Which ones? Libya? Ukraine? Umm…Australia?
Ralph, There is a draw in the world affairs. It’s called “status quo”. The world affairs have many of those on record. Just as the author implies, a status quo is to the USofA benefit. Russia being on the receiving end of the western aggression has to be alert all the time, which is very energy and resource consuming affair. Aggressor can, theoretically, chose the time of attack especially that he has the media on “his” side. Of course Russia can say f&ck it and attack, but this is not politically beneficial. So, Russia has to live with the status quo.
Anonius, the world is not static, the US has peaked, it was easy for it to attack countries like Iraq, but now, up against Russia, it has potentially a lot more to lose: a lot of the US ‘invincibility’/#1 has been based on being relatively untested; just like with unholyweird, it’s largely based on imagery, & reputation, all it requires is for one or more of its vaunted weapons to be destroyed to seriously deflate its power. Psychologically, it has a lot more to lose.
As can be seen in Syria & ukraine, it can only go so far; it can’t win.
And despite Trump’s claims of making the US ‘great’ again, the rest of the world is not waiting for that to happen and is forging new ties economically, with Eurasia having a distinct advantage in a much superior population relative to the US, which will eventually create an imbalance away from it.
Ralph, I never said the world is static. But if we look at Donbas situation we see no peace but neither fully blown war. People die, yet everybody yells “Minsk, Minsk, etc”. Minsk is an example of this situation. USofA is stirring the pot and Russia has to be constantly on the alert in order not allow things to go out of hand. Again, I am not talking about control, because Russia has no control of the events, but the US. Russia is just making counter moves trying not to allow US any significant advantage in the field. So, in closing, US has nothing to lose in Donbas, no US citizens are at harm there. Maybe the mercs, but they do not count. Similar situation is in Syria. US has lodged itself there and the way I see it: the only way to dislodge the US is trading punches, which Russia is not about to do. You will notice, US is provoking with missile strikes and Russia is just trying to swat them away, just like the pesky flies. Hence, a $hitty situation without acceptable way out. I hope you get the point that author is presenting here, or just the way I see his point.
One more point. Population advantage never meant anything, even in the days when conflicts were handled with the sticks. All one had to do is use longer and sharper sticks.
Ah, if I may. The sticks. Excellent example is the battle between John Snow and Bolton for the Winterfell in the Game of thrones. What you see here is numerically and equipment inferior John Snow against numerically and equipment superior Bolton. In addition, if you look at that battle you will see the director actually uses Greek Hoplite (also later Roman Legions) tactics for Bolton’s army. Well organized rows of foot soldiers with shields and spears physically pushing and slaughtering the opposing “crowd” of poorly trained Snow’s army. So to end, it takes tactics and stategy to win the war. Yes, I know Snow won with some additional help, but this is Hollywood.
Regarding moves being made in the Horn of Africa to displace Chinese influence and increase American:
Daily Mail: Israel is “the leader in assassinations”
Noted and read.
Too bad the author ruins his reportage with comments such as the following:
“Even today, hatred of Jews remains a monstrous feature of Europe’s political landscape — as evidenced by the appalling goings-on inside the Labour Party, where leader Jeremy Corbyn and his friends have turned a blind eye to the resurgence of the most poisonous anti- Semitism. No wonder, then, that in the struggle for survival, Israel’s leaders have reached so often for the bomb and bullet.
‘If someone comes to kill you,’ says the sacred Jewish text, the Talmud, ‘rise up and kill him first.’”
He ends iwth an apologia for the Israelis’ “callous” treatment of Palesinians and their defense of their “homeland” after the experience of the Holocaust.
Not makling sense. Are these disclaimers required in order for the review to be published at all?
Gatekeepers trying to salvage the image of the baby killers.
Kat, it makes very much sense. In my take he talks about the people not the apparatus.
Quite correct, Katherine. There is NO ‘resurgence’ of ‘antisemitism’ vile or of any other kind in UK Labour under Corbyn. What there has been is a campaign of unspeakable fraudulence and viciousness to FALSELY assert that ‘antisemitism’ is rife in UK Labour. The Zionists running this typically hysterical, vicious, mendacious and hypocritical campaign are acting to destroy UK Labour because they no longer control it as they did totally under the Sabbat Goy war criminal Blair.
The examples of ‘antisemitism’ cited are ludicrous in their fraudulence. Livingstone, a hero of Labour and life-long anti-racist (unlike all Zionists)was lynched for telling the truth about German Zionist co-operation with the Nazis to facilitate the transfer of German Jews to Palestine. Wadsworth, another leading figure in anti-racist actions, was lynched for literally nothing, merely observing that the Blairite Quisling, Smeeth, was openly acting in concert with Labour’s enemies in the Daily Telegraph.
This campaign has been waged in open concert with the Tories, the entire rotten corpse of the UK media, led by the insanely hate-crazed Fraudian, and the Quisling Blairites. It is also an essential part of the ferocious Zionazi campaign to outlaw and criminalise, if possible, ALL criticism of Israel, of Zionism, and of any Jew, even the monsters running the now openly apartheid state, Israel. And to outlaw ALL support for the Palestinians, starting with BDS. To state that ‘antisemitism’ is rife in UK Labour is a Big Lie worthy of its inventor, and the usual psychopathic Zionazi tendency to project their own vicious psychology onto their victims, and lie and vilify, threaten and intimidate, without any restraint, because they know that their money power controls the entire Western political and media apparatuses. Unfortunately the sheer intensity of the hatred unleashed is turning very nasty indeed, and perhaps the Zionazis will not be satisfied with merely destroying UK Labour and Corbyn politically, but might be tempted to follow their habitual tendency to eliminate anyone who ‘gets in our way’. I hope Corbyn has good security.
I agree. Corbyn must watch his back.
It seems to be always progressives who have “accidents” or sudden fatal health emergencies.
(Well, not always progressives—include also insiders who are slated to give sworn testimony!)
Just want to add that this piece is by Finian Cunningham.
IMO his analyses and writing are both stellar.
Ischenko hits it out of the park again. This is a glimpse of the trajectories along which Orwell’s 3 great powers will be formed if the US succeeds in making itself great again.
The corollary is, of course, that as things proceed and should the US’ plans develop successfully, China and Russia will have to react. They’ve staked their futures on the BRI and can’t let it go lightly.
If the powers currently driving the US remain at the wheel, I don’t see how Eastasia & Eurasia avoid finding themselves in a situation where they will have to destroy the US altogether. How they do this will decide the fate of the world.
Trump WILL start WORLD WAR 3
so the DEEP STATE won’t oust him.
A brave attempt to make sense out of the geopolitical state of the world. But I think the situation is both more complex and more simple than that as follows: the real conflict lies in the growing power of non-state actors and their networks, i.e., the global finance oligarchy involving both central bankers, major international institutions, and major corporations and the nation states whose power, in my view, continues to fragment and decline. Add to this the growing influence of criminal gangs and networks (many intel organizations are nothing more than criminal gangs and, like the CIA, are intertwined with them) and you have a very interesting and highly complex and unstable situation. The simple part of it is that each of those groups only want to keep their share of power and all prefer a stable situation.
At the moment the Russia-phobia situation, at least in the USA, is mainly part of an internal struggle for power within the Washington Deep State (again, badly fragmented)–there is no threat from Russia and everyone knows it but the game requires that play to continue. The only true wild-care is the possible war with Iran. I know the finance oligarchs and most corporations oppose a war there though they appreciate a strategy of tension (any tension works for them to distract the population from realizing how badly they are being fucked) so I believe it is unlikely but the Trump administration is very unstable and the people around Trump may see that destroying Iran as a power may be the only way to stop, in its tracks, Chinese movement into the region because everyone knows in Washington that China is the real enemy no Russia. So… we await that sword dropping or not dropping, my guess, is that whether it drops or not we will have to wait until after the election.
Excellent article. The US may well have to “retreat” to total domination over Latin America which it is already securing with new pro-deep state regimes in Ecuador and (soon) Nicaragua. It may well be the Plan B of the US elites. But until then we have their ongoing war against Russia in which China really plays a two-faced role. See below–so much for any thanks to Russia for their behind scenes agreements, guarantees and encouragement given to the N. Koreans in order for them to make “nice” to the USA.
Putin is very focused on how to finance his 6 year great leap forward ( the rising of the retirement age is unfortunately one of those sacrifices being asked of the Russian people at this crucial time). Russia historically has used European money, expertise etc. to build itself quickly and efficiently at certain times in the past especially from France and Germany. As the EU is dismantled, perhaps there will be elements of the ruling groups in these two countries who will see their future as more secure in economic alliance with Russia and not with a failing USA which wants to sell them over-priced LNG, polluted food, technology riddled with spyware while shaking them down for more questionable and unneeded military “protection”.
It is all about how much Russia can be hurt, derailed , thwarted and ultimately its resources seized . And the ruling elite is very focused. It is a dangerous and ultimately non creative strategy to try to win by chaotization because it can spin out of control and come back to bite them very easily.
Oh, and Russia, watch your back with China. I see no combined effort to “crash the West” economically at least until 2024 but it appears that the West can do the deed on itself from its own internal contradictions without outside help easily enough. Hold on to your gold and let’s go!
Tera, you omitted Argentina, Brazil and couple other small slave statelets. Not to mention Cuba, which I think is being prepared for “perestroika”.
The actions of Washington under the direction of the Atlanticist oligarchs continues to draw together nations against a common enemy: American imperialism. For example, Turkey is probably 18 – 24 months away from being out of NATO for a number of reasons. At that point, Turkey will have no choice but to move strongly towards BRICS/SCO and even reconcile hard differences with Iran, Iraq and Syria. Turkey’s survival and future will depend on the East once it’s split with NATO and the West is complete.
China is the master organizer and is rapidly organizing the multipolar world. Russia and China are now inseparable. They are, for all practical purposes, one country. The Russia/China integration in military, industry, technology, science and academic is near complete. They are one single block and together they will organize the region and the world. This is now inevitable. Most Americans are completely unaware.
The article is very interesting while at the same time raising points which are debatable.
At the moment we indeed have the Russian-Chinese economic partnership which is facing off the Anglo-Zionists, US and Britain. The EU continental countries, while officially under Anglo-Zionist control, are looking into emerging developments and making their plans.
Yes, Europe is certainly the key to the success of the Eurasian Economic Union, followed by the Shanghai Cooperation Zone and the Silk Road. Once it joins, others will follow, starting a chain reaction. The Anglo-Zionists want to prevent his. How ? By subverting the nation states of Europe, leading to the creation of one European state and one European “nation”, based on the US “mixing pot”, which created the American “nation” (or did it ?).
When the EU introduced “open borders”, people in Europe initially thought that this applied to the free movements of European populations inside the EU. They realized what this term meant when the Anglo-Zionists forced Merkel to accept between one and two million false “refugees” from third world countries, who were given the role of a political Trojan Horse, subverting Europe politically, economically, financially, socially and ethnically. Once chaos is created, a former sovereign country becomes an easy target for manipulation, which of course is the intent. This intent is being broadened to include the whole of Europe, whose capital will become Brussels, itself controlled by private bankers from the EU Central Bank.
Does the current EU have any future ? The answer is no. Analysts are offering three options as to its final fate. The first option is the reorganization of the EU, the affluent North controlling the poorer South. The second option is the reduction in the size of the EU, the affluent North, centered around Germany, expelling the weaker members from the South. The third option is the break up of the EU, with Germany being the first to join the Eurasian Economic Union, followed by others. The US, of course, is very much aware of this, which is the reason why Merkel was forced to “invite” so many “refugees”, whose role was to subvert Germany.
Analysts have also raised the question of a potential Franco-German “partnership” inside the EU, even the question of France taking over the leadership of the EU, which is hilarious. Not only is France in serious financial and economic difficulties, but Macron cannot even control his own capital, with French troops patrolling the streets, something the police are incapable of doing. Germany needs France for it’s exports (over 100 billion euros a year), and for little else. The existence of France, like that of Sweden, is questionable. Both have huge immigration problems, with analysts reporting that the French military are thinking of ethnically cleansing the whole country of immigrants. Germany, too, has a similar problem, but one which in the long run it can probably solve, as many of the immigrants are newly arrived. However, this remains to be seen.
The article points to the US strategy of reducing the importance of Europe as a trading partner for China, so that the US can influence Chinese foreign policy vis a vis Russia (namely divide and conquer). This is highly debatable.
Yes, the US does indeed want to prevent Europe joining the East, which is the reason why it is subverting it. However, the question needs to be asked what Chine sees in the US in relation to what it sees in Russia and others.
The US has the largest foreign and domestic debt in the world, while the dollar is printed backed by nothing. One analyst has even stated that the US Government is preparing the introduction of a new, domestic dollar. The US middle class is being reduced in number, while 1/3 of the US labor force is “out of work”. What is China going to do ? End up selling trinkets at Walmart ? I think not.
Both Russia and China are looking into the break up of the US empire. China, through it’s Silk Road initiative, is opening trade and industrial routes to Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Europe is looking towards the Eurasian economic Union, especially Germany, which bypassed sanctions by opening subsidiaries in Russia, with 500 German industrialists openly conducting negotiations. The US forgot the old army rule, which goes like this:”He who wants to control everything ends up controlling nothing”. Every empire in history proved this rule. However, the US has no intention of relinquishing its empire, just like the Romans had no intention of relinquishing theirs, with the result that it collapsed, the Roman elite being the first to flee the city.
So, how are things going to end ? As things stand now, the Russian – Chinese economic partnership is here to stay. China needs Russian energy and high tech, and the Russian market. Russia needs Chinese finances and industrial products, while Russia itself is on a road to further industrialization, something that Count Vitte began before World War One, with the Anglo-Zionists disrupting it with two World Wars and the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. This economic partnership is bound to attract others, especially Europe, whether Europe joins it in the capacity of the EU or as sovereign states after the dissolution of the EU.
And the US ? What does it have to offer ? A new broader war ? Imperial decrees for others to accept ? The most it can expect is joining the Russian-Chinese camp as an equal partner, following established rules, and even this on condition the US does not break up, as I think it will, as it’s nothing more than an artificial creation which has no real basis in law and history.
Finally, there is one other point which the article does not mention, and that is the possibility of the creation of a Nordic Economic Union. About eight years ago analysts reported that London and Moscow were holding covert talks on Britain’s admission into the BRICS. The results of these negotiations are unknown. After BREXIT, Iceland proposed the creation of a Nordic Economic Union, with Norway rejecting the proposal, as it would end up paying for the Union with it’s 1 trillion dollar Oil Fund. However, if such a Union is not possible now, it does not mean it is not possible at a future date, bearing in mind Europe’s immigration problems, and they are immense. If countries like France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden do not settle their ethnic troubles caused by immigration, they will at a future date cease to exist as sovereign entities. Then a Nordic Economic Union is indeed a possibility, with Sweden being the weakest link (commentators have indeed stated that Sweden was intentionally subverted with immigrants, to prevent the creation of such a Union). Even so, Sweden can be bypassed. The Nordic Economic Union could potentially stretch from the North Sea to the Pacific, as Russia too is a Nordic country, the first Russian state being created by Swedish Vikings, who unified the Slavic confederations of Russia. The North of Europe would influence Central and South Europe, which is very tempting indeed, bearing in mind that Russia would be a member of both the Nordic Union and the Eurasian Economic Union, and the two would exert their political and economic influence.
Time is the factor and in the end it will decide how things are going to be settled. At the moment we can all just speculate.
An interesting food for thoughts in this article :
At some point, China is viewed as a country in full economical “offensive” on grand scale. The latest investments and purchase of different economical installations has increased in Europe. Where will lead this ? asked the Germans in radio show.
The article wonders why the Chinese are willing to pay far more than the market value for Western companies with proprietary expertise in industrial fields. “You have to ask yourself why Chinese companies with no foothold in Europe are willing to pay so much more than other competitors to buy up these firms?”
They should wonder no longer. With increasing urgency, the Chinese are trying to trade their holdings of dubious Western debt in for productive assets. When the International Monetary $ystem fails, and fail it must, a great deal of knowledge, experience and physical plant will disappear with it as in countless previous collapses. The USSR is a recent example and the Chinese want to hit the ground running when the world comes out on the other side of GFC II.
Denying the Chinese the right to buy assets using the money they earned undermines the value of that money, and so will serve to hasten GFC II. By exposing the overtly political nature of the West’s money, in practice serving as “legal tender for all debts, pubic and private” at the whim of politicians, hastens the day when the Chinese and others will repudiate it. When they do, the whole edifice will come down.
I believe that China is going to be out of $4T in the end. The way I see it, to bad for China and it serves her right for sitting on the fence while playing chicken with both USofA and Russia. Greeks have a beautiful expression describing the Chinese approach, but it’s not to be printed.
I don’t see how China is sitting on the fence, isn’t their Silk Road project one of the main things that forced the West to show their hand?And didn’t their Defense Minister recently go to Moscow to announce the close relations between Russian and Chinese militaries(basically saying which side of a war between USA/NATO and RF, they will be on, should there be a war)?I think the Chinese simply have different approaches/methods in their work and they play a different role, not really a case of sitting on the fence(which would imply that they consider being ruled by the West as an ‘option’, I very much doubt that).
No fence? Just doing nothing and taking USofA’s aggressive moves without meaningful countermoves is sitting on the fence. Sort of like (I am going to change the saying little bit here) wants to eat the cake but wants to keep it as well.
“without meaningful countermoves”
I’m sure you have somthing specific in mind here, but to me, making “countermoves” in response to “moves” sounds reactive and possibly easily manipulated.
“Moves” can be made for the purpose of prompting “countermoves” that turn out to provide the “Mover” with some new information, etc.
Just saying, not making obvious “countermoves” does not necessarily imply “sitting on the fence.”
Naw. In the 1st place they have “only” around U$1T in reserves, and in the 2nd they’ve hoovered up the world’s gold. Imports have exceeded world production for quite a while now.
If the best estimates of their real holdings (off the PBOC’s balance sheet) are right, they could throw the U$1T over the fence tomorrow, revalue the gold, and be ahead of the game.
@B.F. ‘How ? By subverting the nation states of Europe, leading to the creation of one European state and one European “nation”, based on the US “mixing pot”, which created the American “nation” (or did it ?).’
And perhaps already on show in the form of a three month draught never ever seen in central Europe. As it seems the Golf-stream cycle is largely idle (by ‘natural’ ice melting) and they only had to create an additional cycle in Mid-Europe in May this year and from time to time intervene to keep it there.
If my suspicion is correct we will have ‘regular’ weather not before mid September until then all the water is gone…
Great article – but this puzzles me:
“Without having the possibility to prevent their political opponents from coming to power in the near future at the expense of an internal resource,”
Internal resource: money and a circle of people who can make things happen.
Thank you Ollie and Angelina for the translation of this most important, serious and interesting analytical intrigue.
Ishchenko is most daring in his projections. I have to re-read this a time or two more to grasp it all.
I will make a couple of quick remarks, maybe coming back for more later.
Firstly, Russia and China are in process of combining strengths. Nothing in the lifetimes of Putin and Xi will change this progression. Both are men and their nations are marked by the Hegemon for destabilization, as well as the target of the Hegemon’s military threats.
Secondly, Russia and China lead SCO, BRICS and participate with other huge nations-civilizations that have the same interests and needs, India and Iran. While China uses BRI and Maritime Silk Road, Russia uses EAEU which has drawn in Iran. All these and more are tools of the multi-polar development.
Two-thirds of humanity, four major powers with nuclear weapons (Russia, China, India and Pakistan) are just part of the equation facing down the Hegemon.
Europe is described well by Ishchenko, better than I’ve read of late anywhere.
It may become the victim of the Hegemon as he describes.
But, much of the economic structure of the US is owned by European corporations. They have stakes held in their European base, but also have influence on US policy. I think they may frustrate the Hegemon’s chaos game plan. Some things don’t follow our analyses as we lay them out.
Will the vassals fold? Very interesting stuff.
Quote “However, there is nothing to replace the capacious and solvent half-billion European market”
Actually, there is: if one entices Europe to plunge itself into a real war, all that solvency will evaporate in an instance.
I can imagine the infrastructure Europe build over the last 7 decades being reduced to rubble, which will send Europe back to square 1 – and lead to more US reconstruction loans, more help from caring friends etc. to support the US economy for the next 100 years…
If the Europeans have forgotten the horror and destruction of the WWII, then they should not blame their self-destruction on their elected leaders or the enemy of the day as it is themselves that they should blame.
As for their US friends – just look what all US presidents say and do – they do anything it takes to protect their own interests, that means protecting their industries (military or otherwise) and protecting their infrastructure by ensuring the wars are strictly fought abroad…
Rest assured Europeans have not forgotten the horros of WWII. Almost nobody here in Europe wants a war these days. The whole mentality is totally different than in the early 1900s.
The problem is, our brainwashing media are becoming ever more competent in selling us the “war is peace” meme. And too many Europeans still fall for this crap, even in the age of the internet.
Mainstream media channels and newspapers pose as anti-war, all the while subtly setting up Milosevic, Gadaffi, Assad, Erdogan, and Putin as the next Hitlers. (And Trump, curiously, as well — except the day he rained missiles on Syria. That day [only!] they were full of praise for Mr. Trump. Go figure…)
Rostislav Ishchenko has brought up insights that I have seen nowhere else. Some of the comments are insightful as well. So far the trolls haven’t invaded Saker. Ishchenko does seem to be oriented in thinking based on nation states. Bangar comments on the other forces in the world – international finance – multinational corporations – major intelligence agencies that seem to have more common interests with each other rather than the welfare of their nation states – to lesser extent major organized crime cartels (that the intelligence agencies also work with). Ishchenko does make me realize, the picture I have of Europe is not as solid as I think and can/will change drastically in the next decade or so. The whole point of the Belt/road initiative is not as viable if Europe doesn’t have a functioning economy. He points out that there are large stresses in the EU which the US can exacerbate. Note that the US already has used NATO to bomb European Serbia after breaking up Yugoslavia. Before the internet with just US mainstream journalism sources I didn’t understand how big a role the US (using the international institutions like the IMF) played in making that happen or why. Like most Americans I believed in nasty Serbs.
Russia with Putin has survived being looted by the Anglo/zionists. It is not clear what will happen after Putin. China’s succession seems stronger but it’s not clear what will happen if something similar happens to it as happened to the US in the 30s when the world went into depression. Another global financial crisis is bound to happen. 10s of trillions of dollars were just created in the digital world to kick the can down the road. The real economic problems were not fixed.
it is clear that the US Empire is failing. The assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK along with the Vietnam War woke me up but .. my own issues , raising a family, day to day life, didn’t give me a chance to think deeply about these things. 9/11 sent me to conspiracy land. Now the biggest conspiracy is the financial one in plain sight.
Everybody knows the war is over Everybody knows the good guys lost Everybody knows the fight was fixed The poor stay poor The rich get rich That’s how it goes Everybody knows
“So far the trolls haven’t invaded Saker. ”
They sometimes try, but moderation and other mind sane commenters keep them at bay 😉
PS: thanks everyone for keeping this community sane!
Gepay, China has huge internal market, and as long as it re-educates (brainwashes) its people to spend their money instead of stuffing it in the sock. Of course the invention of inflation helps devaluating people’s savings and thus running to the stores and buying all sorts of useless gadgets. Also, China does not care if it deals with EU monster or each country. Mind you, it’s easier to deal with the monster.
Excellent and insightful article.
The past 100 years of experience with the American brawn section of the Anglo-American Empire mandate that caution remain the better part of valor.
This is clear. This is understood.
However it is unwise to abandon all hope that the US could never, ever, even in the face of its own suicide, forsake Empire.
There are plenty of signs, especially in the heartland, that the people are sick of their Empire Minions Class and are getting quickly educated as to how all that came about (especially from 1913 on). But it is still confusing to a lot of them.
The hard work ahead: There are decades of MSM Empire brainwashing to overcome in millions of persons. Their widespread disgust and distrust of the MSM is a great start…..but only a start. Meanwhile,the task here in the USA is to let less and less and less people get manipulated by unfounded fears of Loss of Empire and to educate these victims of Empire that they are far better off morally as well as economically joining Russia and China and even India in a Four Powers Agreement that flushes Empire Down The Toilet of History.….rather than endlessly perpetuating the idiotic mind control divide and conquer games of the globalist Luciferian Elites…by accepting the idea that the human race must eternally fight itself, rather than co-operate with each other…and shed their common victimizers…..who ultimately owe allegiance to No Nation.
The Empire tried to perpetuate itself with nuclear bluff, regime change wars and plenty of other dirty tricks, and they are not done with the evil yet, but the Dumb American Brawn that made all that possible…is wising up. PDQ..and if this process is not aborted….the Cabal….and “divide and conquer” that they live by….. is practically finished, compared to the past 2-3 centuries..
No guarantee, but far, far more possible NOW than at any other time…..in our lifetimes.
Bro 93; I share your aspiration regarding the United States and suggest that the goal you outline entails the rediscovery of what America was really all about in the first place before it got overlaid by the Anglo empire and its banking system. Ferlingetti the American poet wrote in one of his poems that he is waiting for someone to as he put it ‘spiritually discover America.” Is there not a buried mythic dimension to America that can be a source of liberation and renewal? It has happened before has it not? Necessity being the mother of invention and the people have a power of real inventiveness in the American universe.
“what America was really all about in the first place”
land theft & genocide on a continent-size scale
“the people have a power of real inventiveness in the American universe”
it was easy to divert excess resources (from land theft & genocide)
-to draw in the best & brightest from all over the world
-to invent sh**
-and reinforce the image of an “open & free” society (marketing ploy)
”Is there not a buried mythic dimension to America that can be a source of liberation and renewal?”
Absolutely, yes! And I’m really happy to announce that Ferlingetti’s plea was answered most succinctly by Scottish playwright Alistair Beaton back in 2004 in his ”Follow the leader”, which was a stunning, frontal assault on the scum Blair and Bush. The theater audience was asphyxiating from laughter listening to the following ditty, being invited to sing along:
Let’s all be anti-American
What’s so wrong with that
They’re much too loud
And they’re far too rich
And one in three is incredibly fat
That’s the ”mythic dimension” out in the open, LOL.
Mod: The ditty may have been accurate in 2004 but it is now hopelessly out-of-date. Today, it appears that two in three Americans are incredibly fat.
”The entire project of Big Eurasia is based on three components:
European technologies and market;
Chinese commodity production;
Russian transit, resource base, and military-political umbrella.”
The first of these components is a (50%) misconception putting emphasis upon ”European technologies” — we don’t live in the 1960s or 1970s any longer. Today, Europe can take (gay) pride in its impressive promotion of sexual aberrations, but that’s about it. Post-industrial economy is a rather poor mother of inventions, really.
Europe’s role as market, by contrast, is irrefutable, but that just illustrates how Europe is living high on the hog without contributing to global prosperity. From a moral perspective, it is Asia, Africa, and Latin America that should primarily be on the beneficial, receiving end of the multi-polar order; not the self-worshipping Euro-trash.
”Theoretically, Russia, after a while, will be able to replace Europe as the technological base of the project. However, there is nothing to replace the capacious and solvent half-billion European market.”
Firstly, Russia and China have zero need of any Ziogays — least of all as some technological ”expertise”. We’re not talking rectum related activities here, mind you.
Secondly, the ”solvency” of the Euro-trash is plain for all the world to see: totally wiped out all along the line. They thought neoliberalism was the answer — got what they deserved; immigration included.
Judging by the amount of European cars, appliances, furnishings, machine tools, industrial machinery, not to mention the whole fashion complex one sees around the world, I’d be hard-pressed to think of anybody else’s technology that gets greater respect. What’s more, they still have an industrial plant that makes the stuff profitably despite the high labour and overhead costs, implying layers of competence in production engineering and technical support. Outside of weapons development, the Europeans are as close to #1 as Damn! is to swearing.
The discussion has nothing to do with “Ziogays”.
Technologically, both Russia and China are moving quickly, but are still not at the level of the Europeans in design, engineering, and especially design-engineering except in limited fields.
I believe that Russia can get into the same league because it’s population is highly literate, sufficiently multi-lingual to access the world’s body of knowledge, and its culture is relatively close to the European culture of innovation.
OTOH, I have deep doubts that China will ever get there, except across a narrow range of technologies of greatest interest to the govt. A host of cultural, linguistic and (especially) neuro-linguistic factors militate against it, but that’s a long story.