ERIC ZUESSE -- Why India will likely ally with China, not with U.S.

 

Why India will likely ally with China, not with U.S.

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Duran

 

India — like the USA that used-to-be — was born out of a revolution (in 1776 in U.S.; in 1947 in India) against imperialism (in fact, against British imperialism, the very same master; i.e., enemy; as the American public had and — ever since 1945 — still has, though this time in the form of a united UK-&-U.S. Deep-State aristocracy, who control the U.S. Government, behind the scenes). The world is now splitting-up, into two. One side is the pro-imperialist (or “neocon”) side (the conquerors of Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Guatemala, and many other countries), which includes all of the Axis Powers during WW II (Germany, Italy, and Japan), plus almost all of the other EU nations, plus Israel, plus almost all of the Western-Hemisphere countries. It’s headed (behind the scenes) by the U.S.-and-UK billionaires. On the opposite side are the nations that the imperialist nations (the united fascist billionaires). They are against and trying to conquer: China, Russia, Iran, and their allies, all of which targeted nations are ideologically committed anti-imperialist nations. 

 

Therefore, virtually all wars and coups after WW II have been wars and coups by the U.S. and its allies, to conquer (take control over) additional nations (nations that hadn’t yet buckled to them). That (the aggressiveness of the imperialist nations) is just a historical fact, about the world during the years after 1944, and it is now driving the remaining targeted nations (principally China, Russia, and Iran) toward closer-and-closer cooperation amongst themselves, so that if  WW III happens, then it will be between the imperialist nations on the one side, versus the anti-imperialist nations on the other. It would be a nuclear-war-updated version of the WW II Axis (pro-imperialist) nations versus the Allied (anti-imperialist) ones. (Churchill was imperialist, but he was forced by FDR to suppress his imperialism during WW II. Truman instead adopted Churchill’s imperialism.) All of the former Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) would then be led by the Rhodesist UK-U.S.-Israel team.

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- India and Brazil Are Now the Global Worst Coronavirus Nations

India and Brazil Are Now the Global Worst Coronavirus Nations

Eric Zuesse

August 1, 2020

India and Brazil have now overtaken the United States as the world’s worst performers at controlling the cononavirus-19 plague. 

The chart of the numbers of daily new cases in India shows the daily count soaring more than in any other country except Brazil, whereas in the United States, the daily number of new cases has plateaued ever since it hit 72,278 on July 10th, three weeks ago.

Right now, the “Tot Cases/1M pop” are 14,207 in USA, 12,537 in Brazil, and only 1,229 in India; so, clearly, India has much farther yet to go on this than do either of the other worst-three Covid-19 nations.

The “Deaths/1M pop” are 473 in USA, 435 in Brazil, and only 26 in India; so, on that measure, also, India’s situation will be becoming vastly worse, whereas both USA and Brazil might have their worst behind them on this. However, because Brazil’s daily new cases seem to be exploding almost at the same rate as in India, one can reasonably expect Brazil’s 435 to rise above America’s 473, but India’s 26 will probably not (unless India’s sharp rise in cases continues for a long time). Consequently, Brazil could turn out to be the worst of all the world’s Covid-19 hells.

A MUST READ -- Putin’s Hour Is At Hand

January 4, 2020 

Putin’s Hour Is At Hand

Paul Craig Roberts

Vladimir Putin is the most impressive leader on the world stage.  He survived and arose from a Russia corrupted by Washington and Israel during the Yeltsin years and reestablished Russia as a world power.  He dealt successfully with American/Israeli aggression against South Ossetia and against Ukraine, incorporating at Crimea’s request the Russian province back into Mother Russia.  He has tolerated endless insults and provocations from Washington and its empire without responding in kind.  He is conciliatory and a peacemaker from a position of strength.

He knows that the American empire based as it is on arrogance and lies is failing economically, socially, politically, and militarily.  He understands that war serves no Russian interest.  

Washington’s murder of Qasem Soleimani, a great Iranian leader, indeed, one of the rare leaders in world history, has dimmed Trump’s leadership and placed the limelight on Putin. The stage is set for Putin and Russia to assume the leadership of the world.  

Washington’s murder of Soleimani is a criminal act that could start World War 3 just as the Serbian murder of the Austrian Archduke set World War 1 in motion.  Only Putin and Russia with China’s help can stop this war that Washington has set in motion.

Putin understood that the Washington/Israeli intended destabilization of Syria was aimed at Russia.  Without warning Russia intervened, defeated the Washington financed and armed proxy forces, and restored stability to Syria. 

Defeated, Washington and Israel have decided to bypass Syria and take the attack on Russia directly to Iran.  The destabilization of Iran serves both Washington and Israel.  For Israel Iran’s demise stops support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that has twice defeated Israel’s army and prevented Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon.  For Washington Iran’s demise allows CIA-supported jihadists to bring instability into the Russian Federation.

Unless Putin submits to American and Israeli will, he has no choice but to block any Washington/Israeli attack on Iran.  

The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia’s protection.  This protection should be formalized in a mutual defense treaty between Russia, China, and Iran, with perhaps India and Turkey as members. This is hard for Putin to do, because incompetent historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war.  But an alliance such as this would prevent war.  Not even the insane criminal Netanyahu and the crazed American neoconservatives would, even when completely drunk or deluded, declare war on Iran, Russia,  China, and if included in the alliance India and Turkey.  It would mean the death of America, Israel and any European country sufficiently stupid to participate.

If Putin is unable to free himself from the influence of incompetent historians, who in effect are serving Washington, not Russian, interests, he has other options.  He can calm down Iran by giving Iran the best Russian air defense systems with Russian crews to train the Iranians and whose presence serve as a warning to Washington and Israel that an attack on Russian forces is an attack on Russia.

This done, Putin can then, not offer, but insist on mediating.  This is Putin’s role as there is no other with the power, influence and objectivity to mediate.  

Putin’s job is not so much to rescue Iran as to get Trump out of a losing war that would destroy Trump. Putin could set his own price.  For example, Putin’s price can be the revival of the INF/START treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the removal of NATO from Russian borders.  In effect, Putin is positioned to demand whatever he wants.

Iranian missiles can sink any American vessels anywhere near Iran.  Chinese missiles can sink any American fleets anywhere near China.  Russian missiles can sink American fleets anywhere in the world.  The ability of Washington to project power in the Middle East now that everyone, Shia and Sunni and Washington’s former proxies such as ISIS, hates Americans with a passion is zero.  The State Department has had to order Americans out of the Middle East.  How does Washingon count as a force in the Middle East when no American is safe there? 

Of course Washington is stupid in its arrogance, and Putin, China, and Iran must take this into consideration.  A stupid government is capable of bringing ruin not only on itself but on others.

So there are risks for Putin.  But there are also risks for Putin failing to take charge.  If Washington and Israel attack Iran, which Israel will try to provoke by some false flag event as sinking an American warship and blaming Iran, Russia will be at war anyway.  Better for the initiative to be in Putin’s hands.  And better for the world and life on Earth for Russia to be in charge.

Source: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/01/04/putins-hour-is-at-hand/

Making a friend of the neighbour

Making a friend of the neighbour

Stanly Johny

OCTOBER 12, 2019 00:15 IST

UPDATED: OCTOBER 12, 2019 11:55 IST

SHARE ARTICLE

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Mamallapuram on October 11, 2019.   | Photo Credit: PTI

The challenge before India is to deepen the tactical engagement with China keeping strategic glitches at bay.

Every government will have to factor in three geopolitical constituents while setting its broader foreign policy trajectory — immediate neighbourhood, extended neighbourhood and great powers. Realistically, an emerging power should stay focussed on building capacities while maintaining good ties with the neighbours, deep engagement with the extended neighbours and balancing between great powers. India’s current government has sent mixed signals on this. It has a hostile relationship with Pakistan, but has cultivated strong partnerships with the other neighbouring countries. It has deepened engagement with the extended neighbourhood, which, for India is both a source of energy and a transit to the rest of the world. Though there’s a pro-American tilt in its foreign policy, New Delhi has been wary of not disturbing the equilibrium between the great powers and rising great powers.

Of this, relations with Beijing are doubly critical for India as China is both a neighbour and a rising great power. To be sure, there are structural problems in ties — the boundary dispute, the Pakistan factor, and historical mistrust. The conventional understanding of the India-China relationship is centred around these challenges. These factors were more or less at play in the run-up to the second “informal summit” between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mamallapuram on Friday and Saturday. An Indian military exercise in Arunachal Pradesh had irked the Chinese. And China hosted Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan in the same week that Mr. Xi is visiting India. However, India-China ties have hardly been unidimensional. That both leaders went ahead with the planned summit despite the bad optics itself points to their quest to deepen the engagement.

The Rajiv momentum

India-China ties have seen a turnaround over the past three decades, since Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit to Beijing, to be specific. Since then, the countries have decided to strengthen ties in areas that were not constrained by structural issues. Economy was the chosen field, as in the early 1990s, India, following China’s footsteps, started liberalising its economy. Trade ties between the two countries boomed over the years (it touched $95 billion last year), though it’s largely skewed towards China as the latter was fast emerging as an industrial and technological powerhouse. The border has been largely peaceful during this period.

Even when the Chinese and Indian militaries were in a standoff in Doklam at the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction in the Himalayas in 2017, both governments were careful enough not to let the situation spiral out of control. That the Doklam incident was followed by the first informal summit in Wuhan in 2018 between Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi, with an aim of dialling down tensions and rebooting ties, showed how New Delhi and Beijing look at each other. They don’t share the antagonism of conventional wisdom. The Mamallapuram summit should be seen against this background.

Tactical engagement

Arguably, India and China are still in a tactical engagement, not in a strategic partnership. But it’s a tactical engagement with depth, not a short-term foreign policy adjustment. The challenge before Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi is to deepen this further, and for that they should not allow strategic glitches dictate terms for a bilateral partnership. In this, they face fresh challenges today. India and China warmed up to each other in a different world. The U.S. and China were in a better relationship. Beijing’s focus was entirely on economic development and “peaceful rise”. It was also the beginning of the golden age of globalisation and free trade that softened borders between big trading and investment partners. Now, U.S.-China ties have turned hostile at a time when India is steadily enhancing its strategic partnership with Washington. China under Mr. Xi is also a more assertive and confident power. Both the U.S. and China see India as “a swing power”. Washington wants India to swing to its side and join its Indo-Pacific strategy, the undeclared aim of which is to contain China’s rise. Beijing, obviously, doesn’t want India to swing to the other side. Second, the Pakistan factor looms large over ties. With Mr. Modi’s hyper-nationalist government taking an aggressive approach towards Pakistan and cracking down on Kashmir, Beijing’s Pakistan card is now stronger. Third, the border disputes remain unresolved, and are unlikely to be resolved in the near future.

So it’s a complex relationship, which is what Shivshankar Menon, India’s former National Security Adviser, called “a bivalent relationship”. But it doesn’t mean that China and India are hostile powers or a threat to each other.

Taking it to the next level

There are four constituents in the multidimensional India-China partnership that can take ties to the next level. The avenues of economic cooperation between the two countries are still wide open. China is keen to make investments in India, especially in building infrastructure and fifth generation technology architecture. India, on the other side, wants greater market access in China, and action by Beijing to address the trade imbalance. At the Wuhan summit, both Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi had, in principle, agreed to India-China cooperation in projects in third countries. They could perhaps come up with a plan to take economic ties to the next level, addressing mutual concerns. Take the example of the U.S. and China. In the 1950s and ’60s, the U.S. tried everything it could to weaken and isolate Mao Zedong’s China, a policy that mirrors its approach towards nuclear North Korea now. But it didn’t stop President Nixon from visiting China in 1972 that led to a remarkable turnaround in Sino-American ties.

Second, India and China are pillars of an emerging world order. Both countries see the unilateral world order in decline, and are champions of multilateralism. Security and stability in Asia, which is billed to be the 21th century’s continent, is in the common interests of both countries, and they are already cooperating on global issues like tackling climate change.

Third, China had shown in the recent past that when it comes to deal-making and tackling international pressure, the Pakistan card is negotiable. When India is patient, has the international opinion in its favour, and is cautiously bargaining for China’s action against Pakistan, Beijing has taken U-turns on its “iron friend”. Last year, it agreed to Pakistan being placed on the FATF grey list, after India offered support for China’s vice-chair push at the FATF. Earlier this year, amid mounting international pressure, China removed its technical hold on the declaration of Masood Azhar as an international terrorist. If it’s driven by realism, India should actually engage with Pakistan, which will not only calm down its borders but also weaken China’s Pakistan card. But since it appears impossible with the current government in New Delhi, it’s critical for New Delhi to stay engaged patiently with Beijing on issues related to Pakistan.

Last, and most important, there has to be a doctrinal consensus in India’s foreign policy thinking. Should it compete with China for dominance of Asia or should it stay focussed on its own rise in which competition with China will be a part? India should perhaps learn from both China’s rise and its engagement with the U.S. post Nixon’s visit. For decades, China hid its strength, bid for time. It was building capacities without letting external strains to derail the process. When a mightier U.S. reached out to China, Beijing knew that Washington was trying to exploit the rift within the communist bloc. China played along. Now it’s confidently challenging the U.S., at least in the sphere of the economy. India should also turn the focus to its rise and building capacities, not on conflicts and rivalries. If it’s driven by such a broader but a realist vision, India could expand the avenues of deep tactical engagement with a powerful China. As the saying goes, a nation can pick its friends, but not its neighbours.

T.J. COLES -- Resisting the New World Order: How China, India, Japanand Russia Established Alternative Trade and Investment Blocs

Resisting the New World Order: How China, India, Japanand Russia Established Alternative Trade and Investment Blocs

By T.J. Coles

20 April, 2019

This article is an excerpt from my new book, Privatized Planet: “Free Trade” as a Weapon Against Democracy, Healthcare and the Environment (2019, New Internationalist).

A report by Britain’s Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) acknowledges that “[g]lobalization is a brutal process. Societies accustomed to being at the top of the pyramid are being forced to make harsh structural adjustments” in order to keep their GDPs high; hence the Brussels- and City of London-led austerity policies of the last decade, which have killed literally thousands of people. The report concludes that “[i]t will be important … to engage rising powers inside existing international institutions as equal partners,” meaning that the Western elites hope to keep others in an illusion of equality. The US model favours economic isolation and military “containment.”

CHINA: NEW SILK ROAD

The only real “threat” that China poses to US elites is that it might pursue an independent course in global affairs, hence US elites’ massive military build-up in the Asia Pacific, or “pivot to Asia” as the Obama-Clinton administration called it.

According to a report from 2009 by the business-linked US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), China has pursued a nationalistic agenda since the 1990s, challenging NATO and Japan, both of which are key US tools of influence. China’s alleged move towards independence is mixed, however; it has “enhanc[ed] its position with other major powers in the region, particularly Japan and the United States.” The Clinton-Obama-era Trans-Pacific Partnership, from which Trump withdrew, was designed in part to create a regional framework to which China would have to adhere. The CFR report notes that “[c]oping with China in a multilateral setting not only gives th[e]” smaller, regional nations (Vietnam, Singapore, etc.) “the power of collective bargaining but also enhances their security.” 

In 1991, a newly reformed China joined the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). APEC was promoted in the late-1980s by Australia’s neoliberal champion, PM Bob Hawke. The US joined the APEC 21, as did Russia, and describes it as “the premier forum for facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment.” 

Founded in the 1960s, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) contrasts APEC in that it initially excluded the USA. It has grown as a regional, mutual-interest bloc, which has succeeded in making the region a nuclear weapons-free zone, minus Japan, which probably hosts US nuclear missiles, and China, which developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s. China is not a member of ASEAN, but has associate status through various treaties. One of which is the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area signed in 2002. Members include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

In 2001, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In 2017, both India and its supposed enemy, Pakistan, joined SCO. The project is designed to integrate countries in the region, cooperate on military affairs and expand infrastructure projects. In 2006, the APEC states entered into negotiating the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). The ASEAN-China FTA is a significant organization. In effect since 2010, it is the third largest economic bloc in world.

At the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia 2012, several countries entered into negotiations for a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP); a kind of TPP designed to work in China’s favour. Other signatories are Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. The agreement created one of the biggest economies in the world ($49.5 trillion) and included 3.4bn people. Both FTAAP and ASEAN-China FTA seem to have stalled with the advent of RCEP.

In 2013, President Xi Jinping announced China’s new Silk Road Economic Belt in a speech delivered in Kazakhstan. The supposed aim is to foster economic, trade and cultural cooperation across Eurasia and Southeast Asia. This is a rival to America’s Silk Road Strategy Act 1999, which sought to absorb some of the ex-Soviet states into the “free market”: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In 2011, having occupied Afghanistan (a key route along the “Silk Road”) for a decade, Obama announced a New Silk Road of America to capture “South Asia’s … population of more than 1.6 billion,” including its “vast energy resources — including oil, gas, and hydropower” (US State Department).

INDIA

In addition to participating in some of the above trade and investment agreements, India’s economy has been largely Americanized since its adoption of “free market” principles in the 1990s.

After India kicked out the murderous British, the rulers pursued a closed economy until the early-1990s. Unlike the brutal Maoist model in neighbouring China, which had mixed effects ranging from genocidal levels of starvation to improved infant mortality and life expectancy, India’s poverty-induced death toll failed to bring about improvements in living conditions for hundreds of millions of people. With rivals like China gaining power and enemies like Pakistan gaining prestige, India decided to boost its GDP and join the “free market.” This included turning large parts of the country into sweatshops, call centres and assembly plants for American and European businesses. This was called “Shining India.” It also meant turning more of the agricultural sector into an export market, despite the fact that hunger and starvation affects one quarter of the population.

According to a report by the right-wing Brookings Institution, despite joining the WTO, India has not strengthened its rules on intellectual property. This means that it retains some controls over domestic technology patents and drugs. This kind of protectionism has dissuaded the US from investing as much in India as it does in, for instance, South Korea.

Despite some political tensions, such as a border dispute, trade between India and China boomed from under $3bn in 2000 to $66.57bn by 2012. In 2017, however, India boycotted a meeting of 30 heads of state who discussed participation in China’s Silk Road. The so-called China-Pakistan corridor passes through Kashmir, a region whose status remains unresolved since the Partition of India in 1947 and the founding of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. India’s opposition to the Silk Road might affect its relations with China at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank—both of which receive substantial British investments, to the chagrin of the US, which sees the banks as a threat to its World Bank.

As for India’s relationship with Russia: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan suggested that the ex-Soviet states form a Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). It was not until 2015 that the EEU came into force. Its members are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. In 2017, India announced plans to work with Russia on a “free trade” zone under the auspices of the EEU. The Economic Times (India) reports that such a deal could create a $37bn (or stronger) market.

JAPAN-EU: JEFTA

During WWII, the US slaughtered 3 million Japanese people, many with incendiary bombs, burning to death over 80,000 civilians in a single bombing raid (March 9-10, 1945). The new symbols of global power—atomic bombs—murdered a further 200,000 or so in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite minor trade spats, like the ‘80s protectionism imposed by Reagan in the US to protect American corporations against superior Japanese vehicles, Japan has been largely subservient to US interests.

Today, Japan hosts approximately 23 US military bases. After WWII, America made Japan include a peace clause in its Constitution. This was to ensure that the bourgeoning US Empire would not be challenged by a resurgent Japan. When it suited America to use Japan as a proxy against a rising China, however, the Obama administration ordered Japan to revoke the peace clause in its Constitution, much to the opposition of the Japanese public. In 2006, Japan proposed forming a Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia (CEPEA) with Australia, China, India, New Zealand and South Korea. At present, CEPEA has not been ratified.

The subservience of Japan’s political elite to the United States is so embarrassing that when PM Shinzo Abe (pronounced Abay) met with Donald Trump—in the USA, of course—Abe actually uttered these words:

“My name is Abe, but in the United States some people mistakenly pronounce my name as ‘Abe.’  But that is not bad, because even in Japan everybody knows the name of that great President, that a farmer and carpenter’s son can become a President.  And that fact, 150 years ago, surprised the Japanese, who were still under the shogunate rule [sic].  The Japanese opened their eyes to democracy. The United States is the champion of democracy.”

The US State Department refers to Abe as the kind of reformer it wants: easing of monetary policy to tackle low growth, “revisions to Japan’s legal code, and pro-active Japanese government policies to welcome [foreign direct investment] and promote corporate restructuring.” The “challenges” include Japan’s “insular and consensual business culture that is resistant to hostile mergers and acquisitions’ and ‘[l]abor practices that tend to inhibit labor mobility.” There is a conspicuous lack of interest in America, at least publicly, concerning the Japan-EU Free Trade Agreement (JEFTA). According to the European Commission’s trade assessment impact, JEFTA is a response to TPP and is designed to boost trade between the EU and Japan, particularly in the timber, motor vehicles and services sectors.

Europe’s trade assessment concludes that the main aim of JEFTA is to export more European-made products. One of the concerns, to give an example, is that Japan still retains some state controls over some of its services, despite Abe’s reforms. This is particularly bothersome in the public railway services (PRS) sector, which is a significant mode of transportation for Japanese people and thus a hindrance to the European automakers. “Ownership of PRS operators has been a critical topic of the EU-Japan FTA negotiations,” says the trade assessment report. “Concerns have been expressed about the possibility of more effective access to the sector given the former or current public ownership of PRS operators.” The report also envisages Japanese farmers requiring more skills in order to manage agriculture-related hi-technologies imported from Europe. The opening of “large-scale production plants” might result in “adjustments in labour” and the “closure or sell-off” of smaller plants, the report concludes.

RUSSIA

Turning finally to Russia, the only real challenge to US global domination:

Following US-led efforts to facilitate the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ex-Soviet states and Russia adopted so-called neoliberal free markets (i.e., US-led) in the early-1990s. But when an-ex KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, came along and dismantled many “free market” structures, the demonization process began. A US military study looks back on the Putin years and notes that under Boris Yeltsin, Russia was “economically depressed, militarily enfeebled, and dependent on Western assistance, giving the impression of being pliant and often subservient.” It laments that under Putin, there has been large-scale “de-privatization.” The report notes that Russian nationalism and nationalization is an assault on “Western values, such as respect for contracts and private property.” Putin’s nationalism is a “major obstacle to a more constructive and legal international order.”

In 2011, Russia and the US fought a mini trade war over the former’s accession to the WTO. The US Congress failed to adopt legislation granting Russia most-favoured nation status. Russia retaliated by blocking GATT Article XIII, prohibiting imports. Around the same time, Britain, France and the US began training and organizing Islamic extremists in Jordan and Turkey to invade Syria and depose Russia’s remaining Middle East ally, the government of Bashar al-Assad. The agenda is called the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative and involves demolishing much of the region in order to rebuild it along lines conducive to Euro-American interests.

Sponsoring a coup largely orchestrated by the US State Department and related private interests, America, Britain and NATO then moved into Ukraine, Russia’s next-door neighbour. US military reports preceding the events predicted that if NATO encroached on Ukraine, Russia would annex Crimea in an effort to save its navy port. This is what happened. As neo-Nazis and Ukrainian nationalists launched attacks against ethnic Russians primarily living in the East, Russia engaged in military action.

Shortly after the escalation of proxy wars between the three nuclear-armed powers (Russia vs. Britain and the US), America and the EU imposed sanctions. Obama signed executive orders sanctioning Russia. Ukraine is strategically significant because it is a key energy corridor, bringing Russian oil and gas to markets in Europe. In addition to the general policy of encircling Russia with missile systems in Turkey, Poland and Romania, the US and EU negotiated “free trade” deals with Ukraine during the reign of pro-Western leaders. The coup was, in part, an effort to make long-term investments in Ukraine safe for the US and European Union. In September 2014, the EU also tightened sanctions. 

CONCLUSION

The US elites and their commitment to “Full Spectrum Dominance … to protect U.S. interests and investment” don’t take kindly to challenges to their assumed right to dominate the world by force and shape it in their own interests. The major changes in world order are the result of frictions between those nations attempting to pursue independence and the US and its allies trying to keep them in line.