Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Washington dictates EU energy policy

Europe finds itself torn between opposing ideologies

Published

on

586 Views

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline project is clearly showing itself to be one of the most polarizing issues in European political circles, and demonstrates in a very clear manner how foreign policy is perceived by European states. Some are able to forego certain aspects of their political hostility towards Russia in areas where insisting upon it would result in considerable damage to their own economic outlook, where others persist in their political russophobia regardless of the consequences. A former Turkish diplomat and finance and energy geopolitical expert discusses this subject with Sputnik, as well as the influence being exerted by Washington on the issue.

Sputnik reports:

Denmark has claimed that it can legally stop the Nord Stream 2 project if it chooses to. Mehmet Ogutcu, a former Turkish diplomat and expert in finance, energy and geopolitics and who now chairs the investment advisory group Global Resources Partnership, as well as the Bosphorus Energy Club, has given his take on the prospects of the project.

Mehmet Ogutcu: This project is one of the most polarizing projects that the EU has ever discussed. I have no doubt that whatever the EU is doing right now, especially some factions within the EU, is politically motivated.

Mostly inspired by Washington, because the US is clearly against Nord Stream 2, for a couple of reasons; one being that they want to sell their over-priced LNG [Liquefied Natural Gas] across the Atlantic, which is not in the interests of the European Union; and the second one, it is often heard, that this project is going to increase the EU’s dependence on Russia, which is around 30 percent overall, as for Germany it’s about 40 percent.

These concerns are leading to confusion within the European Union, and I don’t think it is only the legal arguments that the European Commission is putting forward. And it’s really motivated by political imperatives, especially the US threat with sanctions on European companies, as it does also not only in the case of Russia, but Iran, starting from November 4.

There is a very clear push for banning Iranian crude exports. It’s part of a concerted effort from Washington to penalize countries which are not in line with US interests.

Sputnik: Denmark has recently withheld from granting permission for the implementation of the project. Several European politicians have stated that Europe no longer has hard legal leverage to halt the project. What’s your feeling regarding that matter?

Mehmet Ogutcu: Denmark is the last string among all other countries, so it has already passed through Finland, Sweden, so Denmark is the last one. I think again here, the US probably has used its influence to block this project, which has already left it almost 5 billion euros, almost half of the whole investment foreseen for the project.

I believe that the pressure is real, coming from Washington, and also the concern among Central European countries, some of them at least, is very real; with increasing dependence on Russia and the fear that Russia might be using the pipeline as leverage in its relationships with these countries.

And the fate of the existing Ukrainian gas transit route arrangement, which will expire in 2019, as you know, at the end of the year, when also Nord Stream 2 is expected to come on stream – that’s another serious concern, because when you look at it from outside, objective thinking requires that a route that is stable and direct without any transit country, should be preferable to Ukraine, where we know what difficulties are, in terms of transparency, in terms of political difficulties and additional costs. However, in this project, Nord Stream 2, we cannot look at it only from the commercial, rational [perspective].

There are very strong geopolitical imperatives that we have to bear in mind. Also, you have to think of Nord Stream 2, not in isolation from the TurkStream Project, which is going ahead full speed in the Black Sea coming to Turkey.

I think everything is on schedule for bringing Russian gas to the Turkish Thrace, there are two strings there as well; altogether we have about 31 bcm [billion cubic meters] of gas coming. Part of it will stay in Turkey and part, especially from the second pipeline, will go to South and South Eastern Europe.

Again, when you discuss Nord Stream 2, you have to see it in the broader context of other Russian projects coming also through Turkey. We have to understand different dimensions in this project.

As it stands, I don’t think we can say that Danish concerns or Eastern and Central European concerns can easily be done away. The US, through the trade wars that we saw the Trump administration start, through sanctions towards Iran, China, Russia are real, I don’t think they’re going to go away. But this might lead to some modifications of the dates and approach of Nord Stream 2, as well as Turkish Stream I think; although the first stream has been completed, there is concern whether US sanctions will also be felt there.

Following America’s withdrawal from the nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran (JCPOA), reactions from European leaders were like that of a pendulum swinging back from its prior orientation. French President Emmanuel Macron was quoted as saying “If we accept that other major powers, including allies… put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy, security for us, and sometimes even make us run the worst risks, then we are not more sovereign and we cannot be more credible to public opinion.”  However, the Nord Stream 2 project demonstrates that this sentiment is not universal across Europe.

The pipeline would bring Russian gas to Europe, but is perceived as an ‘energy weapon’ wielded by Russia in order to exert its control by Eastern European nations Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia. The perception from the political perspective of these countries is that there is a growing ‘Russian threat‘ that must be contained, and in terms of the Nord Stream 2 project, this means that it must be countered. For this reason, political leaders from these four countries have travelled to Washington, in hopes that they can lobby American politicians to exert their influence to help stop the Russian energy project:

InsideSources reports:

Russian revanchism is a repeated concern for the governments of many of the Central and Eastern European states. For these countries, membership in western organizations including the European Union and NATO offers economic benefits, but comes with the risk that moving too far away from alliance with Russia will provoke some sort of aggressive response from the government of Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, leaders from Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova spoke to reporters and lawmakers at an event hosted by the American Foreign Policy Council, emphasizing the role that European energy security plays in global security and reiterating the need to both stop the Nord Stream 2 project and to promote the use of American energy and technology.

“Putin’s action is not limited to his aggression or use of military force. Russia’s sophisticated use of information warfare including cyberattacks is well know. Vladimir Putin also uses Russia’s energy supplies as a weapon against neighboring states. Nord Stream 2 is a political project that will increase Europe’s reliance on Russia,” said American Foreign Policy Council President Herman Pirchner.

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed project that would bring natural gas from Russia through the EU to Germany. For the countries whose leaders spoke on Wednesday, the pipeline is far more than an infrastructure project. Construction of the pipeline would provide Russia with additional leverage over European countries, they warned.

“Nord Stream 2 is one of the elements of energy weapons used by Russia against the world,” said Ukrainian parliamentary chairman Andriy Parubiy, who spoke through an interpreter.

The importance of energy security is not lost on Ukraine, where Russia has used its control over the energy markets to enact political concessions. On two occasions in recent memory, Russia halted gas shipments to Ukraine in the middle of a winter cold snap until the government there agreed to price increases and political concessions.

“Ukraine knows for sure that gas supplies, for Russia, are not about the economy. For Russia natural gas, first of all, is a mechanism for political influence,” Parubiy continued.

While some analysts have questioned America’s involvement in the region, saying that it has provoked Russian revanchism, the leaders repeatedly expressed their desire to work with both the U.S. government and American businesses to expand their sources of energy. Allowing Russia to have a monopoly over energy supplies gives the Russian government a worrying amount of control over neighboring countries, the leaders emphasized.

“Nord Stream 2 is a political, not an economic, project,” said Lithuanian Speaker of the Seimas Viktoras Pranckietis.

For Lithuania, constructing a gas terminal which allows it to recieve gas shipments from overseas was an important step in reducing its dependence on Gazprom and Russian energy. After completion of the terminal, natural gas prices fell by 30 percent. Last year, Lithuania received shipments of American natural gas for the first time, a sign that its dependence on Russian energy was further weakening.

When possible, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia are looking for ways to become energy secure through the development of domestic energy sources or through trade with neighboring countries. This offers an opportunity for American businesses, many of which have the technical expertise these countries need.

“It is very important that U.S. business comes to this part of the world,” said Pranckietis.

The Moldovan government agreed.

“In order to have independence, we look for solutions and we found a solution. Now we are starting the process of building a gas pipeline between Romania and Moldova, because Romania in three years will have enough gas to cover their needs and our needs,” said Andrian Candu, chairman of the Moldovan parliament.

The countries see energy security as a vital part of their independence and warn that construction of Nord Stream 2 provides Russia with additional money to fund expansionist actions abroad, while spreading corruption in Europe. The pipeline still awaits approval in Europe and the speakers urged the American government to throw its influence against the project.

“Mark my words, Nord Stream 2 will be stopped,” said Parubiy with confidence.

Washington already has incentive to stop the project, both to secure a market for American shale gas, which is significantly more expensive for the Europeans than the Russian gas, as well as to counteract a major Russian energy programme, thereby countering Russian influence in Europe as well as to nix a plan that might be beneficial for the Russian economy as well as for European-Russian relations. Hence, while some European powers are looking to partner with Russia on some key issues, such as the JCPOA and the Nord Stream 2, others are looking for ways to participate in Washington’s plan of Russian containment.

Of course, the excuses being promoted are not quite as sensical in the present political environment, objectively speaking, as Europe finds itself under economic threat not from the Russians, but from the Americans, who are attempting to dictate to them their foreign policy, security, trade, and energy interests under threat of sanctions and a budding trade war. This rift in energy policy in some ways mirrors the division on Europe’s migration policy, with some nations agreeing to take in migrants while others outright refuse, with some EU member states investing in Russian energy programs while others intend to buck it, with all the help from Washington that they can muster. It would appear, then, that all of this talk about ‘an economy of trust‘ and Macron’s words about European sovereignty are falling on deaf ears among some European partners.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
4 Comments

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimesJohn Masonmy2CentsJohn Burns Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes
Guest
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes

US wants EU to buy qatar LNG

John Mason
Guest
John Mason

Don’t understand why Russia even bothers with the Europeans, let them have US oil and gas at exorbitant prices, genetically modified foods, herbicides and pesticides destroying the environment and unfair trade deals. What Russia should be doing is sanctioning the EU if everything and ordering NATO to retreat to pre- Warsaw Pact or Russia will start by annihilating the US.

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

This is not between Russia and the EU. It is between Washington and the EU. Russia is fully aware of that.

Nord Stream 2 will not be stopped.

John Burns
Guest

Baltic governments licking the fingers of America in the hope of gaining favours from the dying empire. When did Russia attempt to exert power in Europe via its gas “lever?” I seem to recollect Ukraine holding back payment for gas received on at least two occasions and getting discounts to carry them through.

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

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

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

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

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

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