US primes NATO to confront Russia, China — M. K. Bhadrakumar

More importantly, the trend at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting at Brussels on November 19-20, in the run-up to the London summit, showed that despite growing differences within the alliance, member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda — escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarisation of space and countering China’s rise....

The only sure way to ensure permanent US hegemony is to break Russia and China into smaller countries that can be controlled and to prevent alliances of smaller countries that could challenge US hegemony by competing militarily or economically. US policy elites have known this for at least a century and the British policy elites knew this at least a century before that. Prepare for another Cold War and hope it never goes hot.

With NATO set up by Washington for a confrontationist posture, Russia and China won’t let their guard down. Addressing a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council on November 22, Putin said, “There are many uncertainty factors… competition and rivalry are growing stringer and morphing into new forms… The leading countries are actively developing their offensive weapons… the so-called ‘nuclear club’ is receiving new members. We are also seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer space.”

Putin stressed, “In these conditions, it is important to make adequate and accurate forecasts, analyse the possible changes in the global situation, and to use the forecasts and conclusions to develop our military potential.”...

India Punchline
US primes NATO to confront Russia, China
M. K. Bhadrakumar | retired diplomat with the Indian Foreign Service

See also

The majority of Americans support liberal interventionism/neoconservatism in this survey.

Similarly, when asked about the efficacy of maintaining U.S. military bases overseas compared to reducing our foreign presence, Americans opt for maintaining bases by a 65% to 28% margin. Opinions on base-maintenance varies by gender (men +44 maintain versus reduce, women +30), age (under 30 years of age +18, over 65 +44), education (non-college +28, college +43), and region (East +50, MidWest +35, South +32). Perhaps surprisingly, veteran status has almost no effect on attitudes towards maintaining foreign bases. Race and ethnic differences also fail to predict these opinions.  

This general support for engagement includes a willingness to use U.S. military forces, even when there is no direct threat to the U.S. By a 55-point margin—76% support, 22% do not support—Americans support using U.S. military forces to prevent human rights violations in other countries. By the same 55-point margin—again, 76% support, 22% do not support—they favor using U.S. military forces to defend freedom in other countries. 

If the U.S. is directly threatened, the percent supporting a possible military response goes even higher: by a 75-point margin—87% support, 11% do not support—Americans support using U.S. military forces to eliminate potential threats to the U.S. before they strike. When it comes to these particular engagement questions, there are few significant sub-group differences. For example, 74% of men support using the U.S. military to prevent human rights violations; 78% of women feel likewise. Seventy-five percent of non-college people support, 77% of college grads support. Eighty percent of people in the East support, compared to 75% of people in the West. There is a partisan difference, as 84% of Democrats support whereas only 68% of Republicans support. There is also a slight age difference: among those under 30, 77% support; among those over 65, 65% support. But these differences should not obscure the dominance of pro-engagement attitudes....

Beacon Research
Results from the 2019 Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute National Defense Survey

The Birth of Eurasia — Godfree Roberts

Backgrounder. Longish. Maybe weekend reading. But this is what's happening and will be happening over the rest of this century, along with the rise of the Global South. The Global North's preeminence is waning. This doesn't mean decline. Rather, the Global North and West will cease being "exceptional" relative to the rest of the world. This, of course, is a good thing overall.

The Unz Review
The Birth of Eurasia

Godfree Roberts

India’s RCEP Refusal, Russia’s Eurasian Vision, and Next Week’s BRICS Summit — Andrew Korybko

Andrew Korybko is more pessimistic than Pepe Escobar on this. I think he may be a bit too pessimistic. India's strategic alignment is a balancing act for the government in power. India has along history of playing the US and Russia against each other for its own advantage. The really big issue is the relationship of India and China, traditional enemies that are still locked in various disputes over boundaries. Here again, India is using the US as a hedge with respect to China.

Getting the Eurasian alignment right, both in the East and relative to the West is going to occupy the next several decades at least, and the Modi government is not going to be around that long to deal with it. So we will see. 

India, Russia and China are wily players, focused on national interest, which includes regional peace, world peace, and a prospering global market to which they have access. But that all have domestic issues also, and these limit international flexibility. Hovering over this process is a Western hegemony led by the US that doesn't want to lose global dominance after having it for half a millennium.

GlobalResearch
India’s RCEP Refusal, Russia’s Eurasian Vision, and Next Week’s BRICS Summit
Andrew Korybko

Two Systems, One World — Joschka Fischer

Like the twentieth-century Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the new rivalry between China and the West is a contest between fundamentally incompatible political systems. And the idea that freedom and democracy will prevail can no longer be taken for granted.…

While this is an interesting read, I don't think he frames it quite right. Alexander Dugin has pointed out that there are three modern political theories, liberalism, communism, and fascism, and one ancient one, traditionalism. Communism and fascism are now visible only as remnants and the major dialectical opposition presently is that between liberalism and traditionalism. This is the case not only internationally and regionally, but also within countries, e.g., as "traditional values," religious traditions, and cultural traditions and customs.

Joschka Fischer is also mistaken in claiming that Enlightenment liberalism was founded on the principle of freedom based on all men being equal. History contradicts that. The actual meaning was "all white males that owned property" rather than all human beings. Current events reveal that this has not changed all that much, only the narrative and façade.

Let's be real and call a spade a spade. Confucius was big on rectification of names.

Project Syndicate
Two Systems, One World
Joschka Fischer | German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005

All along the watchtower: The follies of history —Pepe Escobar

Everything that happens geopolitically and geoeconomically in our turbulent times has to do with the US’ do-or-die imperial struggle against the Russia-China strategic partnership. Only total “victory,” by any means necessary, would assure the continuation of what could be defined as the New American Century.

And that brings us to the necessity of reconstructing Clausewitz’s axiom, according to which, originally, war is a continuation of politics by other means.

Clausewitz argued that war is a real political instrument. Now, Clausewitz remixed should read: Hybrid War is Politics by Other Means....

Asia Times
All along the watchtower: The follies of history

Pepe Escobar

Attack on Iran would be an attack on Russia — Pepe Escobar

Russia is meticulously advancing Eurasian chessboard moves that should be observed in conjunction, as Moscow proposes to the Global South an approach diametrically opposed to Western sanctions, threats and economic war. Here are three recent examples....

Asia Times
Attack on Iran would be an attack on Russia

Pepe Escobar

Russia — Dmitri Trenin

This is a reasonably good assessment of Russia in terms of what it is now, it's past and it's forward trajectory.

The one matter with which I would strongly disagree is Tenin view that Russia will never be a super-power again. Russia is a super-power now. It is the only country with the means to counter the US militarily. Although China is rising quickly, it likely won't become a superpower in a decade or two. But a strategic alliance between Russia and China would defang NATO's ability to project power into the Eurasian region they dominate. 

Neither Russia nor China have strong offensive capability and therefore their ability to project power is limited while "the West"s" reach is global and offensive. But Russia and China are quite capable of defending their area. In fairness to Trenin, I assume he is equating superpower status with force projection, whereas Russia (and China) are defensively oriented, regardless of what NATO may project about "empire."

It will be very difficult for the US and its allies to break up Russia and China into smaller states after gaining control of the rimland that surrounds them. But they haven't given on that yet, and in some ways are pressing ahead more strongly, apparently because they see the window of opportunity closing.

A reason that Putin in at the top of the West's shitlist is that he upset the apple cart when the West was about again control of the region after the collapse of the USSR and the "liberalization" that almost destroyed Russia and Russian society. Putin stepped in and put an end to it. Now the game has shifted.

The Ambassador's Brief
Russia
Dr. Dmitri Trenin is the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center. He also chairs the Center’s research council and the Foreign and Security Policy Program.

Sultan shines in the court of the Dragon King — Pepe Escobar

Rebuffed by the EU, NATO-member Turkey pivots away from the West toward Eurasian integration. Russia and China smile. US scowls. Iran in play.

Asia Times
Sultan shines in the court of the Dragon King
Pepe Escobar

The CSTO members build a defensive system – from information and politic to logistics and equipment — Alexander Alexandrov

“In 2019, we will hold six exercises on the territory of four countries: Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan, – Valery Semerikov said, answering journalists’ questions. – The total number of forces involved, according to our calculations, will be about 12 thousand”.

During these operational and strategic exercises of the CSTO Joined forces “Combat brotherhood – 2019,” as reported, an entire complex of measures of prevention or deterrent, as well as resolution of military conflict with the subsequent restoration of peace will be worked out in a logical sequence. National contingents of troops will work out different tasks as parts of separate episodes of one untied work-frame of a single military-political situation with a single strategic plan.... 

The Vineyard of the Saker

The CSTO members build a defensive system – from information and politic to logistics and equipment
Alexander Alexandrov for the Red star newspaper

Translation by Scott Humor

Geopolitics of multipolarity (Beijing lecture) — Alexander Dugin

I have written about this previously in the comments. Alexander Dugin summarized the main points pretty well. To understand the dynamic going on now in international relations, foreign affairs, military affairs, geopolitics, geostrategy, and choice of tactics, it is necessary to understand this outline in some detail. This is the grand chessboard on which the great game is being played presently between the land powers and their allies and the sea powers and their allies. The stakes are world domination for the foreseeable future, if this is a future given the enormous power of weapons of mass destruction that may be brought into play.

Geopolitika
Geopolitics of multipolarity (Beijing lecture)

Alexander Dugin

See also by Alexander Dugin at Geopolitika

The main principles of multipolar world order

• Philosophically: real pluralism, diversity, multitude of subjects
• Anthropologically: inclusive humanism, multinaturalism
• Geopolitically: complex system of regional powers (Gross Raum)
• Economically: free trade without (neo) liberal dogmatic
• Politically: diversity of political systems (dependeing on historical traditions of each people)
• Culturally: positive acceptance of different identities

We need to begin forming the philosophy of multipolarity that should replace the liberal globalist theory (end of history, Western hegemony, world capitalism, unipolarity and so on)

The basis of the MPW is Russia-China multipolar allience. If there is such allience, MPW exists already today. Russia is one of the two major nuclear powers. China is one of the two major economic powers. If we unite Russian and China in multipolar allience, MPW is already here. India joins immediately after. Entrance of India and Pakistann in SCO is symbol of great importance.

BRI project wnen it includes Russia, is precisely the decisive step toward this multipolar allience. Putin recently suggested to link to BRI Northern Polar Road. So BRI goes eurasian....

Dugin calls it traditionalism as opposed to Western liberalism, but it sounds like a version of liberalism that integrates traditionalism instead of a version of liberalism that regard liberalism and traditionalism as mutually exclusive.

Multipolarity: Greater Eurasia vision

The Saker interviews A.B. Abrams about the geostrategic developments in Asia The Saker

I recently received a copy of a most interesting book, A.B. Abrams’ “Power and Primacy: the history of western intervention in Asia” and as soon as I started reading it I decided that I wanted to interview the author and ask him about what is taking place in Asia in our times. This was especially interesting to me since Putin has embarked on the Russian version of Obama’s “pivot to Asia“, with the big difference that Putin’s pivot has already proven to be a fantastic success, whereas Obama’s was a dismal failure. I am most grateful to A.B. Abrams for his time and expertise....

This is best article on the current state of geopolitics and geostrategy I have run across recently. Abrams provides a very objective assessment.

The Vineyard of the Saker
The Saker interviews A.B. Abrams about the geostrategic developments in Asia
The Saker
Crossposted at the Unz Review

See also

The Western powers have to acknowledge the rise of China and either include the country in the hegemonic core or be prepared for the emergence of a counter hegemonic power, writes David Lane, Emeritus Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge University....

Valdai Analytics
US-China Relations: Trade Wars or Countervailing Powers?
David Lane

Rabobank: Trump-Xi Meeting Is Not About Tariffs Or Trade, But Who Wins The Great Chess Game And How — Michael Every

More geopolitics and geostrategy, and how it impacts finance and economics.

The danger here is that POTUS and US hardliners see this as a zero-sum game. This greatly increases the chance that it will lead to kinetic warfare on a grander scale. The US is already deep into deploying economic, information, and cyberwarfare against a number of countries, and positioning for kinetic warfare.

The situation now is increasingly hair-trigger.

Zero Hedge
Rabobank: Trump-Xi Meeting Is Not About Tariffs Or Trade, But Who Wins The Great Chess Game And How
Michael Every | Head of Financial Markets Research Asia-Pacific, Rabobank

Yana Leksyutina — The Rise of China and the Creation of a China-Centric International Economic System

Beijing’s activity in world affairs has been steadily increasing since the global financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009. There is no doubt that China, which has substantially increased its economic and financial strength, has set off on a path of sustainable growth to play a key role in global economic governance; it is improving its leadership potential on the world stage and gradually building a China-centric system of international rules, norms and institutions. Processing its “rise”, China has already moved beyond the stage of incorporation into the international order, where it had functioned in a playing field which had been established by Western countries, and started reformatting the existing international system in accordance with its own interests and development needs. At the same time, it appears that Beijing has no clear and future-oriented strategy to become a global leader (a so-called “Grand strategy”). The increase of China’s role in world processes was to some extent a surprise to the Chinese themselves, and to some extent an objective process, the cumulative result of individual measures taken by China, designed to solve the specific tasks of China’s economic development....

Valdai Analytics
The Rise of China and the Creation of a China-Centric International Economic System

Yana Leksyutina

Pepe Escobar — The EU bows to ‘systemic rival’ China

Slowly but surely, the EU is shifting its priorities to the East

Asia Times
The EU bows to ‘systemic rival’ China
Pepe Escobar

Alastair Crooke — The Dire, Unintended Consequences of Trump’s MAGA War on China

De-globalization and the collapse of the Post WWII world order. Sailing into uncharted territory.

Strategic Culture Foundation
The Dire, Unintended Consequences of Trump’s MAGA War on China

Alastair Crooke | founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, and former British diplomat and senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy

See also

Consortium News
PATRICK LAWRENCE: Pompeo, Pence & the Alienation of Europe

Tom Luongo — Warsaw and Munich: Whistling Past NATO’s Graveyard

In the end, the whole Munich affair looked like a bunch of people gathering to whistle past the graveyard of the fraying post-WWII institutional order. Trump wants Europe to pay for NATO so we don’t but Europe doesn’t want NATO on Trump’s terms which put them in the cross-hairs of his power play with Russia and China over the INF treaty.
Putin has built a version of fortress Russia that is for all practical purposes impregnable, short-of an all-out nuclear conflict which no one except maybe the most ideologically possessed in D.C. and Tel Aviv wants.…

And that’s why Europe is so unwilling to go along with Trump on the INF Treaty, Iranian regime change and even his Arab NATO plan. They are the ones being asked to be on the front lines, pay for and fight a war against their best interests.

And that’s why no one was willing to join the latest ‘coalition of the willing’ in Munich to perpetuate the conflict in Asia. They’ll go along with Trump’s plans in Venezuela, it doesn’t cost them anything strategically.

But even Merkel knows that in light of the events of the past three and a half years, the right move for Europe is to cut a deal with Russia and Iran while keeping their head down as the U.S. loses its mind....

Tom Luongo
Warsaw and Munich: Whistling Past NATO’s Graveyard

See also

Russian lender Gazprombank has decided to freeze the accounts of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and halted transactions with the firm to reduce the risk of the bank falling under U.S. sanctions, a Gazprombank source told Reuters on Sunday.

Reuters

Russia's Gazprombank freezes accounts of Venezuela's PDVSA: source

Sputnik International
Venezuela's PDVSA Refutes Reports of Gazprombank Freeze on Company Accounts

Pepe Escobar — Get over it: Asia rules

The greatest merit of Parag Khanna’s new book, The Future is Asian, is to accessibly tell the story of a historical inevitability – with the extra bonus of an Asian point of view. This is not only a very good public service, it also blows out of the water countless tomes by Western “experts” pontificating about Asia from an air-con cubicle in Washington....

Good backgrounder.

Asia Times
Get over it: Asia rules

Pepe Escobar

See also

The American Conservative
Beltway Warriors Target China as the Next Global ThreatLeon Hadar

Margaret Talev and Sheridan Prasso — U.S. Preparing Trump Order to Restrict Chinese Telecoms, Sources Say

This will likely meet reciprocal response and result in a two-tier IT technology, with the West vassals using the Western system and the Global South using the Chinese system. A multi-polar world will result, especially with a growing cold war between the US/Global North and China-Russia/Global South.

Bloomberg
U.S. Preparing Trump Order to Restrict Chinese Telecoms, Sources Say
Margaret Talev and Sheridan Prasso

See also

Zero Hedge
"Huawei Death Sentence": Trump Said To Prepare Executive Order Restricting Chinese Telecoms
Tyler Durden

Zero Hedge
Taiwan Holds Live-Fire Military Exercise Amid Fears Of China Invasion

Tyler Durden

Ecns
Chinese FDI in U.S. plunges as obstacles rise

Fortune
Huawei Founder Ren Zhengfei Breaks Silence as Global Pressures Mount

Sputnik
[Czech President] Zeman Dubs Huawei Security Issue in Czech Republic a 'Trade War'

Sputnik
Chinese Firm Offers New Iranian Oilfield Deal Amid US Sanctions – Report

Open Culture

America at War: Infographic Reveals How the U.S. Military Is Operating in 40% of the World’s Nations

Josh Jones

The American Conservative
Tulsi Gabbard and the Great Foreign Policy Realignment

James Pinkerton

The Guardian
China has some of world's most advanced weapon systems, Pentagon warns

AFP

Zero Hedge
China's Undergound "Great Wall" Missile Defense System Can Block Hypersonic Attacks

Tyler Durden

Fort Russ
US MEDIA IN FEAR: Russia’s Weapon is Deadlier than Nuclear Bomb

Fort Russ
RUSSIA RISING: Russia On Course to be Top 5 Economy by 2020 DESPITE Sanctions

Mint Press News
United States Doesn’t Even Make Top 20 on Global Democracy Index

Common Dreams

Sputnik
Facebook Bans Sputnik Pages on Advice of NATO-funded Atlantic Council

The Unz Review
Korea Might Be Realigning Towards China

Anatoly Karlin

Jean Pisani-Ferry — Should we give up on global governance?

Executive summary

The high point of global governance was reached in the mid-1990s around the creationof the World Trade Organisation. It was hoped that globalisation would be buttressed by a system of global rules and a network of specialised global institutions. Two decades later these hopes have been dashed by a series of global governance setbacks, the rise of economic nationalism and the dramatic change of attitude of the United States administration. From trade to the environment, a retreat from multilateralism is observable. The 2008 elevation of the G20 to leaders’ level was an exception to this trend. But the G20 is no more than a political steering body.

The reasons for this retreat partially arise from political developments in individual countries. But such factors hide series specific roadblocks to global governance: the growing number and diversity of countries involved; the mounting rivalry between the US and China; doubts about globalisation and the distribution of the associated benefits; the obsolescence of global rules and institutions; imbalances within the global governance regime; and in- creased complexity.

What, then, should be the way forward? The demand for global governance has not diminished, but support for binding multilateral arrangements has. There is a need for alter- native governance technologies that better accommodate the diversity of players, provide for more flexibility and rely less on compulsion. From competition to financial regulation, such arrangements have been developed in a series of fields already. They are often hailed as pro- viding a solution to the governance conundrum. But their effectiveness should be assessed critically. Can they overcome the free-rider curse and enforcement problems? Usual game theory suggests not. Not all games are similar, however, and some collective action problems can be tackled without recourse to coercion.

Against this background, multilateralists hesitate over the choice of a strategy. One option would be to seek to preserve the existing order to the greatest extent possible. Its downside is that it does not address the underlying problems. An alternative option is to try to redesign international arrangements, putting the emphasis on flexibility and voluntary participation. Its downside is that it risks overlooking the intrinsic problems of international or global collective action. A potentially more promising approach would be to define the minimum conditions that the multilateral framework must fulfil to provide a strong-enough basis for flexible, variable-geometry and possibly informal arrangements.

In the end, we should neither cultivate the nostalgia of yesterday’s order nor invest our hopes in ineffective international cooperation. The narrow path ahead is to establish a suf- ficient, critical multilateral base for flexible arrangements and to equip policymakers with a precise toolkit for determining, on a field-by-field basis, the minimum requirements for effective collective action.

Bruegel

Should we give up on global governance?
Jean Pisani-Ferry

Pepe Escobar — New Silk Roads define brand China

Pepe Escobar explains how the BRI is the defining concept of the rest of the 21st century, not just brand China. Sea power will no longer be key geopolitically, which shuts out the chief advantage of the Anglo-American Empire, since the core of the empire consists of relatively small islands in comparison with the vastness of the world island as the "geographical pivot of history" (Halford Mackinder).

Asia Times
New Silk Roads define brand China

Pepe Escobar