Ukraina/Errusia/AEB/NATO (Jolas bukatua. Falta dena garbiketa lana da) (6)

Game over. What’s left is mop-up

George Szamuely

The New START extension is welcome, but it won’t deliver stability. The last thing the US wants is improved relations with Russia

(https://www.rt.com/op-ed/513765-extension-nuclear-arms-treaty/)

27 Jan, 2021

(…) The same applies to Ukraine. We know about the Biden family’s involvement in post-Maidan Ukraine. In a recent interview, Blinken promised “to support the arming and training of Ukraine’s military, the continued provision to Ukraine of lethal defensive assistance, and indeed, of the training program as well.” There is a distinct possibility that a Biden administration might be tempted to give the go-ahead to the Kiev government to mount a lightning strike in the Donbass. This would be a very dangerous game to play, but one that should not be ruled out, given the return to power of Victoria Nuland, as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – the number-three position in the State Department.

So, the Biden people are not interested in rapprochement with Russia; they just want an arms-control agreement. Isn’t that a good thing, though? Won’t that lead to strategic stability? Maybe so. But what’s really behind it? Well, it has been clear for some time to US officials that Russia, for the first time since the start of the Cold War, enjoys strategic superiority over the United States. Russia has succeeded in deploying hypersonic weapons. Such weapons, as the New York Times explained, fly “at superfast speeds and can easily evade American missile defense systems … Yet while the United States military was once thought to be well ahead in hypersonic technology, the pace of development flagged in recent years.” 

US officials have expressed alarm about falling behind. According to Michael D. Griffin, a former Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, “We don’t have defenses against those systems … Should they choose to employ them, we would be today at a disadvantage. We’re playing catch-up ball.”

It is understandable, therefore, that Washington would want to keep things in place for a few years while it catches up with – and perhaps overtakes – its perceived adversary. However, make no mistake: such an approach will not deliver stability.

oooooo

The ideological basis of the new Cold War is clear, and this time the Western powers look set to be on the losing side

(https://www.rt.com/op-ed/519189-new-cold-war-ideology/)

25 Mar, 2021

(…) This ideological vision is worlds apart from that of the group of countries led by Russia and China. This group insists on national sovereignty, territorial integrity of all states, non-interference in one another’s internal affairs, no threats to use force, no resort to unilateral sanctions, cooperation with all states irrespective of the nature or ideological color of the governments that rule them. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it in Guilin, “Moscow and Beijing stand for developing interstate relations on the principles of mutual respect and a balance of each other’s interests, justice, and non-interference in others’ internal affairs. We reject zero-sum political games and the illegal unilateral sanctions which our Western colleagues have been using increasingly more often. …We pointed out the destructive character of US aspiration to undermine the UN-centric international legal framework by using the military-political alliances of the Cold War period and creating similar closed alliances.”

In a joint statement, Lavrov and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared, “Interference in a sovereign nation’s internal affairs under the excuse of ‘advancing democracy’ is unacceptable.”

Chinese Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi did not hesitate to spell this out to Blinken during talks in Anchorage, Alaska, stressing, “What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called rules-based international order.” 

The “rules-based international order” serves only the interests of the Western powers that create the rules – rules that can be made up one moment and discarded the next. As Yang explained, “I don’t think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognize that the universal values advocated by the United States or that the opinion of the United States could represent international public opinion, and those countries would not recognize that the rules made by a small number of people would serve as the basis for the international order.”

That “small number of people” who make “the rules” obviously includes NATO. And NATO, Stoltenberg announced the day before the foreign ministers’ summit, is all “about protecting the rules-based order, which is being challenged by authoritarian powers like China and Russia. So, we need to work even closer with like-minded partners around the globe. And support our neighbors with more training and capacity-building.”

As NATO envisages it, the scope for “training,” “capacity-building,” expansion, co-opting others, and invention of new missions is limitless. According to Stoltenberg, “If there’s any lesson learned both from the Balkans in the 1990s or Afghanistan or Iraq and also from Libya, then it is that prevention is better than intervention to help countries to stabilize themselves. Providing training and capacity-building is perhaps the best way NATO can help to stabilize our neighborhood. And when our neighbors are more stable, we are more secure.”

This is no apology for the devastation, bloodshed, and chaos that NATO has caused during the past 30 years. The problem is not too much NATO, but too little. Under color of searching for “stability,” NATO is entitled to do anything, no matter how much instability it creates along the way.

It isn’t interested in national interests or national sovereignty. National sovereignty works one way: there is an absolute, unconditional right to join NATO, but there is no comparable right not to. Stoltenberg declared that no one is permitted to object to NATO’s expansion into its neighborhood. “It’s not for any nation, outside NATO and the aspirant country, to decide whether a country becomes a member of NATO or not. It’s a sovereign right of every nation, including Georgia, of course, or Ukraine, or Bosnia and Herzegovina, to choose their own path. And then it’s for those countries that are applying for membership and the NATO allies – and only them, and no one else, no one from the outside – to interfere in that democratic process.”

Needless to say, the US, for example, would not agree that a Russo-Mexican military alliance is no one’s business other than that of Mexico and Russia.

The NATO powers’ approach to the world is to impose sanctions the moment they come across anything they don’t like. On the eve of the Anchorage summit, the US imposed sanctions on 24 Chinese officials it accused of “undermining” Hong Kong’s “autonomy.” On the eve of the NATO summit, the US and the EU imposed sanctions on Chinese officials they accused of being involved in “genocide and crimes against humanity” against the Uighurs. On the very same day, the EU imposed sanctions on two Russians it accused of “repressions … directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons” in Chechnya.  

Russia and China, however, do not threaten, force, or resort to sanctions in lieu of diplomacy. Neither seeks to coerce other countries into joining formal or informal military alliances. Their championing of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter is winning adherents. Earlier this month, the two countries, joined by others, issued a statement on behalf of the newly formed “Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations.” According to this statement, the UN Charter “has a renewed and even more important value and relevance … while providing a platform for, among others, promoting the prevalence of legality over the use of force, and for both discussing and coordinating possible joint initiatives for fostering the respect to the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter.” 

Seventeen countries are already members of this group. There is an open invitation for others to join, and many will undoubtedly do so. The national sovereignty principles enshrined in the charter are obviously appealing to the part of the world not firmly integrated within the Western system of alliances.

The different approaches of the two blocs towards the internal affairs of other countries were on display during the UN Security Council debates on the military takeover in Myanmar. The US and the UK, eager to use the Myanmar crisis to target China, sought to push the Security Council into issuing a statement or adopting a resolution labeling the military takeover a “coup” and threatening sanctions. Russia and China would have none of it. They successfully insisted that any statement not go beyond condemnation of “violence against peaceful protesters” and “support for the democratic transition.” Significantly, Russia and China’s stance was supported by current Security Council members India and Vietnam. The US, UK, and EU, predictably, went ahead with their own unilateral sanctions.

During this new Cold War, China and Russia have gone out of their way to help out countries that have been the victims of Western-inspired unilateral sanctions. When the Trump administration announced it was reinstating sanctions against Iran, Russia immediately announced that it would continue trading in Iran’s crude oil, refining and selling it to third countries. Russia also helped Iran evade sanctions by linking its banking system to Iran’s. China has purchased and helped transport Iran’s oil. Russia and China have also both assisted Venezuela: Russian oil giant Rosneft helped market Venezuelan crude, while China has imported it. Moreover, Russia and China have continued to provide Venezuela with food and medicine.

This is only the beginning. China’s recently launched digital yuan threatens not only the pre-eminence of the US dollar as the global trading currency, but also the utility of sanctions as a means of coercing recalcitrant states. Even if the US were to try to push China out of the SWIFT system – the network banks use to transfer payments internationally – China would still be able to use the digital yuan in cross-border transactions. Moreover, Russia now has its own alternative to SWIFT. Using sanctions to coerce others may soon lose its efficacy for the Western powers. 

The ideological basis of the new Cold War is becoming ever clearer daily. However, unlike in the first Cold War, the Western powers are likely to find themselves on the losing side.

Zenbait twitter

mar. 31

oooooo

Maajid أبو عمّار@MaajidNawaz

mar. 30

Even @CNN is now ADMITTING that the AZOV battalion – officially incorporated into Ukraine’s army – is a NAZI unit.

All those loud turncoats making ridiculous excuses for NAZISM need to stop.

We will not forget, and time will SHAME you.

30 Mar 2022

https://cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html

oooooo

Mike Norman@mikenorman

2022 api. 1

oooooo

2 h

elnacional.cat

Putin rebenta estadístiques: registra el suport més alt en cinc anys – ElNacional.cat

El 83% dels ciutadans donar suport a les activitats de Putin com a president

oooooo

George Szamuely@GeorgeSzamuely

5 h

Txioa aipatu

Glenn Diesen@Glenn_Diesen

Washington’s inability to mobilise the international community

oooooo

Dan-Liviu Popa@danucky

8 h

oooooo

Michael Hudson

The End of the Dollar Hegemony

April 1, 2022

The End of Dollar Hegemony

by Michael Hudson

Margaret Flowers: Michael Hudson is the president of the Institute for the Study of Long-term, Economic Trends, ISLET. He’s a Wall Street financial analyst and a distinguished research professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, in Kansas City. He’s also the author of numerous books and recently updated his book, “Super Imperialism: The economic strategy of American Empire.” Thank you for taking time to speak with me today, Michael.

Michael Hudson: Well, thanks for having me on Margaret.

MF: You’ve talked a lot and written a lot about dollar hegemony and what’s happening now with de-dollarization. Can you start out by explaining to my listeners what dollar hegemony is and how it has benefited the wealthy class in the United States?

MH: Dollar hegemony seems to be the position that has just ended as of this week very abruptly. Dollar hegemony was when America’s war in Vietnam and the military spending of the 1960s and 70s drove the United States off gold. The entire US balance of payments deficit was military spending, and it began to run down the gold supply. So, in 1971, President Nixon took the dollar off gold. Well, everybody thought America has been controlling the world economy since World War I by having most of the gold and by being the creditor to the world. And they thought what is going to happen now that the United States is running a deficit, instead of being a creditor.

Well, what happened was that, as I’ve described in Super Imperialism, when the United States went off gold, foreign central banks didn’t have anything to buy with their dollars that were flowing into their countries – again, mainly from the US military deficit but also from the investment takeovers. And they found that these dollars came in, the only thing they could do would be to recycle them to the United States. And what do central banks hold? They don’t buy property, usually, back then they didn’t. They buy Treasury bonds. And so, the United States would be spending dollars abroad and foreign central banks didn’t really have anything to do but send it right back to buy treasury bonds to finance not only the balance of payments deficit, but also the budget deficit that was largely military in character. So, dollar hegemony was the system where foreign central banks keep their monetary and international savings reserves in dollars and the dollars are used to finance the military bases around the world, almost eight hundred military bases surrounding them. So, basically central banks have to keep their savings by weaponizing them, by militarizing them, by lending them to the United States, to keep spending abroad.

Dena den, gogoratu Hudson-en eta Warren Mosler-en arteko eztabaida:

Nazioarteko transakzioak: Mosler-en eta Hudson-en arteko eztabaida

Nazioarteko ekonomia eta ‘Inperialismoa’

(…)

MH: That’s the whole point. Well, fortunately they’ve been threatening to kick Russia out of SWIFT for the last two years. And so, Russia and China have been putting in place an alternative system. So, they almost pretty smoothly are shifting over to using their own currency with each other instead of using the dollar. And that’s part of what has ended the dollar standard and ended dollar hegemony.

If the way you have dollar hegemony is to have other countries deposit your money in your banks and handle their oil trade with each other by financing it in dollars, but all of a sudden you grab all their dollars and you don’t let them use US banks to pay for their oil and their trade with each other, then they’re going to shift to a different system. And that’s exactly what has ended the dollar hegemony, as you just pointed out.

MF: So, let’s get a little bit into where things are headed with this new situation, a rapidly changing situation. It may be hard to say what’s happening, but you talked about a food crisis this summer. Can you talk a little bit about more about that and does the conflict in Ukraine feed into that?

MH: Well, as President Putin and Lavrov have said, the fighting in Ukraine isn’t really over Ukraine at all. It’s a fight over what shape the world will take and whether the world will be unipolar or, as it now appears, multipolar. The US, for the last year before it began to escalate attacks on the Russian-speaking Ukraine, was trying to block Europe from, and especially Germany, from buying Russia gas and oil.

There are three pillars of American foreign policy that base American power. The first pillar is the oil industry. That’s the most powerful industry next to banking in the United States. And United States throughout the 20th century, along with Britain and France, have controlled the world oil trade.

That has benefited the United States in two ways. Number one, we are a major oil exporter because we have a big oil and gas industry. But, number two, our US companies control the foreign oil trade. So that if some country, say Chile or Venezuela, does something that the United States doesn’t like, like growing their own food or pursuing a socialist policy, the United States can simply cut off their oil and sanction them. Without oil, they don’t have energy to drive the cars or power their factories or drive their GDP.

So, the American war in Ukraine is really a war against Germany. Russia is not the enemy. Germany and Europe are the enemy and the United States made it very clear. This is a war to lock in our allies so they cannot trade with Russia. They cannot buy Russian oil. They must be dependent on American oil for which they will have to pay three or four times as much. They will have to be dependent on American liquefied natural gas for fertilizer. If they don’t buy American gas for fertilizer, and we don’t let them buy from Russia, then they cannot put fertilizer on the land and the crop yield will fall by about 50% without fertilizer.

So, the, the war in Ukraine was to make Russia look so bad by defending itself against the attacks by the Ukrainian right wing in the Russian-speaking areas that the US has said, look at how bad Russia is. You’ve got to forego buying oil and gas or grain or titanium or palladium or anything else from Russia.

And so, the effect of this war has been to lock the NATO countries into dependency on the United States because the great fear of the United States in the last few years is that as America is de-industrializing, these countries are looking to the part of the world that’s growing, China, Central Asia, Russia, South Asia. And the United States feared losing control of its satellites mainly in NATO, but also in South America. So, it sanctioned and blocked their ability to buy non-US energy. They’re blocking their ability to buy non-US food, blocking their ability to invest in or use their surplus to get prosperous by investing in China, Russia, or Eurasia.

So, this is basically a war of America to lock in its allies. Well, the result is that oil prices, now that you can’t get Russian oil, are going to go way, way up, and that is going to create a crisis for many of the Global South countries that are oil deficit countries. The fertilizer companies in Germany have already been closing down because they say, without Russian gas, we make our fertilizer out of gas, and if we can’t get Russian gas, we can’t produce the fertilizer that. So, world fertilizer prices are going way up.

Russia is the largest grain exporter. And now that grain exports are being blocked by the sanctions, the question is, what are North Africa and the Near East going to do that have been depending very largely on Russian grain exports? Their food prices are going to go way up.

You can imagine just from seeing what’s happening in the United States when gas prices go up here, food prices go up here, not only does it put a squeeze on individual family budgets, but throughout the world, it puts the squeeze on the balance of payments of other countries. And so, they’re desperate. How are they going to pay the higher prices unless they borrow even more money from US banks? And of course, that’s another arm of US policy. The US banks hope to make a killing in making loans at rising interest rates to third world countries.

And of course, arms exports. NATO in the last few days has agreed to make American arms exports to increase their purchase of arms. So, the stock market has been soaring in the last few days. They say this, the world famine, the world crisis is a bonanza for Wall Street. The oil company stocks are going way up, the military, industrial stocks, Boeing Raytheon way up, the bank stocks. This is America’s great power grab, and it realizes, when it can create a crisis and tell the Global South or poor countries your money or your life. This is how most of the great property grabs and conquests have been made throughout history.

MF: And just this week at the NATO meetings, President Biden basically said food prices are going to go up in the United States and Europe as a result of what’s happening. And that’s just the price we have to pay.

MH: Well, what he should have said, this is the price they have to pay us. That’s how the stock market took it. When he said this is the price we have to pay, this is the price consumers have to pay to the American oil companies, to the American Agricultural food distribution companies. It’s the price other countries have to pay to the United States.

This is to say to the rest of the world, you know, we’ve got you completely, I don’t know how to put it, what phrase to use, but you don’t have any choice, your money or your life. We’ve got you trapped. And he’s crowing over the fact that this resulting inflation is exactly what was intended by the war in Ukraine that has led to the isolation of Russia and other countries following a non-US policy.

MF: But more and more countries in Latin America, in Africa, are turning to countries like China for partnerships, for investment. Do you see a point coming where there is just this real shunning of the United States and turning to these alternatives?

MH: That is exactly what’s going to happen. What’s going to happen is, China’s investment is very different from US investment. US and European investment will give financial investments to countries at interest that the whole country is liable for to repay. China’s investment is taking place by means of the Belt and Road Initiative and direct capital investment in developing ports, infrastructure and railways. And instead of having a general financial claim against these countries, China has an equity claim, a property claim backed by the physical means of production that it puts in place.

Well, this summer, when countries say they cannot afford to pay their foreign debts, the United States has as a backup plan, okay, let’s write down everybody’s debts, government debts, to each other so that governments can pay the private bond holders and the banks. And they’re going to try to, essentially the US will forgive its debts so that Latin America can pay Chase Manhattan Bank and Citibank and the bondholders. And China is going to say, wait a minute, we don’t have any financial claim against these countries. We didn’t lend them dollars. We didn’t lend them our foreign currency at all. We built assets there and the assets are still in place. There’s no problem there.

So, the question is, whose debts are going to be written down to whom? And all of this is going to lead to, as you can imagine, destabilization. The United States is probably going to try to push regime change on countries that try to trade with China as it’s already threatened China with.  And the more sanctions the United States imposes on Latin America, Africa and the Near East and South Asia, they will be creating a crisis, but the crisis will lead the rest of the world to treat the United States in the same way that Russia and China are treating the United States as just the enemy threatening the entire world with their neoliberal power grab. So, the United States in a way is isolating itself from the rest of the world by declaring war on it.

(…)

This is a transcript of Michael Hudson’s interview with Margaret flowers on Clearing the Fog, March 29, 2022. 

oooooo

MMT (Moneta-Teoria Modernoa)

Niel Wilson-en lanak

Errusiaren gaineko zigorrak eta MTM

Errusiako toketa fiskala¹

Ukraina/Errusia/AEB/NATO (MTM: Moneta-Teoria Modernoa)

Niel Wilson-en Errubloari buruzko burrunbak segitzen du

---