After a pandemic, rampant inflation, a faltering global economy, and geopolitical flare-ups, it’s no surprise that people have a souring outlook on the future.
Even so, the results of this recent survey by Ipsos are eyebrow raising. As Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley reports, in all 33 countries where polling took place, the majority of respondents said they believe a world war on the scale of WWI and WWII would break out between global superpowers in coming years.
Here’s a look at how various countries felt about the possibility of an impending global conflict:
Japan was the least sure of an impending global conflict – an opinion that is almost certainly shaped by the country’s historical experience in WWII.
Australia was the most certain of an impending global conflict. The country has a unique relationship with Asian and Western countries, so geopolitical tensions between superpowers may resonate more in the Land Down Under.
The Power of Fear
Given the negative slant of stories covered by mass media and the types of stories that are most widely shared on social media platforms, it’s easy to understand how people have developed such a gloomy view of the future. But “bad vibes” aside, how could this perception translate into real world action?
For one, public opinion helps shape political priorities. A narrative of impending conflict could have an impact on geopolitical policy and relationships.
Another possibility is an increase in military spending across the board. 64% of people across 30 countries somewhat or strongly agree that their home government should beef up military spending “given the dangers in the world.” Aside from Ukraine, India (84%) and Poland (81%) ranked the highest in support of increasing military spending.
One other noteworthy finding is that 85% of people in the countries surveyed believe that the world needs new international agreements and institutions to deal with the challenges faced by the world today, and that world powers are unlikely to respect agreements made through international bodies. These findings are significant since war becomes more likely as cooperation between countries breaks down.
Let’s check in on Target2 balances in the Eurozone and who owes whom money…
Target 2 balances from the ECB, numbers and caption by Mish
TARGET2 is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system owned and operated by the Eurosystem.
The Target2 Lead Chart is courtesy of the ECB. It shows Target 2 creditor and debtor nations.
Tatget2 is one of the fundamental flaws of the Eurozone.
Primary Creditors and Debtors
Target2 surpluses to the tune of €1.23 trillion continue to mount in Germany.
Tiny Luxembourg is somehow a €303 billion creditor.
The largest Target2 deficit nations are Italy at €670 billion, Spain at €484 billion, the ECB itself at €339 billion, and Greece at €106 billion.
The ECB’s imbalance is related to its bond manipulation schemes to keep interest rates down in Italy, Spain, Greece, and the peripheral Eurozone countries in general.
Capital Flight
Capital flight is one component of Target2 imbalances.
On the likely assumption that Italian banks are insolvent, no one in their right mind should have money in Italian banks.
Recall the capital controls imposed by the ECB on Greece and Cyprus after bank failures in those countries. Anyone who had money in a bank in Germany had full access to it. Anyone who had money in a Greek bank didn’t.
It’s increasing likely that corporations and wealthy individuals do not trust Italian banks, nor should they.
Unsecured Debt
Unsecured debt is another component of Target2. The ECB assumption is that these debts will be paid back. No one explains how.
The ECB also treats all sovereign bank debt within the Eurozone as equal, and with no risk.
The market disagrees and so do I.
ECB vs Fed
In the US there is one Central Bank. There is a single 10-year government bond.
The Eurozone has the ECB to set interest rate policy, but each nation has its own central bank.
If all Eurozone sovereign debt was indeed equal, then 10-year yields in Italy and Germany would be the same.
Instead, the 10-year rates in Germany and Italy are 1.94% and 3.80% respectively. Huge country-to-country differences are despite massive intervention by the ECB to equalize rates.
Target2 is a kluge payment system that tries to make things fit but does not quite succeed.
It is difficult to say how much of the imbalances are capital flight, debt, and knock-on effects of ECB manipulations.
However, we can see the imbalances grow nearly every month, wondering when and how it finally matters.
Boris Johnson Pens Op-Ed Urging US To Give Warplanes, Long-Range Missiles To Ukraine
Former UK prime minister Boris Johnson took to the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal to argue that a speedier end to the war in Ukraine can be achieved if only the West would supply Kyiv with longer-range missiles, as well as warplanes.
“The world can’t continue to watch as the Ukrainians are terrorised with missiles and drones,” he wrote in the article published Friday. “The Ukrainians have the valour necessary to succeed. They have shown it. They just need the equipment.” He argued that this should include more sophisticated drones, anti-aircraft missiles, planes, ATACMS longer range systems, as well as tanks and armored vehicles – to be delivered as soon as possible.
He began the op-ed with an argument that precludes the possibility of negotiated settlement: “I don’t care how often I have to say it: The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat,” Johnson wrote.
It’s been previously widely reported that on a visit to Ukraine to meet with President Zelensky last spring, then PM Johnson urged the Ukrainians away from the negotiating table. For example, this is what a bombshell story in Ukrainska Pravda said in May, but which was almost completely ignored in Western mainstream media:
According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages. The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.
And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the UK and US] are not. Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to “press him.”
Since then, Ukraine’s government has rejected even the possibility of dialogue with the Russians until all territory has been taken back, and has even launched military attacks on Russian-controlled Crimea, and even on Russia proper.
Johnson in the WSJ op-ed backed this continued stance, writing that “It is time to look urgently at what more the West can do to help the Ukrainians achieve their military objectives, or at least to kick the Russians out of all the territories invaded this year.”
Meanwhile, for a take that’s directly opposed to Johnson and NATO’s perspective on the origins of the conflict:
🧵Thread
1 of 50> Plus Tweets.
The Russia Ukraine War Can Only Come To An End If We The Public Are Fully Informed For How & Why It Began.
2014: Here Zelensky Explains It Himself In A Performance Which Is Actually A Statement.
Johnson not only warned about what he called “complacency” and the “consequences” of not getting Ukraine longer-range weapons fast enough, but he batted down the possibility of escalation toward nuclear conflict, something even President Biden has expressed concern over. Johnson wrote the following:
I know the wearying counterargument that stepping up supplies to Ukraine risks escalation. We dare not risk “poking the Russian bear.” Surely to goodness, after almost a year of this hideous conflict, we can see what total nonsense this is.
Mr. Putin knows he can’t use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. He knows the consequences. The truth is that he’s the one who fears escalation.
But as a number of prominent US and Western military observers have pointed out, Putin still has a huge number of forces at his disposal which he has yet to deploy to Ukraine.
If anything, it can easily be argued in the face of Johnson’s assertions that Russia is actually still holding back…
“Ukrainian army is down to ~190,000 effectives & Russia has over half a million & those numbers continue to grow” says Col Douglas Macgregor in conversation w/ Dr. Michael Vlahos at the Army/Navy Club in DC (~30 min). Most clear eyed assessment I’ve heard. https://t.co/XdfBrNmh2dpic.twitter.com/Sghs0yfFgD
Johnson in the op-ed recognized the “prodigious” American contribution to Ukraine’s forces to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, but then quickly pivoted to saying it’s not enough. He went so far as to say the West should not only be supplying more advanced drones, but warplanes too. He wrote:
So let’s share the burden and accelerate the denouement. First let’s give the Ukrainians the help they need against aerial attacks. Kyiv needs unmanned aerial vehicles to detect the launch sites of drones and missiles, as well as antiaircraft missiles to take them out. The drones have the same engines as Vespa scooters, so planes to shoot them down don’t have to be fast. As one Ukrainian put it to me, “Spitfires would do.” We don’t make Spitfires in the U.K. anymore, but plenty of countries have planes that would do the job.
Given he wrote the op-ed for the WSJ, at at various times appeals directly to US officials and the American public, it seems clear which country he’s fundamentally asking to supply the “planes that would do the job.”
For a counterargument and more realist perspective in contrast to Johnson’s ultra-hawkish stance, see the below discussion between highly decorated retired Army Colonel Douglas Magcregor and military historian Michael Vlahos, who has taught at the US Naval War College…
On December 1, French President Emmanuel Macron went to Washington for the first state visit of the Biden administration. After the pageantry, presents, hand holding and flattering words of fraternity and solidarity, Macron faced the gathered press.
“We will never urge Ukrainians to make a compromise that will not be acceptable for them.” “That,” said Helene Cooper of The New York Times, “is the money quote.”
But it wasn’t the money quote by several euros.
The money quote came days later when Macron was not standing shoulder to shoulder with Biden in front of an American audience, but standing on his own addressing a French audience. Macron told the French television network TF1, in an interview filmed during his visit to Washington but aired as he left, that “We need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table.” Then Macron made his full meaning clear: “One of the essential points we must address – as President Putin has always said – is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia.”
The money quote was that, despite the display of solidarity, there was a canyon between the leader of the US and the leader of the loyal European opposition. The canyon was so wide that it included disagreement over the causes and solutions of the war. Biden and Macron both “strongly condemn Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.” But for Biden, in the beginning, that war was wholly unprovoked, and, in the end, the settlement must reflect that and protect core US values. For Macron, though the war was illegal, Russia had legitimate security concerns that NATO had been pushing, and the settlement must reflect that too.
Macron hinted at that crucial separation at the press conference with Biden. Even then, Macron said “We want to build peace and a sustainable peace means full respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” But then, hinting at Russia’s demand to be included in a new European security structure that takes its concerns seriously, he added, “but at the same time [it means] a new architecture to make sure we have a sustainable peace in the long run.” But that didn’t make it into the money quote.
The mainstream media’s money quote missed that France, one of the two most powerful members of the EU, insists that a negotiated settlement to the war addresses Russia’s security concerns about NATO at its door and weapons at its border.
On September 16, at the Shanghai Cooperation Summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Modi said, “I know that now is not an age of wars. We have spoken about this many times, in particular in our telephone conversations. Democracy, diplomacy, and dialogue are important tools for us to find solutions. It is necessary to achieve peace in the future, and I am sure that we can discuss this. I welcome the opportunity to better understand your point of view.” That was the money quote.
But the money quote was a partial quote. It omitted Modi’s next line: “Relations between Russia and India have significantly improved. We believe they are extremely important. We are friends, and for decades we have always stood shoulder to shoulder. The whole world is aware of the nature of Russian-Indian relations, and the world also knows the deep friendship, in particular the personal friendly ties that bind us. . . . . In the interests of the well-being of this region, our peoples and citizens, we are once again making efforts today, in particular within the framework of the SCO summit. . . . Bilateral relations, which we will also discuss today, mean that our relations will only improve and strengthen in the future, which is also useful for the whole world.”
The money quote was offered at a discount. India wasn’t cooperating with the US led sanctions and isolation of Russia. India was improving and strengthening relations with Russia.
At that same SCO summit, the mainstream media offered up the money quote for Chinese President Xi Jinping. Putin was forced to acknowledge that China had “questions and concerns” about the “crisis” in Ukraine, the money quote said.
It was “somewhat curious,” US State Department spokesperson Ned Price observed “that President Putin would be the one to admit it and to admit it so openly.”
But Putin was happy to talk about it because it wasn’t the money quote. A more honest formulation of the money quote would have included a less reported part of the conversation. But for that part of the conversation, you had to turn to the Chinese media. According to a readout from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, XI also said that “since the beginning of this year, China and Russia have maintained effective strategic communication.” XI stressed that China and Russia “have maintained close coordination on the international stage to uphold basic norms of international relations,” and promised China would “work with Russia to fulfill their responsibilities as major countries and play a leading role in injecting stability into a world of change and disorder.”
Crucially, XI added that China “will work with Russia to extend strong mutual support on issues concerning each other’s core interests, and deepen practical cooperation in trade, agriculture, connectivity and other areas.” Those core interests, for China, include US and NATO provocations in Taiwan and violations of the three joint communiqués the US negotiated with China between 1972 and 1982. Those core interests, for Russia, include NATO encroachment on its most sensitive border and violations of promises made on NATO’s eastward expansion at the end of the Cold War.
Like Macron, XI’s inclusion of strong support for Russia’s core interests was an insistence that a resolution to the war include Russia’s security concerns. The money quote deposited China’s questions and concerns, but withdrew their support of Russia on key issues and the gulf between their position and the US position.
The next mainstream media money quote from China came three weeks later. Following a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, XIsaid that the international community should “oppose the threat or use of nuclear weapons, advocate that nuclear weapons cannot be used and that nuclear wars must not be fought, and prevent a nuclear crisis in Eurasia.”
That was the money quote because it was reported as a shift in China’s policy of not criticizing Putin over the war in Ukraine. But China has always had a policy against nuclear first strikes and has always had a commitment to “not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states.” Besides, Putin had already clarified that Russia would not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
That wasn’t the money quote. A more honest money quote might have been the sentence that preceded the mainstream media’s selected quotation. In language that was close to Macron’s, XI”reaffirmed China’s support for Germany and Europe to play an important role in facilitating peace talks and to build a balanced, effective and sustainable security architecture in Europe.”
The mainstream money quotes keep missing the separation with the US and the recognition of a European security architecture that takes Russia’s concerns about NATO expansion seriously. The more inclusive money quotes from both France and China included that recognition and exposed that separation.
And the very fact that that missed money quote came out of a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz exposes the next missed money quote. The money quote wasn’t that China agreed that “nuclear wars must not be fought.” That’s a pretty affordable money quote. The money quote was that Scholz was breaking from the US by becoming the first G7 leader to go to Beijing to meet with XI That was a rebellion against both the US rule that no one hold dialogue with nations who mock the US led sanctions and censure of Russia and the rule that China be contained and opposed. Far from containing China, Scholz brought the top German industrial leaders, including the CEO’s of Volkswagen, BMW, BASF, Bayer and Deutsche Bank with him.
An even worse missed money quote is that Scholz did not only dare to dialogue with XI, he phoned Putin. On December 2, he broke with Biden and talked to Putin. It was Scholz who initiated the call, and it was the second time in two months.
Macron also said recently that “he intends to speak with the Russian president in the coming days.”
The money quote in the mainstream media is, apparently, on sale at a discount. But for the lower cost, you don’t get the context or the full story. The real cost is the truth.
As Atlanticists continue their commitment to a future shaped by energy scarcity, food scarcity, and war with their nuclear-capable neighbors, most states in the Persian Gulf that have long been trusted allies of the west have quickly come to realize that their interests are best assured by cooperating with Eurasian states like China and Russia who don’t think in those zero-sum terms.
With Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-awaited three-day visit to Saudi Arabia this past week, a powerful shift by the Persian Gulf’s most strategic Arab state toward the multipolar alliance is being consolidated. Depending on which side of the ideological fence you sit on, this consolidation is being viewed closely with great hope or rage.
Xi’s visit stands in stark contrast to US President Joe Biden’s underwhelming ‘fist bump’ meeting this summer, which saw the self-professed leader of the free world falling asleep at a conference table and demanding more Saudi oil production while offering nothing durable in return.
In contrast, Xi’s arrival was greeted by a multi-cannon salute and Saudi jets painting the red and yellow colors of China’s flag in the skies over Riyadh. Beijing’s delegation of political and business elites will continue to meet with Saudi counterparts to strike long-term strategic deals in cultural, economic and scientific domains.
The visit culminated in the first ever China-Arab Summit on Friday in which Xi met with 30 heads of state. The Chinese foreign ministry described this as “an epoch-making milestone in the history of the development of China-Arab relations.”
While $30 billion in deals were signed between Beijing and Riyadh, something much bigger is at play which too few have come to properly appreciate.
Riyadh’s steps toward the BRI since 2016
Xi Jinping last visited the kingdom in 2016, to advance Riyadh’s participation in China’s newly unveiled Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). A January 2016 policy report by the Chinese government to all Arab states reads:
“In the process of jointly pursuing the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road initiative, China is willing to coordinate development strategies with Arab states, put into play each other’s advantages and potentials, promote international production capacity cooperation and enhance cooperation in the fields of infrastructure construction, trade and investment facilitation, nuclear power, space satellite, new energy, agriculture and finance, so as to achieve common progress and development and benefit our two peoples.”
It was only three months later that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) inaugurated Saudi Vision 2030 which firmly outlined a new foreign policy agenda much more compatible with China’s “peaceful development” spirit.
After decades serving as an Atlanticist client state with no viable manufacturing prospects or autonomy beyond its role in supporting western-managed terror operations, Saudi Vision 2030 demonstrated the first signs of creative thinking in years, with an outlook toward a post-oil age.
MBS saying goodbye to President Xi after 3 days of meetings…
Time will tell, but judging from the cold and humiliating reception of Biden, and the extremely warm reception of China, the US is no longer a close Saudi ally…
On the energy front, China Energy Corp is building a sprawling 2.6 GW solar power station in Saudi Arabia, and Chinese nuclear developers are helping Riyadh develop its vast uranium resources while also mastering all branches of the nuclear fuel cycle.
In 2016, both nations signed an MoU to build fourth generation gas-cooled nuclear reactors. This follows the UAE’s recent leap into the 21st century with 2.7 GW of energy now constructed. By early 2017, Riyadh had firmly bought its ticket on the New Silk Road with a $65 billion agreement integrating the Saudi Vision 2030 and BRI with a focus on petrochemical integration, engineering, refining, procurement, construction, carbon capture, and upstream/downstream development.
In the new post-American epoch, signs of this spirit of cooperation and bridge building have increasingly come to be felt, even while its effects have been forcibly restrained – as millions of Yemenis suffering under seven years of war can testify.
Unlike the Atlanticist fixation on Green New Deals which threaten to annihilate industry and farming, Riyadh’s post-oil outlook is much more synergistic with China’s idea of “sustained growth” that demands nuclear power, continued hydrocarbons, and robust agro-industrial development.
China’s trade with Saudi Arabia rose to $87.3 billion in 2021, which saw a 39 percent increase over 2020, while US-Saudi trade has collapsed from $76 billion in 2012 to only $29 billion in 2021. Some of this Beijing-Riyadh trade may now be conducted in the Chinese Yuan, which will only undermine the US-Saudi relationship further.
In the first 10 months of 2022, China’s imports from Saudi Arabia were $57 billion and exports to the kingdom rose to $30.3 billion. China is additionally building 5G systems and cultivating a vast technology hub with a focus on selling electronic goods, all while helping Saudi Arabia build up an indigenous manufacturing sector.
A trend of Harmonization
Despite the continued chaos in Yemen, and economic devastation in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, Beijing’s subtle trend has nonetheless been one of healing with Saudi Arabia – and regional power Turkiye. Saudi Arabia and Turkiye have often acted as rivals, and front two distinct foreign agendas with broad regional ambitions that overlap on many fronts. But despite this competitive past, higher necessities have induced both nations to harmonize their foreign policy outlooks with a new “look east” focus.
This was expressed during the Saudi crown prince’s visit to Ankara in June 2022 where the two heads of state called for “a new era of cooperation” with a focus on political, economic, military and cultural cooperation outlined in a joint communique.
Only days after MbS’s return from Turkiye, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi visited Jeddah to promote regional stability stating in a press release “they changed points of view on a number of issues that would contribute to supporting and strengthening regional security and stability.”
Iraq and Saudi Arabia had only re-established diplomatic ties in November 2020 due to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait 30 years earlier. Between 2021-2022, Iraq had worked hard to host bilateral talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran with five rounds of talks held and Kadhimi stating his belief that “reconciliation is near.” Tehran-Riyadh diplomatic ties were cut in the aftermath of the 2016 execution of outspoken Saudi Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, prompting the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran by angry protestors.
In March 2022, MbS stated that Iran and Saudi Arabia “were neighbors forever” and stated that it is “better for both of us to working it out and to look for ways in which we can co-exist.”
By August 23, 2022, the UAE and Kuwait created a new milestone by restarting diplomatic relations with Iran. And although nearly every Persian Gulf state (plus Turkiye) had devoted years to supporting regime change in Syria, a new reality has imposed itself with all Arab parties veering toward the Chinese BRI model of regional integration and economic development.
The Key Role of Iran
Not only is Iran a key player in the Greater Eurasian Partnership serving as a strategic hub for the southern route of China’s BRI, but it is also a keystone of the Russia-Iran-India-led International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) which has become a major force synergizing with the BRI.
Iraq and Iran themselves are in the final stages of building the long-awaited Shalamcheh-Basra railway which will unite the two nations by rail for the first time in decades while also offering a potential extension to the already existent 1500 km railway through Iraq to Syria’s border.
The climate for cooperation was undoubtedly made possible by the presence of Chinese economic diplomacy which established a 25 year, $400 billion energy and security deal with Iran – but also Russia, whose similar but smaller $25 billion, twenty-year deal with Tehran may easily expand to $40 billion in Russian investments in Iran’s vast oil and natural gas fields in the coming years.
Saudi Arabia and Russia’s relationship with OPEC+ demonstrated its potency this summer when Riyadh won the ire of Washington by not only denying Biden’s requests for increased oil production, but cutting overall oil production and driving up global prices of oil. Saudi Arabia benefited by vastly increased imports of discounted Russian oil which were then sold to a desperate Europe.
Furthermore, Saudi plans to join the global hub of multipolarity itself, BRICS+ (alongside Turkiye, Egypt, and Algeria), in addition to recently becoming a full-fledged Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) dialogue partner, have placed its destiny ever deeper into the growing Multipolar Alliance.
With the increased potential for stability and harmonization of interests across various power blocs, an atmosphere more conducive to long-term economic investments is finally presenting itself to Chinese investors who had long looked upon conflict-ridden West Asia with justifiable trepidation.
In August 2022, the Saudi state oil company Aramco and China’s Petroleum and Chemical Corporation Ltd signed an MOU expanding on the aforementioned $65 billion cooperation deal of 2017, which involves the construction of Fujian Refining and Petrochemical Company (FREP) and Sinopec Senmei Petroleum Company (SSPC) in Fujian, China, and Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF) in Saudi Arabia.
Rail and interconnectivity
Perhaps most exciting are prospects for interconnectivity that play directly into the development corridors tied to the BRI. In Saudi Arabia, this train has moved steadily apace with the 450 km high speed Haramain Railway built by China Railway Construction Company connecting Mecca to Medina completed in 2018.
Discussions are well underway to extend this line to the 2400 km North South Railway from Riyadh to Al Haditha completed in 2015. Meanwhile, 460 km of rail connecting all Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members is currently under construction, which is driving reforms in engineering, trade schools, and manufacturing hubs across the Arabian Peninsula.
In 2021, all GCC states gave their full support to a $200 billion Persian Gulf-Red Sea high speed railway dubbed “The Saudi Landbridge,” which also dovetails another $500 billion megaproject with vast Chinese investments, dubbed the futuristic NEOM mega-city on the Red Sea.
The Eurasianists stand to gain
It can only be hoped that this new chemistry of harmonization and win-win cooperation may soon provide a key to ending the fires of conflict in Yemen and other regional states.
Further, with Russia and China both helping to broker diplomatic backchannels, and with Iran playing an active role within this process, perhaps negotiations for reconstruction can begin in this war-torn zone of conflict. It is not an extreme stretch of the imagination to see the new Persian Gulf-Red Sea rail project extending north into Egypt and south into Yemen.
Looking at a map of the region, one can imagine the reactivation of the “Bridge of the Horn of Africa” first unveiled in 2009, that would have extended rail across the 25 km Bab el Mandeb strait connecting pipelines and rail lines into Djibouti and East Africa, more broadly.
While a western-manipulated Arab Spring derailed that concept in 2011, and the Saudi war against Yemen drove it further under ground since 2015, perhaps this new spirit of inter-civilizational cooperation under a new economic architecture liberated from the Atlanticist-dominated dollar system may provide just what it takes to revive the idea once again.
NBC News has updated a story that initially claimed President Joe Biden’s administration had a choice between freeing basketball player Brittney Griner and Marine veteran Paul Whelan in the prisoner exchange for Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout.
Citing a person described as a “senior U.S. official,” NBC initially reported that the U.S. government wanted both Griner and Whelan freed as part of the swap.
“But the official said Russia has treated Whelan differently because he is an accused spy, and that the Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan—or none,” the story said.
Griner was jailed because she brought, by her own admission, cannabis into Russia. Whelan is behind bars because he was convicted of espionage. Whelan has maintained his innocence.
U.S. officials have described both as “wrongfully detained.”
(Left) Paul Whelan, a former U.S. marine, in Moscow on June 15, 2020. (Right) Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) basketball player Brittney Griner at the Khimki Court, outside Moscow on Aug. 4, 2022. (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images)
After Biden spoke about the exchange, claiming there was “not a choice of which American to bring home,” NBC stealthily updated its piece without noting that it was altered, according to archived versions reviewed by The Epoch Times.
The outlet’s updated version stated, “But the official said Russia has treated Whelan differently because he is an accused spy, and that the Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one after different options were proposed.”
Hours later, after critics noted the stealth edit, NBC added a correction.
“An earlier version of this article misstated the choice the Biden administration was given over hostages. It was to swap for Griner or no one, not a choice between Griner or Whelan,” the correction states.
An NBC spokesperson did not respond to a list of emailed questions, including why the initial update did not include a correction and what it means when it says it “misstated the choice” the government faced.
U.S. President Joe Biden (R) speaks on the release of Olympian and WNBA player Brittney Griner from Russian custody, at the White House in Washington on Dec. 8, 2022. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
‘Left Behind’
Critics said the administration should have negotiated the release of Whelan.
“Paul Whelan has been let down and left behind at least three times by 2 Presidents,” the Bring Our Families Home Campaign said in a statement.
“He deserves better from his government, and our Campaign implores President Biden to urgently secure Paul’s immediate return using all tools available.”
White House officials have backed Biden, saying the United States did not have a choice.
“In recent weeks, it became clear that while Russians were willing to reach an agreement to secure Brittney’s release, they continue to treat Paul Whelan differently, given the nature of the totally illegitimate charges they have levied against Paul,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters in Washington this week. “Unfortunately, the choice became to either bring Brittney home or no one.”
“This was not a choice for us on—of which American to bring home. That was not the choice. It was a choice between bringing home one American or bringing home none,” she added later.
“Our choices was: Brittney or no one at all. Bring home one American or no American at all.”
A senior administration official, speaking to reporters on background, offered a similar view.
“So I want to be very clear: This was not a situation where we had a choice of which American to bring home. It was a choice between bringing home one particular American—Brittney Griner—or bringing home none,” the official said.
U.S. Basketball player Brittney Griner looks through bars as she listens to the verdict standing in a cage in a courtroom in Khimki, outside Moscow on Aug. 4, 2022. (Evgenia Novozhenina/Pool via AP)
Whelan
Whelan said after the swap that he was “greatly disappointed that more has not been done to secure my release, especially as the four year anniversary of my arrest is coming up.”
David Whelan, Whelan’s brother, said he was glad Griner was freed but relayed fresh disappointment, noting that Whelan was also not released in a swap that brought American Trevor Reed home earlier this year.
“As I have often remarked, Brittney’s and Paul’s cases were never really intertwined. It has always been a strong possibility that one might be freed without the other. The sentiments I shared in April about Trevor are unchanged: this is the event we wish for so much for our own family. She will be reunited with her family. Brittney is free. And Paul is still a hostage,” David Whelan said.
“But how many more times do I need to write that?”
Other Americans still in Russian custody include Marc Fogel, a teacher who was arrested in Moscow in 2021 with marijuana, which he reportedly uses as medicine following a spinal injury.
Bout was serving a 25-year sentence for conspiring to kill Americans. He was convicted in late 2011.
Bout was described by then-Attorney General Eric Holder as “one of the world’s most prolific arms dealers.”
China’s Top Medical Advisor Says Omicron No More Dangerous Than The Flu
About a year ago, the nation was on the verge of another lockdown when a tidal wave of Omicron infections prompted those who use masks alone… in their car… with their windows down, to hyperventilate that covid is about to kill several million more Americans, and anyone who suggested that this was nothing more than the flu was promptly suspended from twitter most likely by this guy, er gal: Melissa Ingle.
Former content moderator employee at Twitter speaks out. Do you believe this person enforced twitter ToS fairly and equally for all persons?
So it was with great shock that we read today that once again, all those “conspiracy theorists” were dead on: according to Chinese officials, who have continued to downplay the risks of Covid-19 as the country’s idiotic covid zero restrictions are further eased after the economy ground to a halt following two years of lockdowns, with a top medical adviser saying the fatality rate from the omicron variant of the virus is in line with influenza.
Echoing what so many mouth-breathing rednecks said for most of the past year – at least according to their far more intelligent (in their own opinion) big-city dwelling liberal peers all of whom have at least one and more mental disorders, the death rate from omicron is around 0.1%, similar to the common flu, and the infection rarely reaches the lungs, Zhong Nanshan was quoted in an interview with state news agency Xinhua. Most people recover from the variant within seven to 10 days, he said.
Zhong’s comments follow the government’s latest line on the coronavirus, which – two weeks after sporadic violent protests nearly sunk the Xi regime – has been suddenly talking down the disease’s dangers as China moves toward exiting its Covid Zero policy. The nation reported 10,514 local infections for Saturday, more than 20% lower than Friday. Doubts have been raised about the accuracy of case numbers because fewer people are being tested, but one could say the same about the numbers on the way up.
But one thing is certain: China’s covid slowdown is history.
Still, China is not in the clear just yet: on Saturday, Zhong was quoted saying that there’s an “urgent need” to increase booster-shot rates as travel during upcoming holidays will raise the risk of a large-scale spread.
“It’s unlikely people will stay put for the 2023 Lunar New Year holiday so I advise those who will travel home to get booster shots so that even if they are infected, symptoms will be mild,” he said.
The Lunar New Year holiday runs from Jan. 21 to Jan. 27 but usually lasts about 40 days as people take off before and after the official break. Hundreds of millions of Chinese return to their home provinces for family reunifications during New Year.
China issued a plan on Sunday to enhance capacity of county-level medical facilities to better protect people living in rural areas from Covid. It requested such hospitals to boost their intensive care unit capacity by the end of December. Medical staffers from pediatrics and other units need to receive training on how to look after patients in ICU, according to the plan.
Separately, in a Sunday commentary, the Communist Party’s flagship People’s Daily said local governments have swiftly put into practice the 10 new Covid measures announced by the National Health Commission last week, including a reduction of mass testing and loosening of quarantine rules. Regions including Chongqing, and cities in Liaoning, Shandong and Guangdong have urged schools to resume offline teaching, the paper reported separately.
These new measures will pave the way for China to further optimize Covid controls in the future and eventually claim victory over the outbreak, the commentary said.
But back to the main topic, the end of covid in China, state-backed tabloid Global Times on Sunday cited Zeng Guang, a former chief epidemiologist at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as saying that suggestions for China to downgrade its Covid control from the top Category A to Category B has gained momentum in the scientific world.
Once Chinese scientists have reached a consensus that variations of the coronavirus continue to be less dangerous, China will downgrade its Covid control at the right time, Zeng said. China currently classifies Covid-19 as a Category-B disease, but is controlling it as a Category-A disease.
China’s road to reopening could be “bumpy,” which coupled with the scenario of a mild recession in Europe and the US may lead to a tougher economic climate, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. President John Waldron said via video link at Shanghai’s Bund Summit on Saturday.
“That will obviously have some negative implications for growth,” Waldron said, in remarks that underscore how lenders are gauging the impact of China’s pivot from a Covid Zero policy.
I attended a panel discussion at the National Press Club last week (Monday) about the fate of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. The event happened to be at the National Press Club, but it was actually sponsored by the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at George Mason University. Hayden, the notorious former director of both the C.I.A. and the N.S.A., who oversaw the C.I.A.’s torture program during part of the George W. Bush administration, was front and center at the event.
The panel, moderated by Sasha Ingber, a national security correspondent in Newsy’s Washington, D.C., bureau, included Assange’s U.S. lawyer Barry Pollack, one of the finest criminal defense attorneys in America; Gabe Rottman, a senior attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; the notorious Mark Zaid, who bills himself as a “whistleblower attorney,” but who has probably done more damage to legitimate whistleblowers than any other person in Washington; and Holden Triplett, a former F.B.I. agent and former director for counterintelligence at President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.
While acknowledging my own biases (Pollack is a genius and Zaid is a scoundrel), the one thing that surprised me was how utterly clueless Holden Triplett was. This is a guy who promotes himself as a counterintelligence expert. He runs a consulting company hilariously named “Trenchcoat Advisors.”
Triplett claims to have been a top F.B.I. counterintelligence official in the U.S. embassies in Moscow and Beijing. And he served Donald Trump loyally for two years in a GS-14 position at the White House. Triplett made no mention of why he left the F.B.I. before qualifying for the pension. What struck me most about Triplett was his willingness during the event to throw a rhetorical turd into the middle of the room and then to expect the audience to nod politely and agree with him.
On more than one occasion, he made completely unfounded statements about Julian Assange, only to then have the neoliberal Washington swells nod in agreement, despite having literally no evidence to back up his assertions. He said, choosing his language carefully, for example, that “When I look at anything Julian Assange has done over the years, whatever it is has the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.”
‘Hallmarks’ & ‘Earmarks’
Notice the language there. He didn’t say that Julian was a Russian agent. He didn’t say that WikiLeaks was working for or on behalf of the Russians. He said that it all had the hallmarks of something that Russian intelligence would do.
The language is meant, of course, to bring the DNC/MSNBC crowd over to his point of view. And judging by the reception he got, he was mostly successful.
Triplett’s disingenuous and damaging statements reminded me very much of an open letter published in October 2019 and signed by more than 50 retired senior C.I.A. and other Intelligence Community officials, saying that the Hunter Biden laptop “had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
They ignored the fact that Hunter Biden said that it was his laptop. These esteemed intelligence professionals offered no proof of an intelligence operation, of course, even though most, if not all, currently maintain their security clearances. They threw that same rhetorical turd into the middle of the room and expected all the rest of us to nod in agreement.
It wasn’t flunkies who signed this letter. It was otherwise serious people, including National Press Club conference host Hayden; former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; former Secretary of Defense and C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta (himself a well-documented leaker); torture-supporter and former C.I.A. Director John Brennan; torture apologist and former Acting C.I.A. Director Mike Morrell; among others.
They offered no proof of any ties between the Hunter Biden laptop and Russia, between Trump’s election as president in 2016 (which they went on about at length) and Russia, or between WikiLeaks and Russia.
We’re just supposed to take their word for it because they’re important, smart and well-placed. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the likes of these signatories say, when somebody disagrees with them, “Well, if you could only see the information that I see…,” or “If you had access to the information that I have access to … .”
It’s time to call a spade a spade. They’re lying. And they want us to believe their lies. I was at the C.I.A. too. I underwent the same training that they underwent. And if there was one thing the C.I.A. taught me, it was that if I was going to make a judgment or draw a conclusion, I had to offer proof. I wasn’t allowed to hide behind language like, “all the hallmarks of” or “leads me to believe…”. If you don’t have any proof, keep your mouth shut.
In the meantime, I was greatly heartened by the confidence that Pollack exuded at the National Press Club event. Julian Assange is in good hands. Barry will provide him with the best defense possible.
As for these other characters, it’s up to the rest of us to counter them and their propaganda. It’s up to us to demand the truth.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act—a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.
Oregon Eyes 2023 Crackdown On Illegal Marijuana Growers
Oregon lawmakers are looking to crack down on illegal marijuana growers who aren’t abiding by the state’s 2014 laws governing recreational use and cultivation.
Year-to-date, approximately 95 metric tons of illegally grown marijuana have been seized across the state, according to the Oregon-Idaho High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force. In 2019, they seized just 8 metric tons.
The 2014 legislation was supposed to eliminate problems caused by “uncontrolled manufacture” of the drug, however growers haven’t all magically agreed to the taxes and red tape that accompanied the legalization. Now, officials who have heard complaints from everyone from legal growers to the police are looking to crack down, AP reports.
Now, a draft bill set for introduction in the 2023 legislative session would double the maximum fine and prison sentence for illegal grows to 10 years and $250,000 for those growing more than 100 plants, or possession in excess of 32 times the legal limits.
The bill would also limit personal possession to 2 ounces of marijuana in a public place, and 8 ounces at home.
The measure also holds people accountable for environmental damage and prohibits use of water at locations not licensed for growing marijuana. Addressing immigrant labor, the draft bill makes it a crime for managers of an illegal grow site to confiscate a passport or immigration document, to threaten to report a person to a government agency for arrest or deportation, or withhold wages without lawful justification.
Some parts of Oregon have seen record seizures as police raid plantation after plantation. Police say foreign criminal gangs have become involved, from Mexico, Russia, China and other countries. -AP
In October, a single raid in Yamhill County yielded 76,930 pounds of marijuana – roughly $76 million worth, the largest pot bust on record. According to the report, the haul would be worth $269 million on the East Coast.
“Investigators found the entire property had been converted to facilitate the growth, storage, processing, and packaging of marijuana to be shipped or transported out of the area,” said the sheriff’s office.
And in another October raid, Oregon State Police, with the assistance of SWAT officers, raided a property in southern Oregon – destroying around 1,000 pounds of illegal, processed marijuana. Firearms, stolen vehicles and the carcass of a black bear were found in the raid.
The latest Twitter disclosures have raised potential legal liability for Twitter and its executives. No one appears more at risk than Twitter’s former CEO Jack Dorsey
It is an ironic turn of events since Dorsey supported the takeover by Elon Musk and has called for all files to be released without filtering. Dorsey has the feel of a “designated defendant,” someone who was pushed forward by others to take any legal hit.
On its face, Dorsey has vulnerability after the latest release. He was repeatedly asked by members of Congress about censoring and shadow-banning, which has now been confirmed in these files.
In September 2018, Dorsey testified under oath and denied what these files appear to now confirm. Rep. Mike Doyle, D., Pa., asked, “Social media is being rigged to censor conservatives. Is that true of Twitter?”
Dorsey responded, “No.”
Doyle then asked “Are you censoring people?”
“No,” Dorsey said.
“Twitter’s shadow-banning prominent Republicans… is that true?” Doyle asked.
Dorsey again said no.
Dorsey was also asked about my prior testimony on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment as a type of censorship by surrogate. Dorsey and the other CEOs were asked about my warning of a “‘little brother’ problem, a problem which private entities do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself.” In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.”
It now appears that the entire company was operating as a censoring department. However, there were in fact super-censors. Dorsey did not mention the Strategic Response Team-Global Escalation Team (SRT-GET), which operated above what journalist Bari Weiss described as “a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the rank-and-file moderators following the company’s policy on paper.”
That group reportedly included Vijaya Gadde, head of Legal, Policy and Trust; Yoel Roth, the global head of Trust and Safety; CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.
Notably, others at the company made similar denials as Dorsey but may not have done so under oath. In 2018, Gadde and head of product Kayvon Beykpour expressly declared, “We do not shadow-ban. And we certainly don’t shadow-ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
Even if untrue, lying in public is generally not a crime. However, when you repeat a lie to federal investigators or Congress or the courts, it becomes a federal offense.
The question is whether Dorsey was left in the dark on these decisions. He was reportedly a member of SRT-GET. However, some of the files indicate that these decisions may have been made without his knowledge. That includes the decision on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, which Dorsey called a “total mistake.”
Dorsey could quibble over the term “shadow-banning” but the question was obviously meant as a follow-up to the inquiry over “rigging” discourse on the platform. He could also stress other answers, where he tied “shadow-banning” to a more subjective notion of political bias. For example, Dorsey also repeated these statements in public, including an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox, when he was asked if “Twitter has ever been involved in shadow-banning, Dorsey again categorically denied such practices: “We do not shadow-ban according to political ideology or viewpoint.”
For most people, Dorsey’s comments clearly suggested that there was no shadow-banning. However, he could claim that he knew that they were shadow-banning but that they were not doing so “according to political ideology or viewpoint.” That is clearly refuted by the new files showing a hair-triggered censorship system directed against conservative and Republican posters.
The other defense is lack of knowledge but, even if accepted, that will raise the question of whether this was a case of a designated defendant or willful blindness.
In some cases, there is a suspicion that corporations will assign some executive to sign off on compliance or certifications as the fall guy or designated defendant if things go wrong. The chump is often a junior lawyer or executive who takes personal responsibility for certifying a false fact.
Dorsey is clearly no chump or junior executive. The question is then whether this was a case of willful blindness or an attempt by other executives like Gadde or Roth to give him plausible deniability by keeping him in the dark. He then became the public face in unequivocally and confidently denying practices like shadow-banning.
The greatest defense for Dorsey may be found in the Justice Department itself. Any prosecution of Twitter executives could prove a hard sell for Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose department has been repeatedly accused of pronounced political bias.
While Garland has aggressively pursued contempt sanctions against Trump associates, it is not clear if he would prove as aggressive with Democratic allies like Dorsey or other Twitter executives. He could face that question if the House under the GOP pursues perjury or contempt sanctions.
Dorsey once said about Twitter that “It’s really complex to make something simple.” He may now be hoping that his answers before Congress were simple enough to make any prosecution complex.
