Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Dire Straits: What is behind Donald Trump’s UN General Assembly Speech

A menacing mixture of bluff and bluster conceals a strategy to gain control of the choke points of world trade

Haneul Na'avi

Published

on

840 Views

Republished with permission; this article was first published by Global Village Space

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category. —Adolf Hitler

US president Donald Trump’s intimidating, hawkish UN General Assembly speech was, at best, an unflinching reaffirmation to US jingoism, despite his election promises to do the opposite.

Trump hurled his 41-minute tirade of diplomatic gaffs and gaslighting at self-determined governments and brazenly guilt-tripped the United Nations’ in a manner not seen since Hitler’s 1937 address regarding the defunct League of Nations.

Despite the inconsolable depravity of his words, one should focus more on their timing and intentions in order to decipher the US president’s subversive agenda.

Trump’s UN call for ‘unity and obedience’ reveals several pressing urgencies for the US military dictatorship behind him, who grow more desperate than ever to fulfil their geopolitical agendas sat behind the claptrap of ‘human rights, peace, democracy, and national sovereignty’.

It has been firmly established that the current US administration is solely in charge of managing dollar diplomacy around the world, and, in the wake of the 9th annual BRICS Summit in Xiamen and flagship Belt and Road Summit held in Hong Kong, are terrified of a massive global divestment in dollar-denominated oil driven by Chinese-led development.

Nearly Trump’s entire cabinet—a roster consisting of seasoned military generals—allows him more intimate coordination with its bloated coercive apparatus (military) to enforce dollar hegemony.

Underneath its harsh, superstructural rhetoric, the Trump administration is attempting to seize two strategic oil shipping routes, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca, in order to usurp the lion’s share of global oil trade from the Asian continent and underpin its petrodollar hegemony.

In order to do this, Trump wishes to rally support for a military intervention on Pyongyang and later, Iran, in order to occupy indispensable maritime shipping lanes to indefinitely frustrate China’s access to the South China Sea, which is inextricably connected to both straits.

The US Energy Information Administration asserts,

The Strait of Hormuz, leading out of the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, are the world’s most important strategic chokepoints measured by volume of oil transit, accounting for a combined 57% of all seaborne oil trade. [EIA]

With a military presence near the Korean peninsula, the Trump administration, with help from its vassals Japan and Taiwan, can eventually obstruct oil transit flowing from the Malacca and Hormuz Straits, which would stymie China’s access to critical Pacific-Atlantic bottlenecks vital to the One Belt, One Road initiative into Europe, southern Africa, and the Western hemisphere.

This would force the Chinese to rely on land transit and secondary shipping routes, incurring a costly and dangerous journey for OBOR resources and significantly hampering the initiative.

Additionally, one must stress the baselessness of American casus belli. It is not in Pyongyang’s material or ideological interests to turn South Korea into a “sea of flames” as many corporate media outlets typically report, but to reunify the peninsula using its’ five-point initiative, put in place since DPRK founder Kim Il-Sung spearheaded it to comply with UN Resolution 377.

The Kim Jong-Un administration has begun procuring several nuclear deterrents as a response to the joint US-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Guardian and Foal Eagle military drills, which, over the last 40 years, have continuously violated this resolution by inflaming tensions.

Furthermore, the DPRK consistently states that the drills are the primary motivation for its nuclear programme. A DPRK delegate addressed this to the 9 Aug. Geneva Disarmament Conference,

As long as the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threat continue, the DPRK, no matter who may say what, will never place its self-defensive nuclear deterrence on the negotiating table nor flinch an inch from the road chosen by itself, the road of bolstering up the state nuclear force.

The Rodong Shinmun seconded this in a 22 Sept. article,

The final goal of our State is to achieve equilibrium of force with the U.S. so that the U.S. chief executive may not talk about military option against the DPRK.

US militarism against Pyongyang merely expresses the fear that North Korea will attack its vassals or a major American city, not Seoul. This is precisely why it has installed Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) systems to target medium and long-range attacks, and not short-range attacks, which are as dangerous to Seoul as Pyongyang; a Duran article outlines this in detail.

The increased hostility against North Korea also reflects just how few options the US truly has, now that the Philippines and Indonesia, two key positions along the Strait of Malacca, have aligned themselves with China and joined the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank.

America’s hasty attacks on North Korea and Iran reveal another imperative for the US—new developments on the Diaoyu islands, which demonstrate the industriousness of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in securing the islands, effectively ending the territorial dispute.

The Brown Review highlighted that,

In February of 2017, satellite photos surfaced indicating that China was close to completing the construction of surface to air missile (SAMs) systems on the [Diaoyu] Islands [which] allow China to move significantly closer to establishing an Air Force Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the area, which would secure Chinese air sovereignty.

America’s presence near the South China Sea also endangers long-established core shipping routes with Venezuela, who wields the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

A 2015 Oilprice article notes that,

With an estimated 298 billion barrels of oil, [Venezuela] is endowed with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, eclipsing Saudi Arabia (266), Iran (157) and Russia (80).

By blocking secure access to South America, the US wishes to prevent Venezuela’s inclusion into China’s rapidly expanding repertoire of oil sources and further denomination of oil sales in yuan.

It continues, drawing a correlation to Venezuela’s ever increasing trade with China,

Since 2007, Beijing has extended $50 billion in long-term loans to be repaid through oil deliveries of 600,000 barrels per day [and] provide Caracas with an additional $20 billion loan. In addition, China is building a refinery in Guandong province in order to process 400,000 barrels of Venezuelan crude oil per day.

Interfering with the Strait of Malacca also blackmails another BRICS member—India—by blocking its Andaman Sea conduit via the strait, preventing it from receiving critical oil from none other than, of course, Venezuela.

Oilprice continues,

India […] imports 72 per cent of its oil requirements, with this figure set to rise to 88 per cent over the coming decades. Imports from the perennially unstable Persian Gulf currently meet about half of India’s total oil requirements – a statistic that New Delhi would like to change. As a result, New Delhi has taken initial steps to establish a long-term energy relationship with Venezuela.

Fascism is capitalism at gunpoint, and Trump’s aspirations are no exception. By monopolising global oil trade with gunboat diplomacy, Trump, Inc. aspires to thwart the successes of the OBOR, potentially inciting a full-scale conflict that will be economically, militarily, and politically disastrous for all parties. Despite his calls for rapprochement with China and Russia, the endgame is to supplant them with the petrodollar; this is the reason for America’s latest round of Russian sanctions and meddling in the South China Sea.

It is important that Beijing and Moscow take the necessary steps to prevent this from happening. The world depends on it.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
colum
Guest
colum

That was interesting and insightful, but I still remain sceptical. We should explore the ideas in this article further. 🙂

Mr. Costelol
Guest
Mr. Costelol

Precisely, the “Rohingya crisis” used against Myanmar is an attempt to prevent China’s alternate bypass of the Strait of Malacca. While the Yemeni crisis (Genocide) is to control Bab el Mandab. It seems the Chinese are being blocked at every corner. The Balkan route for Chinese goods to the EU is also being taken out, with only Serbia (The unfinished business in Europe – according to Killary Clinton) standing “barely” . This is PNAC strategy against all competitors.

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

You are correct, and if the world is not willing to fight back then the world can live as vassals of the greater Anglo Zionist empire.

XRGRSF
Guest
XRGRSF

America has 5 to 8 trillion (yes, TRILLION) barrels of recoverable hydrocarbons within the continental US. ExxonMobil (my past employer) is investing 26 to 30 billion U$D in construction, and improvements to refining, and chemical processing facilities within the US. The US hopes to destroy the world’s capacity to produce, and transport hydrocarbon products without destroying the world’s need for said products. Of course, these products are supposed to be paid for in U$D. When you put it all together it’s more or less impossible, but for a delusional has been super power it’s as good a dream as any.… Read more »

Latest

Putin Keeps Cool and Averts WWIII as Israeli-French Gamble in Syria Backfires Spectacularly

Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.

On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.

What happened next is already well established: a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued.

Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn’t make much sense when the consequence of such “protective measures” could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III. That would have been an unacceptable price to achieve such a limited objective, which could have been better accomplished with the assistance of Russia, as opposed to NATO-member France, for example. In any case, there is a so-called “de-confliction system” in place between Israel and Russia designed to prevent exactly this sort of episode from occurring.

And then there is the matter of the timing of the French-Israeli incursion.

Just hours before Israeli jets pounded the suspect Syrian ammunition storehouse, Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan were in Sochi hammering out the details on a plan to reduce civilian casualties as Russian and Syrian forces plan to retake Idlib province, the last remaining terrorist stronghold in the country. The plan envisioned the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone between government and rebel forces, with observatory units to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is designed to prevent exactly what Western observers have been fretting about, and that is unnecessary ‘collateral damage.’

So what do France and Israel do after a relative peace is declared, and an effective measure for reducing casualties? The cynically attack Syria, thus exposing those same Syrian civilians to the dangers of military conflict that Western capitals proclaim to be worried about.

Israel moves to ‘damage control’

Although Israel has taken the rare move of acknowledging its involvement in the Syrian attack, even expressing “sorrow” for the loss of Russian life, it insists that Damascus should be held responsible for the tragedy. That is a highly debatable argument.

By virtue of the fact that the French and Israeli forces were teaming up to attack the territory of a sovereign nation, thus forcing Syria to respond in self-defense, it is rather obvious where ultimate blame for the downed Russian plane lies.

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. “The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, took admirable efforts to prevent the blame game from reaching the boiling point, telling reporters that the downing of the Russian aircraft was the result of “a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn’t shoot down our jet.”

Nevertheless, following this extremely tempered and reserved remark, Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Now there is much consternation in Israel that the IDF will soon find its freedom to conduct operations against targets in Syria greatly impaired. That’s because Russia, having just suffered a ‘friendly-fire’ incident from its own antiquated S-200 system, may now be more open to the idea of providing Syria with the more advanced S-300 air-defense system.

Earlier this year, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement that prevented those advanced defensive weapons from being employed in the Syrian theater. That deal is now in serious jeopardy. In addition to other defensive measures, Russia could effectively create the conditions for a veritable no-fly zone across Western Syria in that it would simply become too risky for foreign aircraft to venture into the zone.

The entire situation, which certainly did not go off as planned, has forced Israel into damage control as they attempt to prevent their Russian counterparts from effectively shutting down Syria’s western border.

On Thursday, Israeli Major-General Amikam Norkin and Brigadier General Erez Maisel, as well as officers of the Intelligence and Operations directorates of the Israeli air force will pay an official visit to Moscow where they are expected to repeat their concerns of “continuous Iranian attempts to transfer strategic weapons to the Hezbollah terror organization and to establish an Iranian military presence in Syria.”

Moscow will certainly be asking their Israeli partners if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests. It remains to be seen if the two sides can find, through the fog of war, an honest method for bringing an end to the Syria conflict, which would go far at relieving Israel’s concerns of Iranian influence in the region.

 

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

Latest

This Man’s Incredible Story Proves Why Due Process Matters In The Kavanaugh Case

Accused of rape by a fellow student, Brian Banks accepted a plea deal and went to prison on his 18th birthday. Years later he was exonerated.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by James Miller of The Political Insider:


Somewhere between the creation of the Magna Carta and now, leftists have forgotten why due process matters; and in some cases, such as that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they choose to outright ignore the judicial and civil rights put in place by the U.S. Constitution.

In this age of social media justice mobs, the accused are often convicted in the court of (liberal) public opinion long before any substantial evidence emerges to warrant an investigation or trial. This is certainly true for Kavanaugh. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, cannot recall the date of the alleged assault and has no supporting witnesses, yet law professors are ready to ruin his entire life and career. Not because they genuinely believe he’s guilty, but because he’s a pro-life Trump nominee for the Supreme Court.

It goes without saying: to “sink Kavanaugh even if” Ford’s allegation is untrue is unethical, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. He has a right to due process, and before liberals sharpen their pitchforks any further they would do well to remember what happened to Brian Banks.

In the summer of 2002, Banks was a highly recruited 16-year-old linebacker at Polytechnic High School in California with plans to play football on a full scholarship to the University of Southern California. However, those plans were destroyed when Banks’s classmate, Wanetta Gibson, claimed that Banks had dragged her into a stairway at their high school and raped her.

Gibson’s claim was false, but it was Banks’s word against hers. Banks had two options: go to trial and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years probation, and registering as a sex offender. Banks accepted the plea deal under the counsel of his lawyer, who told him that he stood no chance at trial because the all-white jury would “automatically assume” he was guilty because he was a “big, black teenager.”

Gibson and her mother subsequently sued the Long Beach Unified School District and won a $1.5 million settlement. It wasn’t until nearly a decade later, long after Banks’s promising football career had already been tanked, that Gibson admitted she’d fabricated the entire story.

Following Gibson’s confession, Banks was exonerated with the help of the California Innocence Project. Hopeful to get his life back on track, he played for Las Vegas Locomotives of the now-defunct United Football League in 2012 and signed with the Atlanta Falcons in 2013. But while Banks finally received justice, he will never get back the years or the prospective pro football career that Gibson selfishly stole from him.

Banks’ story is timely, and it serves as a powerful warning to anyone too eager to condemn those accused of sexual assault. In fact, a film about Banks’s ordeal, Brian Banks, is set to premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival next week.

Perhaps all the #MeToo Hollywood elites and their liberal friends should attend the screening – and keep Kavanaugh in their minds as they watch.

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

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

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