..
Russia names price of US patronage for Ukraine
Washington’s control of Ukrainian foreign policy means Kiev can’t mend its relationship with Moscow, Matvienko claims
By Ailis Halligan
FILE PHOTO. © AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka
It will be impossible for Kiev to mend its relationship with Moscow so long as the Ukrainian authorities remain under the thumb of the US government, the speaker of Russia’s Senate claimed on Wednesday.
Speaking in an interview with Moscow-based outlet Parlamentskaya Gazeta, Valentina Matvienko suggested that, should Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky choose to repair his country’s relations with Russia, he would be prevented from doing so by Washington.
According to Matvienko, the US government is responsible for Kiev’s poor relationship with Moscow, arguing that Washington does not allow the Ukrainian government agency to make its own decisions.
“The main problem in our relations with Ukraine, as I see it, is that Kiev is not independent in its foreign and domestic policies. The Kiev authorities are directed by Washington. And an adversarial relationship with Russia is the price that Ukraine has to pay for US patronage,” Matvienko told the Russian publication.
The senator insisted that the US has an oversized influence in Ukrainian decisions surrounding foreign policy.
“Even if Kiev would like to take the path of normalizing our ties, the US would hardly let this happen,” she continued, adding that as long as America continues to exert its influence, “there is simply no one in the Ukrainian leadership to engage in a productive dialogue with.”
Matvienko’s claims come as Moscow continues to be accused by the US of preparing for an invasion of its neighbor, despite Russia saying that it is withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border.
“We, on our part, will do everything to prevent a war with Ukraine, to make sure that it never starts – not today, not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow,” Matvienko continued.
The reason the US wants war in Ukraine is ultimately all about the dollar
Why is the US-led West trying to instigate a crisis in Ukraine? Those who understand
how Washington derives its real power know why – it’s all about money
Thomas J. Penn is a US citizen and has lived in Germany for many years. He was a non-commissioned infantry officer in the US Army. He studied finance and management and has extensive experience in the financial markets. @ThomasJPenn
For months now we’ve been hearing Washington ring alarm bells regarding what they have cited as an “imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine.” According to the latest so-called US “intelligence,” a full-scale invasion would take place this week. Yet, as some of us have for months insisted would be the case, no invasion has transpired, nor, I believe, is one likely.
Moscow, which has announced that its troops are pulling back from Russia’s border with Ukraine, has consistently denied that it has any intention of invading. But Washington, with its repeated accusations regarding an imminent false-flag incident, to its stationing of troops in Eastern Europe, has appeared desperate to goad Russia into making such a move. The more Russia’s President Vladimir Putin refuses to take the bait, the greater the despair in Washington.
Why is Washington – and by extension NATO and the EU – so obsessed with Ukraine? What is it that they hope to achieve? Once one understands the mechanism by which Washington derives its real power, its actions in relation to Russia become easier to understand.
Let’s put aside all the bluster Washington spews regarding human rights, democracy and sovereignty, because these are just issues which it uses as cover and which it routinely disregards itself in order to achieve its aims. What is it that Washington really wants?
It wants to conflate and stoke the Ukraine issue in order to contain Russia. Why does it want to contain Russia? Well, Washington derives its global power through its control of the US dollar, also known as the world’s reserve currency. This special status enables Washington to amass obscene deficits that do not in any way reflect America’s true productive capacity.
The US dollar has been utterly dominant as the currency used for international trade since it replaced sterling in the 1920s. Commodities such as oil, gold, base metals and agricultural products are priced in, and paid for, in dollars. This created large worldwide demand for the greenback, adding massive value to its worth, and created strong demand for US Treasuries. All this enables the American federal government to print dollars by the trillions, borrow without limit, and spend with abandon.
The dominance of the dollar has afforded America great global power, but it is now under threat as never before as Russia, China and others economically challenge the US. Many are now seeking to ditch their dependence on the dollar as Washington has continued to abuse it’s status as issuer of the world’s reserve currency over the decades.
Russia and China have, in particular, drastically cut their use of the dollar. In 2015, around 90% of their bilateral transactions were conducted in dollars. But since the start of the US-China trade war, that’s fallen to 46% and is rapidly declining further. Even US allies and partners, like Turkey and India, have begun trading in their respective national currencies when it suits them. Countries are questioning why US financial institutions should serve as the intermediaries for international banking.
Beijing is actively encouraging the use of its currency, the renminbi, in trade transactions, especially under its massive Belt and Road Initiative. With China recovering more strongly than the other big economies from Covid-19, foreign capital has been flooding in, too, as Beijing opens its financial markets.
Alexey Maslov, director of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, has told The Nikkei Asian Review that the Russia-China “dedollarization" was approaching a “breakthrough moment” that could elevate their relationship to a de-facto alliance.
This alliance, and its threat to the supremacy of the dollar, deeply worries Washington. “The current dollar-centric system cannot continue forever,” says Barry Eichengreen, Professor of Economics and Political Science, University of California, Berkeley. “A multipolar international monetary and financial system is coming, as the United States accounts for a declining share of the global economy.”
Goldman Sachs strategists have predicted that there are now “real concerns around the longevity of the US dollar as a reserve currency,” while billionaire US fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller has warned that the dollar could cease to be the predominant global reserve currency within 15 years.
Ironically, America’s growing use of severe sanctions against countries it doesn’t like, such as China and Russia, has fuelled this trend, as countries seek new ways of financing trade without Washington having the ability to seize their money. “The U.S., by continuously using sanctions, is beginning to cut off its nose to spite its face,” Anuradha Chenoy, formerly the dean of Jawaharlal Nehru University’s School of International Studies in New Delhi, has said.
I discussed all of this in detail in a piece for RT DE (Germany) in April, 2021, entitled Nord Stream 2 - The real reason for the US government’s revulsion:
“…The United States government, as the issuer of the world's reserve currency, is only interested in one thing: the proliferation of the US dollar. This single fact is all one needs to grasp to truly understand US foreign policy.
“What does this mean in practice? It means that the US government, in collusion with the Federal Reserve, has the ability to print the US dollar at will… and can export its inflation to the rest of the nations of the world. Any nation that wishes to engage in international trade, including the purchase of commodities such as natural gas or oil, must maintain massive US dollar reserves to enable its purchases.
“The world, in effect, acts as a sponge to absorb US inflation, allowing the US government to amass obscene deficits that enable a massive military budget and enrich a very small portion of the US population at the expense not only of the world's population, but also of the American working class.
“As for any nation that wants to break free of the US dollar, we know all too well what the US has in store for them…This is where the Russian Federation comes in. If one really wants to understand why the US establishment hates Russia under Vladimir Putin, all one must do is understand the dollar's role in the world. Russia is a direct threat to the proliferation of the US dollar.
“For its part, the Russian Federation has become quite resilient over the last 20 years and much less susceptible to any outside pressure or influence… Russia is a sovereign nation that is not intimidated by the United States.
“The United States cannot simply launch a military strike against the Russian Federation as it did in Iraq and many other nations that rejected dollar hegemony. Russia now has the power to prevent the proliferation of the US dollar. To return to the sponge analogy: Russia is reducing the size of the sponge. This leaves the US government with a smaller and smaller number of countries to export dollar inflation to. The smaller the sponge becomes, the more desperate US foreign policy becomes, as US leaders try by all means to preserve their grip on world power…”
Any nation that does not abide by Washington’s edicts and refuses to play the dollar game is met with a color revolution, a coup, a false flag or brute military force. Washington knows that if more and more of those dollars held in foreign reserves become superfluous, they will make their way back to the US to compound inflationary pressures there. This is the main reason, for example, why Washington is so vehemently against the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline: because the Russians and the Germans together will determine the pricing mechanism, not Washington.
The nations of the world should have the sovereign right to choose which currency they choose to trade in and not be forced, at the barrel of a US gun, to use the US dollar.
This is the real reason Washington is hell-bent on drawing Russian forces into Ukraine. Washington must attempt, by any means possible, to contain Russia and then to try to force her into subjugation, i.e. full and total acceptance of US dollar hegemony upon her.
But, after decades of abuse, the current dollar-based monetary system is running on fumes. Interest rates have been artificially manipulated to zero, western central banks are monetizing debt via quantitative easing at a shocking pace, and consumer prices are skyrocketing as a function of inflating the monetary base.
Washington will continue to do anything required to continue the dollar’s supremacy, including using Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder in its efforts to provoke Russia and force dollar hegemony on her. Washington wants to further isolate Russia from the West by painting her as a violent aggressor. I am confident Vladimir Putin will not be lured in.
===========================================================================================
America’s hypocrisy on China’s overseas military bases is breathtaking
With hundreds of military bases abroad, the US knows their value.
But China’s bid to build one in Africa has met with a predictable response
Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia.
Equatorial Guinea is one of the smallest countries in Africa. A former colony of Spain, it is something of a paradox in that it has a higher per-capita income than any other nation on the continent, but suffers from extreme poverty and inequality. Yet, this seemingly insignificant state now finds itself in the middle of the growing geopolitical struggle between the United States and China that has started to play out in Africa.
This week, a delegation of American military officials will visit the island-based capital city of Malabo to discuss claims that Beijing is looking to set up a military base there, in the hope of discouraging Equatorial Guinea from pursuing the project.
This is something we have seen before from the US, which has made similar accusations about China fostering bases in the United Arab Emirates and Cambodia. Washington’s modus operandi has been to put pressure on the country in question, or even turn to sanctions if necessary.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal, in the case of Equatorial Guinea, the US fears that Beijing could establish a presence in the Atlantic which would undermine NATO’s effective supremacy there and prove a game-changer strategically.
But what gives the US the right to establish military bases all over the world, yet to try to deny China – which has only one confirmed overseas – the right to have any at all?
At present, China’s military strategy is twofold. Beijing’s main priority is military modernisation and naval expansion with a focus on protecting its immediate periphery, which the US is attempting to encircle. China fears that America and its allies would seek to impose an embargo on it in a conflict scenario, and is basing its strategy upon that assumption as its most blatant vulnerability. Two aircraft carriers have been launched, and a third is underway. By the end of 2021, China had reportedly established the largest navy in the world, and it doesn’t plan to stop there.
This leads into China’s second priority. While building up its navy, Beijing has sought to ensure its energy supply lines can remain intact in the event of conflict. To do this, it has been establishing a military presence in the western Indian Ocean off the coast of the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa, through which its oil imports from the Gulf transit.
Several years ago, China established its first military base overseas in Djibouti and in this region has also pushed military cooperation with Russia and Iran, while building up Pakistan as an alternative energy transit route through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Given both these considerations, it seems clear that China’s overarching military strategy is to gain the upper hand in the Indo-Pacific by nullifying the ability of the US to contain it and embargo it.
At first glance, then, the west coast of Africa wouldn’t seem to fit into China’s plans. Beijing is not vying for military supremacy in the Atlantic, a part of the world that it is largely disconnected from, nor is it looking for a location to target the US homeland from.
However, it is worth noting that China has important strategic interests in other African countries. South of Equatorial Guinea sits the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a key partner for Beijing thanks to its unrivalled mineral deposits. Further south is Angola, another oil-exporting state on the African west coast. Ships sailing from here start out in the Atlantic and are vulnerable, having to go around the Horn of Africa before reaching safer waters. This means that to some degree, China now sees NATO military hegemony over the Atlantic as intolerable. It needs to project power into this area.
As a result, it is reasonable to assume that as political tensions rise, China’s global military footprint will expand as it seeks to protect its interests. This is a common trend that has been followed by pretty much every major power in history, especially when there is a security dilemma where a rival power seeks to oppress it and undermine it.
Such a trajectory is how the US expanded over the centuries to become a global hegemon, through bolstering its presence in various regions, as well as participating in conflicts which it used as an entry point to different parts of the world. Realistically, though, it is highly unlikely that China is aspiring to emulate the model of the US in establishing a global military presence with hundreds of bases in every corner of the globe, at least not in the near future anyway.
However, the US is in self-denial in terms of how to respond to these developments. Not only does it believe it is the only country entitled to have a considerable overseas military presence, but it believes it can bully others into following its line of thinking. It fails to recognise that its own hostility towards China is driving Beijing’s desire to expand, and that there is no bottom line that has been placed on military tensions. The Biden administration is not willing to reduce its own military footprint for the sake of peace, be it in Europe with NATO or anywhere else for that matter.
I believe it will soon have to reduce its overseas military footprint for the simple fact that it will not be able to afford them. The American economy is in serious danger and its skyrocketing debt will soon have to be dealt with.
It is also lost on Washington that just as countries recognise there are strategic benefits in hosting US forces, they realise that this is also the case with the Chinese military as well. The Wall Street Journal article makes clear that while Equatorial Guinea has not made any deal with China yet, it wants something in return from the US if it is to say no to Beijing’s bid.
After all this is a small country which ultimately owes the US nothing. It is not an ally or partner. But what is America willing to give?
Even if the US succeeds in stopping this particular deal, the dynamic changes little in the long run. China consistently talks about non-interventionism, yet the reality is as a global power deeply integrated into the world economy, it feels a growing pressure to place its military in strategic areas overseas to safeguard its interests.
Sometimes, claims of overseas bases may be bad-faith speculation by the US media. The suggestion that one was being built in the UAE was a sketchy story designed to undermine Beijing’s relationship with Abu Dhabi amid growing resentment over their close ties. Yet, on the other hand, China’s aspirations are real and outlined with clear evidence. The past two years have taught Beijing that it has to be a part of the geopolitical game, whether it likes it or not. It now has a highly realistic outlook to its relationship with the western world and ultimately believes that its interests may have to be protected by force.
So, while a potential base in Equatorial Guinea is first and foremost about securing supply lines to go around the Horn of Africa, it also illustrates that China is willing to do more to anchor its security. The US’ misguided belief that it can contain Beijing, and its assumption it can prevent China’s military expansion are naive and misleading.
But will Malabo do what Washington wants? One thing is clear at this stage: it senses opportunity whatever it decides.
No comments:
Post a Comment