Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

China to eradicate poverty in 3 years

The plan is both ambitious and achievable based on China’s remarkable economic and infrastructural records.

Published

on

2,094 Views

Chinese news outlet Xinhua has released the full remarks of President Xi Jinping from a 23 June symposium on the eradication of poverty which took place in Shanxi Province.

During his speech President Xi stated that he seeks to embark on a three year plan to fully eradicate rural poverty in the county.

The Chinese economic boom which begun during the reformist era of Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping, has transformed China from a mainly agrarian developing economy to an industrial powerhouse and leading exporter. The IMF has recently stated that it expects to move its headquarters to China within a decade as it is projected with almost complete certainty that in terms of GDP, the Chinese economy will soon outpace that of the United States which had led the world for most of the 20th century and into the 21st. In many other areas, China already leads the world.

Three major developments have occurred under the leadership of Xi Jinping which have had further transformative effects on China.

First of all, it was during XI’s period in office that in 2013, China announced One Belt–One Road, the wide reaching trading/commerce infrastructure plan which seeks to harmonise world trade and elevate the trading capacities of both developing and developed economies. Crucially, unlike western derived schemes such as the WTO, One Belt–One Road does not include any requirements on governance or a nation’s economic characteristics. Instead, China seeks to integrate each nation’s growing capacities along wide reaching land roads and maritime belts in an interlocking system which plays to the existing and projected strengths of economies across several continents.

The second great achievement of the Xi era has been the flourishing of China’s internal market for not only basic goods but also Chinese made luxury goods. It is not out of the question that in the near future China’s number one market for Chinese made goods, will in fact be China, just as this was the case in respect of the United States during much of the 20th century.

Finally, China is rapidly moving on a path towards energy self-sufficiency and doing so in a manner that relies greatly on green technology. New cities in China are increasingly running primarily or entirely on solar energy at a pace which outstrips every other major nation and global region.

In many ways, the logical final frontier of China’s march towards full prosperity is the eradication of what remains of poor conditions in some rural areas.

President Xi said the following on the subject,

“We must send our best talents to the front line of the tough battle with extreme poverty. All levels of government should actively send cadres to station in poor villages in an effort to fortify the party leadership”.

He continued,

“The priority for the next stage is to solve the problems of social services, infrastructure and a basic medical services shortage in areas with deep-rooted poverty issues”.

The South China Morning Post further reports that Xi’s plan includes the following goals 

–An equitable distribution of land in poor rural areas 

–Relocate certain residents in decrepit areas to areas with modern living and working accommodations 

–Improve rural medical facilities and care, with an emphasis on the elderly and ill

–Employ local residence in environmental protection initiatives 

–Improve rural education 

–Create new transport infrastructure to poor rural locations 

–Create a plethora of new jobs in rural areas 

–Remove 12 million people from the official definition of poverty 

President Xi has stated that he believes these ambitious goals can be accomplished in spite of their broad scope. He has said,

“As long as we pay great attention, think correctly, take effective measures and work in a down-to-earth way, abject poverty is absolutely conquerable”.

China’s growth between 1978 and the present day has confounded most naysayers and defied the trends which have shaped modern expectations for economic and infrastructural growth.

Based on this reality, there is every chance that President Xi’s ambitious plans will in a few short years, become a settled reality for China.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Shahna
Guest

I realise it’s been pretty rough for some but nonetheless it’s been simply amazing.
Amazing what a govt can achieve when it also works for all its people instead of only for itself and a rich few.

….Even more amazing that this should be so for China – and not a Western nation where instead we see, increasing poverty.

Hamletquest
Guest
Hamletquest

However you describe it, communism with a capitalist twist or capitalism with a communist twist the state organised economy seems to work.

Simon
Guest
Simon

I’d describe it as getting your priorities right, based on reality.
Of course if they ‘enjoyed’ Liberal Democracy they might prioritise spending $2 trillion on a 16 year war in eg Bolivia or Congo instead.

Terry Ross
Guest
Terry Ross

I cannot imagine a Liberal China with a high proportion of its 1.38 BILLION people confused about gender identity.

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

I don’t know who I admire more – Putin or Xi. Together, these guys are presenting the world with a viable way forward as the Empire dies.

tomo stojanovic
Guest
tomo stojanovic

it’s simple – to prosper, a country just needs to make sure psychopaths are not put in positions of power. They cannot care about others even if they wanted to, such is the nature of their sickness. Putting them in charge of a country is like putting a fox in charge of a hen house. Americans instead glorify and worship them.

Godfree Roberts
Guest

If you study it, you’ll see that our system weeds out anyone who’s not sociopathic.

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

IMO the economic models of both Russia, and China are National Socialist. Read Mein Kampf, and pay special attention to the economic theories posited by Gottfried Feder. This exercise requires conscious thought so it’s not for those faint of heart or foggy of mind. Reading Mein Kampf will no more turn a person into a Nazi that reading Das Capital will turn someone into a Communist so please spare me the “NAZI, NAZI, NAZI !!!” hysteria. It seems that a number of nations, especially in the Pacific rim, have begun to move purposefully toward the NS economic model. Regardless of… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

….. Have you actually read Mein Kampf? I mean … started on the first page and gone all the way to the last? I ask because I tried. Really – I REALLY TRIED But it’s a whole big lorry catootie of …. endless WAFFLING. (I thought the preface’s description of “political pornography” was… kind.) It was banned here you see, so of course, I wanted to read it. And I eventually lent it to someone under the same terms I received it: You may borrow it if you promise never to return it. Nationalist Socialist Germany had some really very… Read more »

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Political Pornography? Do you think the reviewer could be somewhat biased. Yes, I’ve studied Mein Kampf. I have the two major translations from German to English: Murphy, and Manheim. I also have papers done my Chinese, Japanese, and Russian scholars. There is also an on line searchable version of Mein Kampf. Obviously, I don’t view Mein Kamph in the way you do, and the reason could be that I read with an open mind. Considering that you live in a society where Mein Kampf is banned perhaps you should ask why? What is it that your social engineers are afraid… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

Was the writer of the preface biased? Probably – seems to me everyone is biased about MK one way or the other. I asked you because I was curious… I read most of the book but found it excruciatingly waffly. (And that was a LONG time ago.) I was hoping for …. reason rather than ‘just umbrage.’ I don’t live in a society where MK is banned. I live in South Africa: it was banned under the Apartheid Govt and book banning went the way of that govt. (NP govt was VERY good friends with Israel. And I mean VERY… Read more »

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

You wrote that you’ve read Mein Kampf (see: http://hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ ). Chapter 11 succinctly articulates Adolf’s extreme racism against the Jewish people. Under Germany’s national socialist policies, the country miraculously recovered economically from the severe financial demands put upon it by the World War I reparations outlined in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles. However what if the fuehrer: 1. Didn’t blame the woes of German poverty on an entire race of people? 2. Didn’t extol the false virtues of Aryan society propaganda? 3. Didn’t put Germany on a path to destruction by making war in Europe? In your opinion:… Read more »

Seán Murphy
Guest
Seán Murphy

Hitler and Germany didn’t start WW2: France and Britain declared war on Germany. Germany didn’t have much choice in the matter.

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in March of 1939 and Poland on September 1, 1939 (today is the 78th anniversary). If you don’t consider those two events as the start of WW II, then you’ve read the wrong history books.

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, and Poland to protect ethnic Germans from extermination. Also, there was the issue of taking back territory the return of which was provided for in the Versailles Treaty. England, France, and the Soviet Union piled on to turn a local issue into a war that deeply damaged their nations, and murdered as many as 75,000,000 people. Perhaps you’ve read the wrong history books.

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

The three and a half million ethnic Germans who lived in the North and Western regions of Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland) were never threatened with “extermination” as you falsely wrote.

Hitler coerced the Czechs into giving up Sudentenland or face invasion. The Munich Treaty that was brokered by Britain’s Neville Chamberlain allowed Germany to annex the regions thereby gaining 10,000 square miles of territory in September, 1938. Six months later, the German Wehrmacht occupied Prague and Hitler declared Czechoslovakia “no more” (see: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/service_awards/sudetenland_occupation.htm ).

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Nations come, and nations go; history is replete with that. Czechoslovakia peeled off of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918, bounced around as pseudo nation until 1993, and then dissolved. During that time it was troublesome, and added greatly to global conflict. It reminds me of that other pseudo nation: Ukraine.

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

Come on, dude. Hitler attacked Poland. What should the allies do? Sit and watch? They already did that in 1938, when it was only the USSR that prepared for a military conflict if necessary in order to aid Czechoslovakia.

Hitler and Germany DID start WWII. The revisionist view I tend to vehemently oppose is the one that originates in the Anglo-American countries, in Poland and the Baltics, always by virulent Russophobes. This is that the USSR is equally responsible for the outbreak of the war.

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

My post concerned the economics of NS Germany. I don’t care one wit about the Jewish people. What if? Who cares? What if you Jews didn’t invent the holohoax, and use it as an excuse to steal Palestine? What if you hadn’t put Israel on a path to destruction by feeding on the rest of the world? Do you really think you can protect yourselves with white quilt generated by your propaganda forever? Trust me, you will soon find that the sun does not rise, and fall on your fat kosher butt. A. The policies of exceptionalism, and militarism don’t… Read more »

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

Please, your accusations of being a Zionist sympathizer are wasted. You couldn’t even give an opinion without running your racist mouth off. My question to you was based on historical facts relative to Germany’s rise from the ashes of financial ruin, poverty and starvation of its people. If Hitler focused on growing the nation into an international hub for commerce instead of war, Germany may have been one of the great economic powers of that era. Germany was one of the first European nations to extricate itself from the Great Depression. Under the national socialists, unemployment was reduced from 6… Read more »

Constantine
Guest
Constantine

While many policies of the Nazis were positive, the underlying context was that of a sacrosanct state of the chosen, superior race. And that affected the course of the country. Thus, the reduction of unemployment was based to a certain extent to the mobilization of the war industry and the expansion of the armed forces. And success was further fed by territorial expansion. This is the case of the gold reserves of Czechoslovakia (much of it being the former Russian Imperial gold seized by the Czech Legion during the Civil War) which were used to balance the increasing military costs… Read more »

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Actually, I’m more of a fan of accurate history presented without distortion, and bias. You should try it sometime.

So tell me, Constantine, do you really view yourself as an Emperor?

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Why can’t you stay on the subject of economics? In what way am I racist? Am I racist simply because I refuse to worship a pack of thieving Zionist Jews? Is it because your primary motivation is to use what you view as racism to attack anyone who fails to bow before your Zionist Jews? The world has grown weary of your constant cries of racism, and antisemitism. Besides, Judaism is supposed to be a religion not a race.

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

Glad you’re back. Let’s continue this thread and try and come to an understanding. You asked four questions in tandem. Q1: “Why can’t I stay on the subject of economics?” I did but I had to establish the background of Hitler’s racism he so succinctly declared in his autobiography as the foundation of my two points being, (A) his consuming bigotry towards the Jewish people blinded him from his greater achievement of leading Germany’s economic recovery and (B) by exploiting the success of his work and spreading it throughout Europe, he may have laid the genesis for the European Union… Read more »

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

Indeed, let’s come to an understanding; 1. I made a comment on pre-WW 2 German economics, and you immediately piled on with the Jew garbage after I firmly stated that I was not supporting the Nazi cause. Why did you do that? Because the Jew is terrified of the effect of NS economics on their banking cartel. I submit a quote for Winston Churchill: “The unforgivable sin of Hitler’s German was to develop a new economic system by which the international bankers were deprived of their profits.” You then went on to obfuscate the subject by introducing spurious tidbits of… Read more »

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

X-Man, I have to shake my head at your ridiculous assumptions and lack of comprehension when someone posts historical, irrefutable facts that you deliberate misconstrue to support a line of personal thought that reveals your blind, unwarranted hatred for an entire race of people. Your original post is not in dispute about the economic benefits of the German government’s national socialist economic model in the early 1930’s. I even concurred with your understanding of that period in my initial post. Did you even read what I wrote? Here let me repeat it again, word for word. “Under Germany’s national socialist… Read more »

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

I’ve studied all of the Abrahamic religions, in excruciating detail, and that’s why I don’t subscribe to them. You, sir, regardless of any or no religion that you profess, are a Jew. In this instance you are condemned by your own words, “Jews are a people who may or may not follow a religion.” It’s no small wonder that you are terrified by a discussion of NS economics.

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

Your rant is incomprehensible and your conversation foul. You try and make a case for defamatory accusation based on what; that I wrote the truth? Despite your hatred for Jews, they are a tribe of people recognized by the world; the last of the Hebrew race. Like all peoples, there are good Jews and bad Jews representing the eternal struggle of man. They will all be judged in the end, like the rest of us. Your attempt to fashion a cogent argument about period economics and commingle it with racial condemnation is incredulous. You want to write about Germany’s national… Read more »

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

NS economics not NS policies. However, I love the way you people react when you’re desperate: Insults, name calling, and big words. Shakespeare had you pegged long ago, “All sound, and fury signifying nothing.”

MyWikiDisQus
Guest
MyWikiDisQus

Whoa, back up a few posts, X-Man, it was you who slung the first vitriol, not me! However I apologize, I’ll try not to use “big words” to confound you in the future.

Policies are the administrative foundation for a government’s action. For example, The National Socialist policy for the German Workers Party was based upon a 25 point program (see: http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/ ).

Here is some more detail on their economic policies (see: http://ihr.org/other/bauer1939economicpolicy )

and here (see: https://nazieconomicpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/1933-to-1936/ ).

Born Free
Guest
Born Free

I’ll believe it when I see it. They are in a bad financial position now and have been for years….way worse than America…

Godfree Roberts
Guest

They’re in great shape financially, according the the BIS. Average debt for their peers (way less than Japan’s) fast, sustainable growth, strong public support. Perhaps you’ve read too many headlines like these: 1990. The Economist. China’s economy has come to a halt. 1996. The Economist. China’s economy will face a hard landing 1998. The Economist: China’s economy enters a dangerous period of sluggish growth. 1999. Bank of Canada: Likelihood of a hard landing for the Chinese economy. 2000. Chicago Tribune: China currency move nails hard landing risk coffin. 2001. Wilbanks, Smith & Thomas: A hard landing in China. 2002. Westchester… Read more »

louis robert
Guest
louis robert

Confirmation:

“Democracy is Failing | Eric X Li | Oxford Union”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9kqwMKyBvLc

Godfree Roberts
Guest

Weirdly, it’s China that’s the real democracy:https://www.unz.com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/#new_comments

louis robert
Guest
louis robert

Very interesting. Thanks, Godfree.

China will be central in my grandchildren’s world, a very different one indeed from the current one.

Born Free
Guest
Born Free

Disagree. China is facing a bank crisis because of their debt. It’s much greater than ours as a percentage of GDP.

Godfree Roberts
Guest

Here’s ours and theirs:comment image

Latest

Honest liberal says he is NOT INTERESTED in policy explanation [Video]

When news anchors try to act like prosecuting attorneys instead of actually interviewing people, we all lose.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One characteristic of modern-day television “news reporting” is that the political news is not truly reported. Rather, if the interviewer disagrees with the one being interviewed, the session turns into interviewer grandstanding. Regrettably, this tactic is used by liberal and conservative journalists alike. However, it is usually not admitted, as the interviewer usually chooses to say things like “I want the truth” when he or she really wants to force the other person to admit the correctness of the interviewer.

Over the weekend, Fox News’ Chris Wallace grandstanded against White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller. However, Chris Wallace at least was honest about his wish:

STEPHEN MILLER: … At a fundamental level, we could go down into the details, and you know, Chris, I can go down into details as much as you want to, but the bottom line is this…

CHRIS WALLACE: Please don’t! (laughs)

This is a big problem. The responsibility of any good journalist is to get full and accurate information about a given topic. Isn’t it?

Not in the press of our day. Chris Wallace is a valued personality for the Fox News Channel. As a former CBS anchor for 60 Minutes, Wallace brings a well-known face and voice of the mainstream media to Fox, even though he is quite liberal politically, as are many in the entertainment and information professions.

The problem is that the topic here, the facts justifying President Trump’s National Emergency declaration on Friday over the still permeable US-Mexico border, are present in abundance. But Mr. Wallace did not want to know these facts, or perhaps worse, he did not want to let his viewing audience know this information, so he tried to prevent Mr. Miller from talking about those details.

Stephen Miller, thankfully, was not having it. He insisted on giving a full and informed response to Mr. Wallace’s questions, even though Wallace did not want to hear any information.

The rest of the interview is comprised of Mr. Miller trying to dissemimate information and Mr. Wallace trying to block it and refuse it in order to sustain his own preferred narrative.

Chris Wallace’ point of view is that the President called a National Emergency for no good reason, and that President Trump is breaking the law by appropriating money for the Border Wall, something which only the House of Representatives can do, legislatively.

However, the point of view expressed by Mr. Wallace and President Trump is that as Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President is responsible to preserve the country from invasion. For the President, the never-ending waves of illegals coming into the country and not being deported, but rather, released into the US pending trials that they often never attend years later, amounts to a slow invasion.

Strictly speaking, President Trump is correct. The illegals are not (usually) armed representatives of a foreign power, but neither do they become American citizens. Many of them take advantage of generous provisions and loopholes in the law (Mexico teaches them how to do this!) and they therefore earn money but usurp the country of resources.

It has been exceedingly difficult to move the level of interest in stopping illegal immigration in the US. Rush Limbaugh rightly stated in his program on Friday, February 15, what the problem is, and we include some of the details (as we should) for why Mr. Limbaugh says what he says here:

There is a limit on a number of detainees. There is limit on how much of border and fence can be built. There’s a limit on what kind can be built. There’s a limit on modernization. This bill is filled with congressional edicts telling the president of the United States what he cannot do. Now, it authorizes $23 billion for Homeland Security, but it specifies $1.375 billion for fencing and bordering.

But there are so many limits on this as to make this practically irrelevant — by design and on purpose, because I firmly believe that what members of Congress (both parties) actually want with this bill is to send a message that nothing is ever gonna happen as long as Donald Trump is President. The attempt in this budget deal is to send a message to you Trump voters that it’s worthless voting for him, that it is a waste of time supporting him, because they are demonstrating that he can’t get anything done.

This is Pelosi in the House and Schumer in the Senate getting together, because they know when it comes to illegal immigration, these parties are unified, folks. For the most part, the Republicans and Democrats are for open borders. There are exceptions on the Republican side. But there are a lot of Republicans that don’t want Trump to succeed even now. There are a lot of Republicans just after he was inaugurated who don’t want him to succeed. So they come up with a piece of legislation here that is outrageous.

It is outrageous in its denial of the existence of a genuine emergency at the border. They don’t care. They will deal with whatever mess they create. They don’t care how bad it gets because in their world, the only mess is Donald Trump — and since the Russian effort and the Mueller effort and everything else related to that has failed to get his approval numbers down (and that has been the objective from the get-go), this is the latest effort, and it won’t be long… You mark my words on this.

There is an emergency at the US-Mexico border. Last year almost half a million people were apprehended by the Border Patrol and ICE. Many, if not most, though, are still in the United States. They were not all sent back. Some were, and some of them probably have come back in yet again. The fact that our nation’s borders are unrestricted in this manner is absolute folly.

The more American people know the details about what is actually happening at the border, the more they support the wall’s construction and President Trump’s policies. We have seen evidence for this in polling even by liberal network outlets. President Trump managed to call attention to this topic and bring it into the center of the discussion of US domestic policy. Rasmussen reported that the level of approval of Trump’s work to close the border is high – at 59 percent, with only 33 percent disapproving.

The President made this an issue. Chris Wallace tried in his own program to deflect and dissuade information from being brought to the attention of the American viewers who watch his program.

This is not journalism. It is reinforcement of propaganda on Mr. Wallace’s part, defense against facts, and an unwillingness to let the American people have information and therefore to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, such practices are not limited to Mr. Wallace. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and others all utilize this form of questioning, and it is a shame, because the news reporter no longer reports the news. When a talking head on TV or radio places himself or herself as the Gatekeeper to allow or prevent information from reaching the American people, this is highly presumptuous, ego driven and almost always, dishonest.

Worse, such an approach reinforces this message to American people: “You cannot think for yourself. It is too hard, so we will do your thinking for you. Trust us!”

This style of journalism became more and more popular over, under the “appearance” of “tough questioning.” However the usual course of “tough questioning” is ideologically aligned with whatever the journalist thinks, and not at all about what is actually important. Chris Wallace is notorious for doing this with conservatives, and he does aggravate them, but he reduces interviews to an argument between the journalist and the person interviewed.

And usually, this is not the story. This was made absolutely clear in the interview with Stephen Miller, even to the point that Mr. Wallace actually voiced the request, “please don’t (give us all the specifics of this issue.)” 

Good journalism respects the fact that different people have different points of view. Agreement or disagreement with these points is what Op-Ed writing is for. But when Op-Ed is treated as hard fact journalism, we all lose.

We included the whole interview video from the beginning here so that the viewer can take in the whole course of this discussion. It is well worth watching. And as it is well-worth watching, it is also well-worth each person’s own personal consideration. People are smarter than the media would like us to be.

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

Latest

Macron pisses off Merkel as he tries to sabotage Nord Stream 2 pipeline (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 177.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss an EU compromise for Nord Stream 2 where EU member states, the EU Parliament, and its Commission will give the bloc more oversight on gas pipelines, with one caveat…the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia will not be threatened by the new regulations in the agreement.

Macron pushed hard to have the new regulations include (and derail) Nord Stream 2, an action which annoyed Angela Merkel, who eventually got her way and delivered another blow to Macron’s failing French presidency.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The Express UK

Angela Merkel hit back at Emmanuel Macron over Russia and Germany’s pipeline project, declaring it would “not be a one-sided dependency”. The German Chancellor explained that Germany will expand its gas terminals with “liquified gas”. Speaking at a press conference, Ms Merkel declared: “Do we become dependent on Russia because of this second gas pipeline? I say no, if we diversify. Germany will expand its gas terminals with liquefied gas.

“This means that we do not want to depend only on Russia, but Russia was a source of gas in the Cold War and will remain one.

“But it would not be one-sided dependency.”

Via DW

The EU parliament and its Council are set to adopt new regulations on gas pipelines connecting the bloc members with non-EU countries, the EU Commission announced early on Wednesday.

The upcoming directive is based on a compromise between EU member states and EU officials in Brussels. The bloc leaders agreed to tighten Brussels’ oversight of gas delivery and expand its rules to all pipelines plugging into the EU’s gas distribution network.

“The new rules ensure that… everyone interested in selling gas to Europe must respect European energy law,” EU Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said in a statement.

For example, owners of pipelines linking EU and non-EU countries would also be required to allow access for their competitors. Brussels would also have more power regarding transparency and tariff regulations.

Russian ambassador slams US

Brussels has repeatedly expressed concern over the controversial Nord Stream 2 project which would deliver Russian gas directly to Germany through a pipeline under the Baltic Sea. Many EU states oppose the mammoth project, and the US claims it would allow Moscow to tighten its grip on the EU’s energy policy.

Berlin has insisted that the pipeline is a “purely economic” issue.

Speaking to Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung daily, Russian ambassador to Berlin, Sergey Nechayev, slammed the US’ opposition as an attempt to “push its competition aside” and clear the way for American suppliers of liquefied gas.

“It’s hard to believe that a country that is destroying the rules of free and fair trade, that is imposing import tariffs on its competition, that is flying slogans like ‘America First’ on its flags and often threatens biggest European concerns with illegal sanctions, is now really concerned about European interests,” the Russian envoy said in remarks published in German on Wednesday.

Last week, France unexpectedly rebelled against the project, but Berlin and Paris soon reached a compromise. Thanks to their agreement, the latest deal is not expected to impede the ongoing construction of Nord Stream 2.

Citing sources from negotiators’ circles, German public broadcaster ARD reported that the deal left room for Germany to approve exceptions from the EU-wide rules.

According to the EU Commission, however, exceptions are “only possible under strict procedures in which the Commission plays a decisive role.”

The Gazprom-backed pipeline is set to be completed by the end of the year.

 

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

Latest

UK Defence Secretary looking for a fight with both China and Russia (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 87.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson’s idea to deploy hard power against China and Russia, starting with plans to send Britain’s new aircraft carrier to the tense sea routes in the South China Sea.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Britain’s Gavin Williamson places Russia & China on notice, I’m not joking,” authored by John Wight, via RT

UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is itching for conflict with Russia and China. He’s not mad. Not even slightly. But he is stupid. Very.

Unlike former fireplace salesman Gavin Williamson, I am no military expert. But then you do not need to be one to understand that while Britain going to war with Russia and China might work as a video game, the real thing would be an exceedingly bad idea.

So why then in a speech delivered to the Royal United Services Institute in London, did Mr Williamson’s argument on the feasibility of the real thing elicit applause rather than the shrieks of horror and demands he be sacked forthwith it should have? This is a serious question, by the way. It is one that cuts through British establishment verbiage to reveal a country ruled not by the sober and doughty political heavyweights of years gone by, but by foaming fanatics in expensive suits

Placing to one side for a moment the insanity of the very concept of Britain deploying hard power against Russia and/or China, the prospect of fighting a war against two designated enemies at the same time is a recipe for disaster. Not satisfied with that, though, Mr Williamson is actually contemplating a conflict with three different enemies at the same time – i.e. against Russia, China, and the millions of people in Britain his government is currently waging war against under the rubric of austerity.

“Today, Russia is resurgent,” Mr Williamson said, “rebuilding its military arsenal and seeking to bring the independent countries of the former Soviet Union, like Georgia and Ukraine, back into its orbit.”

For Mr Williamson and his ilk a resurgent Russia is a bad thing. Much better in their eyes if Russia, after the Soviet era in the 1990s, had remained on its knees as a free market desert; its state institutions in a state of near collapse and tens of millions of its citizens in the grip of immiseration. Yes, because in that scenario Western ideologues like him would have had free rein to rampage around the world as they saw fit, setting fire to country after country on the perverse grounds of ‘saving them’ for democracy.

As it is, he and his still managed to squeeze in a considerable amount of carnage and chaos in the years it did take Russia to recover. The indictment reads as follows: Yugoslavia destroyed; Afghanistan turned upside down; Iraq pushed into the abyss; Libya sent to hell.

By the time they turned their attention to Syria, intent on exploiting an Arab Spring that NATO in Libya transformed into an Arab Winter, Russia had recovered and was able to intervene. It did so in concert with the Syrian Arab Army, Iran and Hezbollah to save the day – much to the evident chagrin of those who, like Gavin Williamson, prefer to see countries in ashes rather than independent of Western hegemony.

As to the facile nonsense about Russia trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine back into its orbit, both countries happen to share a border with Russia and both countries, in recent years, have been used by the UK and its allies as cat’s paws with the eastward expansion of NATO in mind.

It gets worse though: “The Alliance must develop its ability to handle the kind of provocations that Russia is throwing at us. Such action from Russia must come at a cost.”

“Provocations,” the man said. Since British troops have been taking part in exercises on Russia’s doorstep, not the other way round, one wonders if Gavin Williamson wrote this speech while inebriated.

It is Russia that has been on the receiving end of repeated provocations from NATO member states such as the UK in recent times, and it is Russia that has been forced to respond to protect its own security and that of its people where necessary. Furthermore, not only in Russia but everywhere, including the UK, people understand that when you have political leaders intoxicated by their own national myths and propaganda to such an extent as Britain’s Defence Secretary, danger ensues.

The most enduring of those national myths where London is concerned is that the British Empire was a force for good rather than a vast criminal enterprise, that Britain and America won the Second World War together alone, that Iraq had WMDs, and that international law and international brigandage really are one and the same thing.

Perhaps the most preposterous section of the speech came when Mr Williamson tried to fashion a connection between Brexit and Britain’s military strength: “Brexit has brought us to a moment. A great moment in our history. A moment when we must strengthen our global presence, enhance our lethality, and increase our mass.”

Reading this, you can almost hear Churchill turning in his grave. Britain’s wartime prime minister had such as Gavin Williamson in mind when he famously said, “He has all the virtues I dislike, and none of the vices I admire.”

Mr Williamson obviously misread the memo talking up not the opportunity for increased conflict with China after Brexit but trade.

This was not a speech it was a linguistic car crash, one that will forever command an honoured place in compendiums of the worst political speeches ever made. As for Gavin Williamson, just as no responsible parent would ever dream of putting an 10-year old behind the wheel of car to drive unsupervised, no responsible British government would ever appoint a man like him as its Defence Secretary.

In years past, he would have struggled to find employment polishing the brass plate outside the building.

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