Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

China and Russia pose growing threats to Western power

Aggressive US-led military exercises continue to create an accidental risk of conflict.

Shane Quinn

Published

on

3,194 Views

 

As we advance further into the 21st century, American hegemony is facing new and increasing threats to its global status. With China and Russia gaining in strength and audacity, US power is being challenged like never before.

Gideon Rachman, a chief columnist with the Financial Times asks, “How long can a country [US] that represents less than 5% of the world’s population and 22% of the global economy, remain the world’s dominant military and political power?”

America is by far the greatest military power on earth – and that is not going to end soon. However, military dominance, and the American willingness to venture down that road, can only take them so far.

Both China and Russia possess nuclear weapons, for example. The US will not willingly enter a war with either power in a bid to regain lost power. Largely because of US belligerence, there is always the chance of a planet-altering accident occurring.

Rachman outlines that, “Since the Cold War ended, the overwhelming power of the US military has been the central fact of global politics. Now… that power is being tested – as America’s rivals test its resolve and the US considers when and whether to push back”.

China are today asserting themselves in the seas that bear their name. Much to American irritation and dismay, one might add. How dare China ignore American warnings by conducting exercises thousands of kilometres from Washington?

It may be assumed the American reaction would be even more vociferous, were China performing military drills in the Caribbean. Fortunately, Chinese intentions are more realistic.

Two months ago, the USS John S McCain sailed perilously close to an artificial Chinese-built island in the South China Sea. Disturbed by the appearance of the 500-foot long US warship, a Chinese frigate sent at least 10 radio warnings to its uninvited guest.

Though seldom mentioned, such incidents carry an underlying threat of nuclear war. Lamenting the episode, a US official said, “We told them we are a US ship conducting routine operations in international waters”, further describing the interactions as “safe and professional”.

However, the Chinese foreign ministry said, “The US destroyer’s actions have violated Chinese and international laws, as well as severely harming China’s sovereignty and security”.

Disagreeing, Pentagon spokesman Chris Logan responded, “The United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law applies”. Translating into plain English here, “international law” means “American law”.

Less than two weeks after this very incident [on August 21], the USS McCain was involved in a serious collision with a Liberian oil tanker, off the coast of Singapore. Ten American sailors died, in what constitutes just one of various incidents involving US warships in Asia this year.

Nor are these episodes limited to US warships. American fighter bombers and jets can be seen at regular intervals flying over the South China Sea, as they conduct “freedom of navigation” exercises. In reality, these provocative and dangerous gestures are a reminder to China of American military capacity.

China appears immune to American warnings. Their influence is spreading with the BBC reporting in July that, “China claims sovereignty over almost all the South China Sea, which the US has challenged”. The South China Sea – part of the Pacific Ocean and flowing past Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Borneo and Singapore – signifies one of the world’s most important trade routes.

In July this year, two US B-1B Lancers staged joint flights with Japanese aircraft – first over the East China Sea, then flying on to the South China Sea. A US Pacific Air Forces statement said the operation was to, “demonstrate the solidarity between Japan and the US to defend against provocative and destabilising actions in the Pacific Theatre”.

The Pacific Theatre? One could be forgiven for assuming we are still in the year 1944. Few seem able to query why the Americans retain a presence on the far side of the world over 70 years later. Indeed, the US has treated the Pacific Ocean as “an American lake” in all the time since. Times are clearly changing.

In May, China detailed plans to construct a $900 billion modernised version of the old Silk Road – which was an ancient network of trade routes. For about 1,600 years, the old Silk Road connected China eastwards to the Korean peninsula and Japan, and as far as Europe and Africa westwards.

The old Silk Road collapsed in the mid-15th century, mainly due to the long-time spread of diseases along the route, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. China lost half its population to plague in the 14th century, with Europe losing a third of theirs.

The British Chancellor Philip Hammond said the new Silk Road would, “span 65 countries, across four continents, with the potential to raise the living standards of 70% of the global population”, calling the project “truly ground-breaking”.

Elsewhere, US influence is being challenged by a re-assertive Russia. In 2014, the idyllic region of Crimea was reintegrated into Russian territory. Crimea was part of Russian and Soviet land for more than two centuries (1783-1991) – something hardly ever mentioned.

Crimea’s reincorporation also signified another show of strength – that Russia is definitively unwillingly to put up with destructive Western influence any longer. This followed on from the South Ossetian war of 2008, which as Prof. Richard Sakwa of University of Kent wrote, “was in effect the first of the wars to stop NATO enlargement”.

Six years after that, Crimea’s return to Russia also stood as a response to the vicious Western-led coup in the Ukraine. In 2015, Barack Obama publicly admitted American involvement in an unguarded CNN interview. The Ukrainian putsch has plunged a country, with a long history of Western exploitation, into another abyss.

The Kiev regime is in reality a far-right government led by billionaire Petro Poroshenko. In June it was reported he had a 1% public approval rating according to the Kyiv (sic) Post.

Poroshenko’s  administration is the most corrupt in Europe, with direct links to neo-Nazi groups fighting in eastern Ukrainian regions like Donetsk and Donbass. Virtually none of these unwanted facts are reported to Western audiences.

Instead, it is Russia who continues to be shamelessly vilified for attempting to secure her borders against increased aggression. In response to Crimea’s reintegration, NATO manoeuvres up to Russia’s borders have grown in scale and menace. NATO receives a massive 75% of its funding from the US, and its policies have long been a global security threat.

Indeed NATO, formed in 1949, should have been dismantled decades ago. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first supreme commander of NATO, wrote in 1950 that, “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defence purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed”.

Furthermore, Russia’s intervention in Syria by defeating Western-backed opposition terrorists, also underlines the loss of US control in the Middle East. An outcome like this would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Disastrous American interventions in the Middle East have resulted in a significant decline of influence there too.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

EU leaders dictate Brexit terms to Theresa May (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 115.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss how EU leaders have agreed on a plan to delay the the Article 50 process which effectively postpones Brexit beyond the 29 March deadline.

The UK will now be offered a delay until the 22nd of May, only if MPs approve Theresa May’s withdrawal deal next week. If MPs do not approve May’s negotiated deal, then the EU will support a short delay until the 12th of April, allowing the UK extra time to get the deal passed or to “indicate a way forward”.

UK PM Theresa May said there was now a “clear choice” facing MPs, who could vote for a third time on her deal next week.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Theresa May outlines four Brexit options, via Politico

In a letter to MPs, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May set out the four options she believes the country has in light of Thursday’s decision by EU leaders to extend the Brexit deadline beyond next Friday.

The U.K. is faced with a four-way choice, May wrote late Friday.

The government could revoke Article 50 — which May called a betrayal of the Brexit vote; leave without a deal on April 12; pass her deal in a vote next week; or, “if it appears that there is not sufficient support” for a vote on her deal in parliament next week or if it is rejected for a third time, she could ask for an extension beyond April 12.

But this would require for the U.K. taking part in European elections in May, which the prime minister said “would be wrong.”

May wrote that she’s hoping for the deal to pass, allowing the U.K. to leave the EU “in an orderly way,” adding “I still believe there is a majority in the House for that course of action.”

“I hope we can all agree that we are now at the moment of decision,” she wrote.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending