The Pentagon Realised What It Has Done – the Chinese Put the US Army on Its Knees

The Pentagon Realised What It Has Done – the Chinese Put the US Army on Its Knees

November 04, 2018

By Ivan Danilov
Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard

cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/ivan-danilov-the-pentagon-realised-what-it-has-done-the-chinese-put-the-us-army-on-its-knees/
source: https://ria.ru/analytics/20181104/1532106144.html

In the system of national defense of the US a gaping vulnerability was found that is very difficult to close. The reaction of the Pentagon is reminiscent of badly hidden panic, and journalists who examined the results of the research of American experts, who thoroughly studied the condition of the American army and defensive industry, admit that there is iron logic in the recent “strange” actions of president Trump — he wants to save America from transforming into a cardboard tiger with paper claws.

The essence of the problem, according to the retelling of the columnist of the Reuters agency Andy Home, who obtained a copy of the September report of the US Department of Defence on the situation concerning key deliveries necessary for the American army, is reduced to one important figure. More than 300 (!) key elements necessary for the normal functioning of the US Armed Forces and defensive industry are under threat: American producers are either on the verge of bankruptcy or were already replaced by suppliers from China or other countries because of the deindustrialisation of national economy and the relocation of production to the countries of Southeast Asia.

Mr. Home gives as a striking and clear example the amusing (of course, if you are not a US military man) fact from the report: it turns out that the last American producer of the synthetic threads necessary for the production of army tents “died” quite recently. This means that in the event that the US will fall under such a “textile embargo”, for some American soldiers they will seriously face the prospect of sleeping in the open-air. It is difficult not to notice that such a prospect looks slightly humiliating for an army that claims to be the most hi-tech on the planet.

The situation could be considered as funny if it didn’t affect such a wide range of requirements of the American army and military-industrial complex. In the declassified part of the research of the American Department of Defence it is mentioned that in the US there are difficulties with future deliveries of the power switches that nearly all American missiles are equipped with. As officials of the Pentagon report, the producer of these switches was closed down, but the highest military ranks learned about it only after it became clear that the power switches ended. And there is nowhere to take new ones from, because the producer disappeared into thin air a whole 2 years ago. One more striking example: the country’s only producer of solid rocket motors for “air-to-air” missiles, as the American officials write, “encountered technical production issues”, the reasons for which couldn’t be found even after government and military experts were involved. Attempts to restart production failed, and the Pentagon was obliged to employ a Norwegian company to ensure uninterrupted deliveries. Obviously, this indicates a certain technical degradation of the entire American system, because only the loss of some key competencies can explain a situation in which production cannot be restored and the problem cannot even be determined.

Whilst becoming acquainted with the complaints of the leadership of the American army it is difficult to rid oneself of the impression that it isn’t a document of the US Department of Defence dated September, 2018 that is in front of your eyes, but a description of the problems of the Russian army from the era of the dashing 90’s. Literally there is no direction in which there would be no serious or very serious problems, and often they even can’t be solved at the expense of the bottomless military budget.

In the section on nuclear weapon problems the Pentagon complains that in the US there isn’t the necessary number of engineers and technicians who would have the corresponding education, training, and US citizenship that are necessary for working with army nuclear objects. The mention of nationality is of importance, because American higher education institutions produce enough engineers, physicists, and representatives of other technical specialties and exact sciences, however a disproportionately large number of these graduates are foreigners, most often from the People’s Republic of China.

Americans can’t find not only the necessary engineers, but also the necessary microelectronics for nuclear weapons. And they complain that they no longer have the right to trust suppliers of electronic components – after all,

“the supply chain is globalised”. In translation from American bureaucratese into colloquial Russian it means: “the microelectronics for our nuclear missiles are made in China, and we don’t know what the Chinese have stuffed in it”.

There are serious difficulties even concerning issues that should be solved very easily in the conditions of hi-tech American economy. For example, the Pentagon complains about a lack of tools for the development of software, as well as the management of data and production, that could be trusted. The situation is exacerbated by “poor cybersecurity practices by many key software vendors”. This, when translated from American bureaucratese into colloquial Russian, means: “concerning cybersecurity, our vendors are so bad that we don’t know what the Chinese and Russian hackers cram into the software that our military use”.

Main conclusion of the report:

“China represents a significant and growing risk to the supply of materials deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national security. <…> Areas of concern to America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base include a growing number of both widely used and specialized metals, alloys and other materials, including rare earths and permanent magnets”.

In general everything is bad, starting with aluminium and ending with cybersecurity, from power switches for missiles to engineers and drill operators, and from computer numerical control machines to synthetic fabric for military tents. The greed of American business, the ideology of globalisation, and the iron belief that history, as Fukuyama predicted, is about to end collectively caused such damage to the defense capability of the US that the geopolitical opponents couldn’t even dream of. It is precisely by understanding this fact that explains Donald Trump’s attempts to carry out the reindustrialisation of America almost by force.

However, there is every reason to believe that, taking into account the present economic difficulties, it’s unlikely that Trump’s administration will be able to fix what its predecessors broke 20 years. And we [Russians – ed] and our Chinese partners need, on the one hand, not to repeat the mistakes of Americans, and on the other hand — to make the most of these mistakes. Judging by what is happening now on the world stage, this is exactly what Moscow and Beijing are doing.

Advertisements

Ryan Dawson and Gilad Atzmon on Palestine and the rest of Us

October 15, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this extended discussion Ryan Dawson and yours truly delve into the Jerusalemisation of our universe. We identify that which sustains tyranny of correctness, the Zionification of our politics and even the elements that control the opposition and suppress a prospect of a better future.

UNO : birth of the post-Western world

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry MeyssanPolitical consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

DAMASCUS (SYRIA)
The administration of the UNO had been hoping for a clash between the pro- and anti-Trump factions during the General Assembly. What actually happened was very different. While several States, including France, denounced the methods of the resident of the White House, Russia undertook an analysis of the Western alliance. According to Moscow, most of our current problems are due to the desire of the old colonial powers to conserve their domination of the rest of the world – at whatever the cost. In order to overtake them, a formidable coalition has been born.
JPEG - 77.2 kb

The hearing of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Despite appearances, the procession of the heads of State and government, or Ministers for Foreign Affairs, at the General Assembly of the United Nation was not without purpose. It’s true that most of them, having little to say, addressed their interior public opinions by blaming UNO incompetence and calling for a respect for the law. But many of their interventions went straight to the heart of the matter – how to resolve the disputes between States and guarantee peace?

The first three days were marked by the speech by Donald Trump (United States) and the responses by Emmanuel Macron (France) and Hassan Rohani (Iran). But all these complications were shattered on the fourth day with the intervention by Sergueï Lavrov (Russia), when he presented the map of the post-Western world.

World collapse according to Donald Trump

President Trump, whose speeches are usually extremely disorganised, had on this occasion prepared a finely structured text [1]. Distinguishing himself from his predecessors, he affirmed that he gave privilege to « independence and cooperation », rather than « governance, control and international domination » (in other words, his national interests rather than those of the « American Empire »). He followed by enumerating the readjustments of the system he had set in motion.

- The USA has not declared commercial war on China, but is in the process of re-establishing its balance of payments. Simultaneously, the US is trying to restore an international market founded on free market competition, as demonstrated by their position in the energy sector. The US has become a major exporters of hydrocarbons, and would therefore benefit from high prices, but it opposes the existence of an intergovernmental cartel, the OPEC, and is calling for lower prices.
- It is opposed to the structures and treaties of globalisation (that is to say, from the point of view of the White House, transnational financial imperialism), notably the UN Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, and UNRWA. Of course, this is not a claim for torture (which was legitimised by George Bush Jr. in his day) nor crime, nor starving the Palestinians, but the destruction of the organisations which instrumentalise their object in order to achieve other goals.
- Concerning the migrations from Latin America to the United States, and also within the interior of the South American continent itself, the US intends to end them by treating the problem at its roots. For the White House, the problem results from the rules imposed by globalist Treaties, notably NAFTA. President Trump has therefore negotiated a new agreement with Mexico which links exports to respect for the social rights of Mexican workers. He intends to return to the original Monroe doctrine – meaning that the multinationals will no longer be able to interfere in the governing of the continent.

The reference to the Monroe doctrine merits an explanation, since the expression suggests US colonialism at the beginning of the 20th century. Donald Trump is an admirer of the foreign policies of two very controversial personalities, Presidents Andew Jackson (1829-1837) and Richard Nixon (1969-74). The Monroe doctrine (1823) was elaborated during the intervention of a man who at that time was no more than General Jackson in the Spanish colony of Florida. At that time, James Monroe wanted to protect the American continent from European imperialism. It was the « era of good feelings ». He therefore pledged that the United States would not intervene in Europe if Europe stopped intervening in the Americas. It was only three quarters of a century later, notably with Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), that the Monroe doctrine would be used as a screen to hide US imperialism in Latin America.

The defence of the old world by Emmanuel Macron and Hassan Rohani

In a strange inversion of roles, French President Emmanuel Macron presented himself as the European Barack Obama facing up to the US Charles De Gaulle, as played by Donald Trump. Macron symbolically declared war, stating: « Let us sign no more commercial agreements with powers which do not respect the Paris Agreement » (which means no more agreements with the United States) – an odd way to defend multilateralism!

The French President began with Donald Trump’s implicit assessment – the crisis of the current « liberal Westphalian order » [2]. This means the crisis of nation-States who are badly shaken by economic globalisation. But this strategy was only intended to more efficiently oppose the solution proposed by the White House, which he qualified as the « law of the strongest ». He therefore described the French solution, « based around three principles – the first is the respect for sovereignty, the very foundation of our charter; the second is the reinforcement of our regional cooperation; and the third is the implementation of more robust international guarantees ».

But then his speech zoomed off into the stratosphere to end in a lyrical exaltation, during which Emmanuel Macron allowed himself a moment of juvenile hypocrisy reaching to the limits of schizophrenia.

- As an example of « the respect for sovereignty », he called for a refusal to « substitute oneself for the Syrian people » when we decide who will become their leader… while at the same time forbidding President el-Assad to present himself for election by his compatriots.

- Concerning the « reinforcement of regional cooperation », he mentioned the support offered by the African Union to the French anti-terrorist operation in the Sahel. But this operation was in reality only the land-based wing of a larger plan directed by AfriCom, for which the US army supplied the airborne wing. The African Union itself has no real army as such, and acts only to legalise a colonial operation. Similarly, the sums invested for the development of the Sahel – which the French President quoted not in Euros, but in dollars – mixes true African projects with foreign aid for development. The impotence of this endeavour has long been clear to all.

- Concerning « the implementation of more robust international guarantees », he announced the struggle against inequalities which should be addressed by the G7 summit in Biarritz. This was simply a way of affirming, once again, Western leadership over the rest of the world, Russia and China included. He claimed that « the time when a club of rich countries could alone define the balance of the world is long over », and promised to … present a report of the decisions taken by the major Western powers before the next General Assembly. Again, he proclaimed that the « G7 should be the motor » of the struggle against inequality undertaken by the UNO.

Speaking in his turn, Iranian President Cheikh Hassan Rohani described in detail the way in which the White House is destroying, one by one, the principles of international Law [3].

He reminded us that the 5+1 agreement (JCPoA) had been validated by the Security Council, which had called upon numerous institutions for their support (resolution 2231), and that Donald Trump’s USA had withdrawn from the agreement, negating the signature of his predecessor and the principle of the continuity of state. He emphasised that, as attested by twelve consecutive AIEA reports, Iran has conformed and is still conforming to its obligations. He expressed his indignation at President Trump’s call to disobey the UNO resolution and the threat he has addressed against those who respect it.

He finished by recalling a few facts – Iran fought Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Daesh before the United States (which was at that time supporting them) – one way of emphasising the fact that for a long time, the about-faces by the USA do not correspond to the logic of Law, but to the logic of its own hidden interests.

Sergueï Lavrov presents the post-Western world

This debate, not for or against the United States, but for or against Donald Trump, was organised around two main arguments:
- The White House is destroying the system which has so well benefited the international financial elites (Macron).
- The White House is no longer even pretending to respect international Law (Rohani).

For the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, this debate hides a problem which goes even deeper. « On one hand, we see the reinforcement of the polycentric principles of the world order , (…) the aspiration of the people to preserve their sovereignty and work with models of development which are compatible with their national, cultural and religious identities. On the other, we see the desire of several Western states to preserve their self-proclaimed status as “world leaders” and to hinder the objective and irreversible process of the establishment of multipolarity », he stated [4].

From that point, it is no longer pertinent for Moscow to argue with President Trump, nor even the United States, but with the Westerners in general. Sergueï Lavrov went as far as drawing a parallel with the Munich Agreements of 1938. At that time, France and the United Kingdom signed an alliance with Germany and Italy. It’s true that this event is remembered today in Western Europe as an act of cowardice on the part of France and Britain faced with the demands of the Nazis, but it remains engraved in Russian memory as the decisive step which triggered the Second World War. While Western historians seek to decide who took this decision and who followed the movement, Russian historians note only one thing – that none of the Western Europeans assumed their responsibilities.

Extending his study, Sergueï Lavrov no longer denounced the infringements to the Law, but to international structures. He observed that the Westerners attempt to force the people to enter into military alliances against their will, and threaten certain States who wish to chose their partners themselves. Alluding to the Jeffrey Feltman affair [5], he denounced the attempts to control the administration of the UNO, and force it to assume the role which should be played by the member-States, and finally, to use the General Secretariat to manipulate them.

He noted the desperate nature of these attempts, observing, for example, the inefficiency of fifty years of the US blockade of Cuba. He stigmatised the British desire to judge and condemn without trial by using their rhetoric of « highly probable ».

Sergueï Lavrov concluded by emphasising that all this Western disorder did not prevent the rest of the world from cooperating and developing. He recalled the « Greater Eurasian Partnership », mentioned at the Valdaï Forum in 2016 by President Putin to complete President Xi’s « Belt and Road Initiative ». This vast initiative, which was at first given a chilly reception by China, is now supported by the Collective Security Treaty, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Counter-propositions by Australia, Japan and the European Union were still-born.

While Western representatives have the habit of announcing their projects in advance, and discussing them, Russian diplomats only speak of them when they are already under way and are sure to succeed.

To sum up, the strategy of the containment of Russia and China, dreamed up by British deputy Halford J. Mackinder [6] and clarified by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński [7], has failed. The world’s centre of gravity is being displaced to the East, not against the Westerners, but by their fault [8].

Drawing the first practical conclusions from these analyses, Syrian Vice-Prime Minister, Walid al-Moallem, demanded on the following day at the tribune of the General Assembly the immediate withdrawal of the occupying troops of the United States, France and Turkey [9].

Translation
Pete Kimberley

[1] “Remarks by Donald Trump to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network, 25 September 2018.

[2] « Discours d’Emmanuel Macron devant la 73e séance de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies », par Emmanuel Macron, Réseau Voltaire, 25 septembre 2018.

[3] “Remarks by Hassan Rohani to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Hassan Rohani, Voltaire Network, 25 September 2018.

[4] “Remarks by Sergey Lavrov to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Sergey Lavrov, Voltaire Network, 28 September 2018.

[5] “Germany and the UNO against Syria”, “How the administration of the UNO is organising the war”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016 and 5 September 2018.

[6] “The geographical pivot of history”, Halford J. Mackinder, The Geographical Journal, 1904, 23, pp. 421–37.

[7The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzeziński, Basic Books. 1997.

[8] “The Geopolitics of American Global Decline”, by Alfred McCoy, Tom Dispatch (USA) , Voltaire Network, 22 June 2015.

[9] “Remarks by Walid Al-Moualem to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”, by Walid Al-Moualem, Voltaire Network, 29 September 2018.

US has to come to terms with its place in the world, just as Britain did when its empire collapsed

5baba293dda4c825088b457a
Trump’s threats of war, sanctions and promises to make America great again could be dismissed as the ranting of an eccentric politician. But this isn’t all about Trump. What he advocates is representative of much of the US elite.

The president and his generation of Americans grew up in a world where the USA was the greatest superpower in human history. It was not just their vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and their war machine but, in 1945, around 50 percent of the entire world’s economy was in the United States of America, with Britain and the USSR hobbling along with around 10 percent each. America dwarfed the power that the British empire had in the 19th century.

In the years that followed, America would intervene all over the world, not to spread democracy, but to overthrow governments that were not working in America’s commercial interests. Whether it was the coup that removed the government of Iran in 1953 and brought back the dictatorship of the Shah; or the military coup in Brazil in 1964 that overthrew a socialist, democratically elected government; or the dozens of other coups around the world, America crushed any opposition to its economic interests.

Some 45 years after the end of the Second World War came the collapse of the Soviet Union, by which time America’s share of the global economy was down to 25 percent. The collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed a wave of assumptions about the future. The most significant of these was Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book ‘The End of History and The Last Man.’ This was met with acclaim around the world as he argued that the ideological evolution of humanity was over with the triumph of Western liberal democracy. Fukuyama had previously worked in the US State Department under Ronald Reagan and later worked for the first George Bush. Now he is a senior fellow at Stanford University and has just published a book called ‘Identity’ looking at the current political situation. But it was his 1992 book that dominated the political debate as he predicted that the collapse of communism meant there was only one system left for our planet: pragmatic liberal democracy, and the world would never change again.

In an interview in The Guardian, Fukuyama talks about the “ruthless cunning of Vladimir Putin” and points out that Trump and Brexit are a backlash against multiculturalism and international cooperation. He warns that “globalization has clearly left a lot of people behind. There is greater automation, greater inequality.” He says he believed the financial crash would see a surge of left-wing populism and was therefore surprised by the rise of Trump.

Across much of the capitalist West, tens of millions have seen their lives get worse and this has fueled the growth of far-right groups and racial hatred. But different things are happening elsewhere in the world, of which the most significant is the rise of China. Around 40 years ago, China was a basket economy with 90 percent of its people living in poverty, but the economic strategy of China has lifted over 500 million Chinese out of poverty and their economy has grown to a point where it is about to overtake the USA. Not surprisingly, this has caused a backlash in the American establishment.

Paul Wolfowitz, a key player in America’s invasion of Iraq, had warned back in 1992 in a secret memo to Defense Secretary Dick Cheney that “our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor.” But with the growth of China’s economy and America’s economic decline, Wolfowitz’s strategy has now become the consensus in the American government, including Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. During Obama’s administration, they were pushing aggressive policies by expanding NATO to encircle Russia and devising a strategy for the economic containment of China. Obama’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) tried to create an economic bloc around the Pacific that would exclude China. Fortunately, this was rejected by most Asian governments and never happened.

America’s paranoia about China ignores why Beijing’s economy has soared. Unlike the West, which allows the financial sector to dominate and set the economic agenda, China focused on scientific and technological development, investment in infrastructure (like high-speed rail) and kept its financial center under firm regulation, thus avoiding its banks collapsing as they did in the West in 2008.

Sergei Glazyev, a key adviser to President Putin, has warned against the continuing US and EU sanctions against Russia, and the capricious policy of the Trump administration that has seen the start of a trade war. He warns that “if the US keeps contradicting international law… the first measure we would have to take together with China and other countries who are suffering from US aggression would be to get rid of the dollar as the key international currency.” China, he said“has created the most progressive system in the world for directing economic development, combining planning with market self-regulation, and subordinating private initiative to the needs of raising the general welfare through an increased volume and efficiency of production.”

Another consequence of China’s growth is BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). These countries are increasingly cooperating and as their economies continue to rise, we will never again see a world in which one country’s economy can dominate the whole planet, as was the case with America after 1945.

This global economic shift has caused a backlash with former British prime minister Tony Blair claiming“America needs Europe united and standing with it, not isolated as individual nations, able to be picked off one by one by the emergent new powers.”

China’s President Xi, speaking at the G20 conference two years ago, warned that “we can no longer rely on fiscal and monetary policy alone,” and called for spreading visionary and inclusive economic growth driven by innovation in science and technology… “to spearhead the fourth industrial revolution.” He went on to promise direct support to help the countries of Africa see their economies grow.

Xi also said“the Silk Road Economic Belt is progressing rapidly and the Maritime Silk Road is well underway. But this is not China creating a sphere of influence but rather a means of supporting the development of all countries. We are not building China’s backyard garden but we’re building a garden to be shared by all countries.”

Also, in September 2016, Russia’s President Putin advocated“big, ambitious, complex and long-term tasks” to transform Russia’s Far East into a hub of Eurasian development. At the same time, President Obama was still pushing for the TPP and demanding that “America should write the rules, not China.” A significant response to Obama came from Germany’s Minister of Economic Affairs Sigmar Gabriel, who said“In my opinion, the negotiations with the United States have de facto failed because we Europeans did not want to subject ourselves to America’s demands.”

These views were not shared by Britain’s Prime Minister May, as she launched what seemed to be the beginning of a new Cold War against Russia. Her views were echoed by the Sunday Telegraph’s editor, Allister Heath, who called for Britain to take the lead in creating a new global military and economic alliance to enforce democracy but also capitalism across the globe. Heath’s column was titled ‘Forget NATO. We need a new world alliance to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China.’ Heath continued: “NATO is no longer enough: it is too European, too many of its members are outright pacifists and Turkey’s membership is problematic.” Heath claimed that the new alliance he was advocating “would be the biggest shift in geopolitics since the creation of the UN. It would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China…”

No one power is ever going to dominate the world again. The choice we face is to cooperate with the emerging new economies like China and those that will follow around the rest of the Third World or get caught up in an economic Cold War led by the American establishment and its UK ally. America has got to come to terms with the world as it is now, just as Britain had to the same when its empire collapsed. We should work with China and Russia and the other emerging economies and, in doing so, ordinary people around the world will benefit – including in the USA, if only America stops looking back to the past.

By Ken Livingstone
Source

Pakistan: At the Brink of Sovereignty By Zara Ali

May God protect Pakistan – Long Live Pakistan!

They did it again on July 25, 2018.  On the day of polls another mind-programmed mercenary of ISIS, the nefarious CIA creation – a militant proxy – slaughtered 31 and injured over 40 in a bomb blast in the vicinity of a polling station in Quetta – the capital of the province of Baluchistan.  The RAW link is almost always revealed behind terrorist activities conducted in Baluchistan irrespective of the affiliations of the myriad of proxy operatives on ground, hence it is not the least far-fetched that alongside Western Geo-political powers, namely Washington and London, Delhi must also be an accomplice in the unsuccessful effort to sabotage the General Election in Pakistan – this was the fourth major terrorist attack in less than a fortnight.  The polls went ahead as planned albeit the terrorists did succeed at making Pakistan pay a toll of up to 300 human lives.  Active terrorism was not the only method the Globalist Deep State opted for in a bid to sabotage the Election – the Western, Indian and Pakistan mainstream media engaged in a massive disinformation campaign with the intention to dispute the credibility of the polls as they essentially toyed about with the accusation made by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan – a so-called independent non-profit organization, like the Human Rights Watch, with links to the U.S. foreign policy elite and other interventionist/expansionist lobbies.  HRC of Pakistan claimed Military Intelligence interfered in the political process in order to sway the outcome in favour of Imran Khan.  Not to forget the argument the constitutional ousting and subsequent conviction of Nawaz Sherif also rendered the play-field less than levelled for the Sherif Family’s ruling political party i.e. the N-League.  Looking at the headlines that mainstream publications ran such as ‘the dirtiest election’, ‘Imran Khan near victory in Pakistan but some ask if he is playing fair’, ‘Khan is only a player in the circus run by the Pakistan’s military’, ‘from playboy to Prime Minister’, ‘Imran Khan is the worst pick for both Pakistan and India’, I wondered what caused such passionate criticism and why the undertone of an almost hysterical anxiety?  Yes, the Globalists most definitely did not want to miss the chance to malign the Pakistan Army as has been their long-running tradition – and the allegations associated with the occasion most certainly provided them with just about enough ammunition to open fire at one of the world’s most competent and professional armies, but what happened to the rather ‘dear image’ of the Oxford educated, charismatic star cricketer Khan – what sin did he commit to deserve such zealous criticism?

Had I not observed the Global mainstream media stripped off its mask and stand as awfully exposed as the Globalists’ dirty war in Syria has rendered it, perhaps it would not have been easy to see through the disinformation disseminated at such scale – fortunately, the diminished credibility of the global MSM overwhelmingly tended to betray the truth.  The truth of the matter being the result yielded by the 2018 General Election categorically depicts the much-anticipated, much-awaited, and also much-feared manifestation of a socio-political shift, making keen observers wonder if the nation has in fact hit the tipping point key to sustained change in the collective mind-set.  Those who harbour antagonism toward Pakistan are resentful while for the patriotic among the people of Pakistan the outcome of 2018 Election marks a historic victory – not that of Khan over his political opponents, but that of truth upon falsehood – albeit this is one of the first few steps Pakistan has ventured to take in this direction after almost 71 years of its inception.  As I implied in Pakistan: Hostage to Global Hawks and Native Vultureswe are unquestionably in the throes of a massive shift – a doctrinal shift toward a sovereign Pakistan – various internal and external factors have converged over a period of time and ripened for this to transpire – and no magnitude of opposition to the process, already set into motion, shall succeed in halting it.

Over the past decade the Pakistan Armed Forces’ core leadership appears to have succeeded in breaking the cycle of military coups thus permitting the rather lame democratic political process to continue regardless of its overwhelmingly detrimental effects on the foreign policy, economy and overall governance of the country.  Not that the incompetent civilian regimes did not furnish many a solid provocation over the past decade, which essentially jeopardised the State both economically and in Geo-political terms, the like of which could have aggravated a military coup in the past, however the resolve of the core military leadership to not involve the most powerful institution of the country in the internal power struggle has remained unshaken.  Despite many a speculation at many a point in time over the past two five-year terms of civilian regimes, which essentially served the Globalists’ agenda, the much anticipated ‘imminent’ military coup did not occur.  Instead the Pakistan Army, already stretched thin between the Eastern and Western borders, has been continually and successfully engaged in rooting out the menace of CIA-Mossad-RAW instigated terrorism from the country which has wreaked havoc since the Globalists’ invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.  In more recent times the military core has indeed been observed as highly active in defining the priorities of the foreign policy in the context of a fast-changing Global Geo-political panorama and directing its focus toward seeking significant regional alliances with Moscow & Tehran in addition to Beijing while handling an embittered Washington deeply resentful of a soon-to-be vassal state slipping from its hands, however it cannot be denied the involvement of the military in matters of foreign policy by and large reflects the utter failure of the incompetent, disinterested, and treacherous civilian regimes.  Had the democratically elected past regimes not acted on behest of the Globalists and had the elected political leaders possessed the vision to shape and run the foreign policy of the country so as to serve Pakistan’s national interest, the military leadership may have abstained from filling in the vacuum thus created.  Nonetheless, essentially speaking the Army at this point in time is most definitely seeking to free itself from having to babysit the intellectually and morally destitute mainstream political leaders who have exhibited an immense capacity to cause serious harm to the national interest of Pakistan more than once over the past two decades in particular.

Parallel to the doctrinal shift observed in the outlook of the Pakistan Armed Forces, a socio-political shift has also come to grip the nation – Khan, after 22 years of struggle, has eventually emerged as the preferred leader of the people .  He has untiringly campaigned for a change in the prevalent socio-political mind-set, and has most definitely managed to break through the complacent attitude which had come to overtake the privileged and the under-privileged alike.  He has raised his voice against the well-established political status quo, exposed the fraudulent mainstream political leadership, made the common man aware of his rights, reminded people of the value of morals, ethics and service to the country, and borne the brunt of vehement animosity from his opponents in politics and the civil society but continued to pursue the dream of what he calls ‘A New Pakistan’.  And it is the very nature of Khan’s struggle that has come to convince a significant majority of the people, even sceptics like myself, of his strength of character and his ability to lead the nation out of the current quagmire – he is a breath of fresh air unlike any in the stinking swamp of mainstream politicians.  Unquestionably the role played by the Panama Leaks in Khan’s victory cannot be overlooked by any means, however to portray the constitutional ousting of the ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sherif from office in 2017 and his subsequent conviction for holding ‘assets beyond means’ in 2018 as part of an engineered design, is outright nonsense.  Khan’s drive against the menace of corruption most definitely exerted immense popular pressure upon the judiciary of Pakistan to undertake legal proceedings against the resourceful Sherif Family, a judiciary which had hitherto maintained a tradition of by and large following orders from the civilian and military regimes alike, however by no means can this be termed as ‘political revenge’ cooked up by the Army in cahoots with Khan and the Judiciary.  The truth of the matter is starkly singular: the Sherif Family simply found itself caught up in an unintended consequence of the Panama Leaks and came to reap what it had sown.  If at all the Judiciary has played a role in this respect, it is the momentous realization the institution must free itself from subordination of the military and civilian ruling elite with the sole aim of ensuring justice is delivered in deed – an extension of which we have witnessed in many other legal proceedings intended to address the phenomenon of rampant systematic injustice and institutional corruption.

The prospect of a sovereign Pakistan,ruled by a man of intellect and integrity, secured by a valiant army acting within constitutional bounds, and a judiciary committed to ensuring justice without prejudice, is what is exceedingly distasteful to the Globalist Deep State – after all that is not what a vassal state looks like.  Hence the extent of disinformation dutifully disseminated by the Global MSM as Pakistan headed to the polls.  Post-poll reporting has however reflected an interesting twist – essentially exposing the core motive of the Globalist Deep State still more.  The New York Times entices the authoritarian in Khan, prompting him to reshape the unfavourable image namely that of a country which harbours terrorists’ safe havens – since Washington and London insist on holding the Pakistan Armed Forces responsible for ‘manufacturing and exporting terrorism’ around the globe.  The Guardian warns Khan his real test lies in defying his own Military that would not permit him to fulfil the promises made to his people – Khan has won over Pakistan but real power is still with the Military & Pakistan’s military pose biggest challenge to Khan as voters hope for new era.  A quick glance at such post-poll op-eds quite categorically reveals now that Khan is set to be the next Prime Minister, the anti-Pakistan elements instead of taking to slander will rather seek to befriend him and cajole him into doing their bid i.e. cause a rift in the civilian-military relations, subjugate the Military, and eventually denuclearize Pakistan.  Well, perhaps they do not understand, Khan was not cast out of the same mould as the everlasting plenty of puppets who dance at the tune played by their masters.  He is a different breed – quite unknown to them thus far – and may just prove to be the answer to the prayers of the patriots who have grieved upon the misfortune of their country and nation for too long now.

May God protect Pakistan – Long Live Pakistan!

The Rise of «Revisionist» America

Uri Friedman

H. R. McMaster, Donald Trump’s former national-security adviser, used to warn of the dangers of “revisionist powers.” He had in mind countries like China and Russia that are newly ascendant and determined to amend to their advantage the global status quo: a decades-old, US-led international system of free trade, military and diplomatic alliances, and liberal rules and institutions that govern how countries conduct themselves.

But the US president’s recent Europe trip, which whisked him from a confrontational breakfast with the secretary general of NATO to a conciliatory lunch with the president of Russia, made one thing clearer than it’s ever been before: The call is also coming from inside the house. Trump is a revisionist, even if many of his advisers may still conceive of the United States as the world’s leading status-quo power.

Trump’s revisionist streak was on display in Belgium when the president reportedly threatened to reconsider America’s involvement in NATO if the military alliance’s members don’t spend far more on their own defense. When Fox News’s Tucker Carlson questioned this week why the United States should be obligated to defend another NATO member if it came under attack—the commitment at the very heart of the alliance—the president shook his head in disbelief and responded, “I understand what you’re saying. I’ve asked the same question … That’s the way it was set up. Don’t forget, I just got here a little more than a year and a half ago.” The implication was that he needed more time to shake things up.

The streak was on display in the United Kingdom, when Trump actively encouraged defection from the European Union by offering Britain a trade deal with the United States only on the condition that it make a clean break with the EU. “We are cracking down right now on the European Union,” he told The Sun, in reference to the raft of tariffs he has imposed or threatened to impose on the bloc. He argued, as he has since the 1980s, that in certain ways traditional US allies pose a greater threat to the country than longtime adversaries because they are essentially friendly pickpockets: exploiting America’s military protection and preferential treatment on trade to get rich at the expense of the United States. “The European Union is a foe” because it takes “advantage of us” on trade and “many of those countries are in NATO and they weren’t paying their bills,” Trump explained to CBS, before adding that “Russia is a foe in certain respects” and “China is a foe economically.”

And it was on display in Finland, when Trump tried to team up with Russian President Vladimir Putin to address the world’s top problems—from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea and the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine—without any apparent regard for history or concern about the challenges that Putin’s revisionism has posed to the international system. At a joint press conference, the American president refused to take Russia to task for interfering in democratic elections, or even to call out any specific instance of Russian bad behavior—be it committing and abetting atrocities in Syria or allegedly ordering the poisoning of a former Russian spy with a nerve agent in Britain. (In his interview this week with Carlson, Trump described NATO’s newest member, Montenegro, not as the victim of an alleged Russian-supported coup plot in 2016 but as an “aggressive” nation that could drag the United States and other NATO members into “World War III.”) Instead, Trump blamed rotten relations with Russia on “many years of US foolishness.” Remarkably, it fell on Putin, not Trump, to state at the press conference America’s policy that Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea was illegal. Trump “stands firmly by” that position, Putin said. If Trump does have a problem with the first seizure of territory by one European country from another in decades, he didn’t mention it in Finland.

While “American presidents since the 1940s have primarily sought to conserve the post-World War II order,” the international-relations scholar Walter Russell Mead recently observed in an article on the president’s revisionist tendencies, Trump “wants to alter the terms of the world system in America’s favor” and use “military and economic tools to persuade other powers to accept” his modifications. In Mead’s telling, these adjustments include leveraging China’s dependence on the US economy to rectify trade imbalances between the two countries; “disrupting the status quo” in Europe, and fashioning a “revised model” of the transatlantic relationship so that it stops being “more valuable to Germany than to the US, even as America contributes most to its upkeep”; and no longer placing the containment of Russia at the center of US strategy in Europe, since Trump does not consider Russia “a significant economic or military threat to vital US interests.”

Trump’s advisers have attempted to portray what the president is up to as a project of revitalization, not wholesale revision. In a recent interview with Mead, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued that Trump wants a “reset” of a world order in need of updating after decades of stasis—to reform aspects of the system “that no longer are fair and equitable” while preserving “the important historical relationships with Europe and the countries in Asia that are truly our partners.” The president is preoccupied not with how a given international rule or institution “may have impacted America in the ’60s or the ’80s, or even the early 2000s,” but rather how it benefits the United States “in 2018 and beyond,” Pompeo said. Last month in Brussels, Wess Mitchell, the assistant secretary of state for Europe who before joining the Trump administration issued dire warnings about the revisionism of countries such as Russia and China, asserted that the Trump administration is engaged in “strategic renovation” aimed at “shoring up and strengthening the West” politically, economically, and militarily. The objective is to ensure “that we don’t have to do so later on terms that are less favorable”—even if that requires controversial steps that shatter “the appearance of transatlantic unity.”

But whatever you call it—a reset, strategic renovation, or America First revisionism—Trump’s agenda of upending the international status quo is reorienting the United States as an actor in the world, even if the US president’s ambitious plans have often been frustrated by resistance from his own advisers, Congress, and the inertia of a global system that the United States has invested in for decades. (Note that, in the wake of Trump’s Europe tour, NATO members are still pushing back against Trump’s steep spending demands, the United Kingdom appears to be proceeding with only a partial break with the EU, and Trump is struggling mightily to translate his personal bond with Putin into the world-changing cooperation with Russia that he envisions.)

And if three of the world’s top powers—the United States, China, and Russia—are all acting like revisionists, that suggests the world is poised to change a whole lot, even as US allies such as the European Union, Canada, and Japan strive to uphold the status quo.

EU leaders are seeking to reconcile their “post-nationalism identity with the reality of a world that has grown more competitive,” Célia Belin, an expert on US-Europe relations, recently observed. “In a world of carnivores, [Europe] is the herbivore. It’s a power without teeth, basically. [While] big predators are preying on resources out in the world and playing zero-sum games, you have an entire continent that thrives under a win-win type of interdependence, rule of law.”

At the moment, Europe “is not strong enough to uphold this system by itself,” Belin continued. It “still needs big allies like the US”.

Source: The Atlantic, Edited by website team

ترامب في مواجهة العاصفة

يوليو 18, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– قبل أن تطأ قدما الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب الأراضي الأميركية انطلقت حملة استهداف عنيفة بوجهه، تشارك فيها متطرفو الجمهوريين الداعين لمواصلة خيار الحروب الانتحاري، في ظل موازين اختبرها الجمهوريون والديمقراطيون بالتتابع خلال ولايتين لكل من الرئيسين جورج بوش وباراك أوباما، وتصدرها الديمقراطيون بخلفيات تنافسية وانتقامية، ولكن بصورة رئيسية تمهيداً للانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة، والانتخابات النصفية للكونغرس. ومع هؤلاء الإعلام الغاضب من تغطرس ترامب في معاملته وقد وجد فرصة للتصيد بدرجة الحضور الباهت لترامب في القمة، وظهوره ضعيفاً أمام الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين، واتهامه بقبول التجريح بالمخابرات الأميركية وعدم قيامه بالدفاع عنها، كما يفترض برئيس أميركي.

– العاصفة التي تهبّ على ترامب تقف وراءها قوى ولوبيات لها مصالح عميقة، منذ أيام باراك أوباما. وهي القوى التي دعمت حملة هيلاري كلينتون، ويتشكل قلبها من جماعات الاقتصاد الافتراضي المكوّنة من تكتلات الشركات التي يقوم استثمارها على العولمة وشركات الأسهم المتعدّدة الجنسيات وتتصدرها الشركات العملاقة في قطاعي الصناعات الحربية والنفط، والتي يحملها جماعات الأصول الثابتة في الاقتصاد الذين يقودون الصناعات التقليدية في المعادن والسيارات والمشاريع العقارية والمقاولات مسؤولية خراب الاقتصاد الأميركي، فيما يتكوّن من هؤلاء مركز الثقل لدعم ترامب بين التكتلات الاقتصادية داخل المجتمع الأميركي.

– السباق بين ترامب وخصومه يدور منذ البداية حول قطاعين رئيسيين، يحسم انحيازهما لصالح أي من الفريقين نصره على الآخر. وهما يقفان في منتصف الطريق بين التكتلين المتقابلين في المجتمع الأميركي، وهما أولاً قطاع الاستثمار في الطاقة البديلة ومحورها استخراج النفط والغاز الصخريين، الذي استقطب مئات المليارات من الاستثمارات، يتشارك فيها منتمون لقطاعَيْ الاقتصاد الافتراضي والأصول الثابتة، وثانياً اللوبي الداعم لـ«إسرائيل» والممسك بأوراق قوة كثيرة في المصارف والإعلام وصناعة الرأي العام والقدرة على التأثير الانتخابي.

– نجح ترامب في توقيت القمة وخوض غمارها، على ساعة مأزق هذين التكتلين، فـ»إسرائيل» تعيش قلق الانتصارات في سورية، وتستنجد بواشنطن للعودة إلى فك الاشتباك عام 1974، بعدما أقفلت دمشق أذنيها عن الإصغاء للدعوات، ولم تتفوّه موسكو بما يطمئن. فجاءت القمة الروسية الأميركية، لتمنح تل أبيب نصف اطمئنان. فالاتفاق قابل للتعويم، لكن ضمن صيغته الأصلية يفتح الباب لمفاوضات حول الانسحاب من الجولان، يعرف الإسرائيليون أنها لن تجري الآن ولا غداً، ولكنهم يعرفون أنها تقطع طريق أحلامهم بضم الجولان. ورغم عدم حصول الرئيس الأميركي على معادلة مقايضة الانسحاب الأميركي بانسحاب إيراني تبقى القمة ملاذاً وحيداً لـ«إسرائيل» بوجه مصادر القلق. وبالتوازي جاء ترامب لمستثمري النفط والغاز الصخريين بإنجاز كبير عنوانه تقاسم الأسواق الأوروبية مع روسيا من دون حرب أسعار خاسرة سلفاً، بسبب فوارق الكلفة بين النفط والغاز الصخريين ومنافسيهما النفط والغاز الطبيعيين. وهذا يعني بالتزامن مع إجراءات ترامب الضريبية على مستوردات الحديد والصلب والألمينيوم والسيارات، دفعاً قوياً لقطاعات اقتصادية كبرى ستخوض معركة الدفاع عن الرئيس ترامب وعن القمة الروسية الأميركية لن يقلّ عنها الدعم الإسرائيلي ممثلاً باللوبيات الناشطة في أميركا.

– سيصمد ترامب بوجه العاصفة، وربما يكون ذاهباً لولاية ثانية بقوة إنجاز، يحظى بدعم الرئيس الروسي يتمثل بحل أزمة السلاح النووي لكوريا الشمالية عشية الانتخابات الرئاسية بعد عامين.

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: