So, we need to educate on WORLD HISTORY to understand the goals of MOVING FORWARD. Remember, these global banking 1% SHIP OF FOOLS have never been able to EVOLVE from thousands of years ago ECONOMIC policies of SACK AND LOOT civil societies---that is CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA working for foreign sovereignty of MALTA----KNIGHTS OF MALTA pre-Christian CATO/NERO/SENECA.
As we shout over and again---none of these policies are RELIGIOUS---KINGS AND QUEENS simply use religion for expanding wealth and power. Killing Western civilization to return to DARK AGES EASTERN HEMISPHERE civilization.
The Varangian Rus 1/3
Generally speaking, the Norwegians expanded to the north and west to places such as Ireland, Scotland, Iceland and…
This is why we are hearing on US national media and global NGOs pushing ONE WORLD SANCTUARY CITIES for moving 99% global labor pool into US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES for enslavement in third world global corporate factories and economic/government structures from DARK AGES.
Back in 500BC----500AD before Rome had been fully established the WORLD TRADE ROUTES were ancient Greece/ARABIA/southeast Asia/Eastern Europe/Asia. So, our NORDIC EUROPEAN NATIONS of Finland, Norway, Sweden were trading EAST to Russia. Our Greek, Arabic, Southeast Asian nations were trading EAST to Russia.
Hmmmmmm, the BRIC NATIONS forming an economic axis?
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES HAVE KNOWN THIS WAS THE MASTER PLAN OF US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES FROM 1980-90s---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----if you do not know this you attended a CORPORATE K-UNIVERSITY and not a REAL public K-university that teaches BROADLY to educate people to be CITIZENS. NIXON'S opening up of China to take our US corporations overseas to be enfolded into global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEEN'S multi-national corporations.
When continuous wars and sacking and looting are the top agenda of World Health/United Nations depopulation strategies which have been policies for 4000 years----there is no intention of PATH TO PEACE.
Belt and Road Initiative
From the Caucasus to the Balkans, China’s Silk Roads are rising
With its focus on Central Asia and Eastern Europe, the Belt and Road Initiative can be seen as fulfilling a strategy of challenging the West that can be traced back to Mao
By Pepe Escobar November 30, 2017 5:22 PM
The 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress made it clear that the New Silk Roads – aka, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – launched by President Xi Jinping just four years ago, provides the concept around which all Chinese foreign policy is to revolve for the foreseeable future. Up until the symbolic 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, in 2049, in fact.
Virtually every nook and cranny of the Chinese administration is invested in making the BRI Grand Strategy a success: economic actors, financial players, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the private sector, the diplomatic machine, think tanks, and – of course – the media, are all on board.
It’s under this long-term framework that sundry BRI projects should be examined. And their reach, let’s be clear, involves most of Eurasia – including everything from the Central Asian steppes to the Caucasus and the Western Balkans.
Representatives of no fewer than 50 nations are currently gathered in Tbilisi, Georgia, for yet another BRI-related summit. The BRI masterplan details six major economic “corridors,” and one of these is the Central Asia-West Asia Economic Corridor. That’s where Georgia fits in, alongside neighboring Azerbaijan: both are vying to position themselves as the key Caucasus transit hub between Western China and the European Union.
On the first day of the summit, Georgia’s Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili extolled the drive to “strengthen the economic and civilizational ties between Europe and Asia.” In practice, that translates into a push to build an economic free zone, in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed by the Chinese and Georgian economic ministers.
Add in the recently inaugurated Baku-Tblisi-Kars railway and a new deep-sea port to be built in Anaklia, in the Black Sea, with Chinese investment, and we have Georgia as a key logistical hub in China-EU connectivity. It helps that, thanks to the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) gas pipeline out of the Caspian Sea, Georgia has already been positioned for years as an energy transportation hub.
Crucially, Georgia has signed free trade agreements with both the EU and China, with the latter coming into effect at the start of 2018. It is also maneuvering itself to profit from the interconnection of BRI with the Russian-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). Beijing and Moscow formally signed the BRI/EAEU partnership in June last year – although it will take time for that to translate into actual trade and economic cooperation projects, possibly starting in the Russian Far East.
The action in the Caucasus was mirrored in Europe earlier in the week as Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban opened the sixth “16+1” summit, involving China and 16 Central and Eastern European nations, in Budapest.
“16+1” is yet another of those trademark Chinese diplomatic “away wins.” Some of these nations are part of the EU, some part of NATO, some neither.
From Beijing’s point of view, what matters is the relentless BRI infrastructure and connectivity drive. Beijing may have invested as much as US$8 billion so far in Central and Eastern Europe.
China is having a ball in the Western Balkans – especially in Serbia, in Montenegro, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where EU financial muscle is absent. China has invested in multiple connectivity and energy projects in Serbia – including the much-debated Belgrade-Budapest high-speed rail link. Construction of the Serbian stretch started this week, with 85% of the total cost (roughly €2.4 billion) coming from the Export-Import Bank of China.
The European Commission (EC) in Brussels predictably objected – claiming the tender process might not have complied with EU rules.
The strategic trade importance of Belgrade-Budapest cannot be overestimated. Think container fleets of Chinese merchandise arriving in Piraeus in Greece – a key hub of the so-called Maritime Silk Road – and then being shipped to the EU via Serbia.
In the midst of this frenzy of connectivity, it’s easy to overlook a significant historical point: that it was all anticipated by Mao Zedong.
Scholar Chen Gang has stressed how most BRI-participating nations are not as developed, economically, as China. And they are “not just limited to the Eurasian continent, but will eventually cover all the ‘middle zone’ and ‘third world’ put forward by Mao in his ‘Three Worlds Theory.’”
Flashback to 1974. That’s when Mao described the world as being divided between superpowers (the US and USSR); intermediate powers (Japan, Europe, Canada); and exploited nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia, which Mao praised as constituting the forces against First World hegemony. Mao placed China in the third world – as Deng Xiaoping told the UN.
What’s fascinating is how Chen Gang interprets BRI not only as a sequel to China’s historical ties with the Third World, but also as opening a “new era of China’s Third World strategy.” He correctly states that US and EU elites worry that BRI will bring about “the erosion of their global influence and overseas interests.”
Chen Gang’s analysis touches on what, by now, is obvious: “The international game around BRI has just begun.” And it goes almost without saying that Beijing’s BRI-driven foreign policy strategy, by turbo-charging China’s cooperation with the ‘Global South,’ is leaving the US, at best, marginalized.
This is why we know MOVING FORWARD in China is doing the same----it is not embracing US social benefit policies like BASIC INCOME, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, LABOR UNION PROTECTIONS-----that is MYTH-MAKING AND PROPAGANDA. China is rebuilding its 500BC----500AD trade routes just as Russia and the Eastern block nations are doing the same. This is called an ECONOMIC AXIS ======and global banking 1% call this FLIPPING THE EARTH'S AXIS because our US and Western European first world developed nations having been the leader of economic and political power for two thousand years are now being killed ----and that power is shifting to EASTERN HEMISPHERE.
So, the Asian global 1%, Arabic global 1% and Eastern Europe global 1% are BFF----they are not fighting---they are trading partners.
FORGE A PATH TO PEACE------remember when FDR said United Nations was FORGING A PATH TO PEACE-----remember when John Lennon called MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ---FORGING A PATH TO PEACE----then remember how we have had continuous wars with 3 billion people killed this last century----all under the guise of creating a path to peace.
DEPOPULATION BY WAR IS WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION/UNITED NATIONS policy that will never go away.
Now, here is the catch-------today's highly developed, industrialized, and heavily populated global regions are the opposite of what existed in 500BC----500AD. Back then the economic and political goals were to get to where we have been these several centuries whether in Asia/Arabia/Europe. So, the plan is to IMPLODE all of that development from 500 AD to today and start over.
Now, Africa has always played second fiddle to ARABIA ---it had its northern African trade routes----it had a couple of ports along Eastern Africa as Ethiopia---but know what? Africa has been literally drained of all its natural resources having wealth---the only thing global banking 1% wants from Africa is that precious DEEP FRESH WATER AQUIFER to operate global corporate factories.
While the Americas and European 99% looked at FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES overseas in Asia as simply FAR AWAY----giving them no thought as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA rebuilt that global slave trade to those FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES these few decades----they are now MOVING FORWARD to being those enslaved as in Asia.
'filling Africa’s “infrastructure gap”' simply means for our 99% of African citizens to be recolonized by global banking 1%----ARABIC, EUROPEAN, ASIAN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE COME OUT IN FORCE BOTH RIGHT WING AND LEFT WING WHEN OUR US CONGRESS AND PRESIDENTS STARTED TO IGNORE US RULE OF LAW, US CONSTITUTION BACK IN 1980S----90S.
It is not too late to stop MOVING FORWARD---just do it.
AFRICA’S SILK ROAD----WORLD BANK
China and India’s New Economic Frontier
Harry G. Broadman
with contributions from
The dramatic new trend in South-South economic relations is transforming traditional patterns of economic development, and this is nowhere more evident than in African-Asian trade and investment flows. Indeed, while China and India emerge as economic giants in Asia, Africa is coming into its own, finding a vital role in this transformation.
As illustrated in
Africa’s Silk Road:
China and India’s New Economic Frontier,these new South-South economic relations present real opportunities—as well as challenges—to African countries. They also highlight the need for complementary reforms by China and India to support more vigorous African development.
In analyzing Africa’s intensifying relationships with China and India, Africa’s Silk Road examines the trends to date and considers the implications of these developments for the economic future of the African continent. The diagnosis cautions that the opportunities engendered by China and India’s trade and investment with Africa will not necessarily be con-
verted into growth and poverty reduction in the region.
A critical finding of the study is that it is not just the quantity of these trade and investment flows that matters—it is also the quality of the overall commercial relationships underlying as well as shaping these flows. Both African and Asian policy makers need to devise appropriate policy responses to make the quality of these relationships even better. For China
and India, the study points to the need for reform of policies that inhibit the potential export of Africa’s products. This includes, among other things, elimination of the escalating tariffs that make high valued-added exports from Africa commercially unviable in Chinese and Indian markets.
On the African side, the main challenge is how to make best use of the positive spillover effects that Asian investments are having on the continent. Clearly, improving the competitiveness of African domestic markets is a priority. So, too, is the creation of sound institutions, so that when commercial opportunities do arise they can be effectively exploited, taking advantage of knowledge and technology transfers and paving the way for job creation. Furthermore, while there is scope for African countries to apply certain aspects of the industrial policy measures utilized in Asia, the lessons from those experiences suggest that a cautious approach be adopted. In all of these cases the opportunity-challenge nexus is very much
a factor. In general, policies should help tilt the outcomes in favor of the opportunity side. Most important, reforms need to be country-specific.
We in the international development community also need to play a proactive role in supporting African countries to help strengthen their institutional capacities, improve governance and transparency--
particularly in the extractive and natural resources industries—and facilitate domestic economic adjustments to rising Chinese and Indian competition.
Africa’s Silk Road is the first of a new series of studies from the Africa Region of the World Bank Group. Forthcoming studies will focus on facing the continent’s growth challenge, developing African financial markets, and filling Africa’s “infrastructure gap.”
BRI-participating nations are BRAZIL/RUSSIA/INDIA-------BRIC -participating nations are the same plus China. Once we understand that those Western nations tied to CATHOLIC KINGS AND QUEENS----as BRAZIL is PORTUGAL -----SPAIN, ITALY, GERMANY, UK, as NORDIC AND SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS all tied to OLD WORLD EUROPEAN KINGS AND QUEENS under HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE--------all those Western nations' KINGS AND QUEENS will simply FLIP to RUSSIAN political and government including FLIPPING from ROMAN to Russian Orthodoxy. So, RUSSIA is the new world political/economic power---not because it won wars but because that was MOVING FORWARD all last century in US, Canada, UK, Europe. This is why again our US national media is making such a big deal out of PUTIN/RUSSIA creating WW3 civil unrest/civil wars.
When we allowed GLOBAL BANKING 1% to take our US economy when US FED was installed----when we allowed ROBBER BARON global 1% to drive our US economy we started MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES with these goals long in place.
'In the midst of this frenzy of connectivity, it’s easy to overlook a significant historical point: that it was all anticipated by Mao Zedong.
Scholar Chen Gang has stressed how most BRI-participating nations are not as developed, economically, as China. And they are “not just limited to the Eurasian continent, but will eventually cover all the ‘middle zone’ and ‘third world’ put forward by Mao in his ‘Three Worlds Theory.’”
THE THREE WORLDS THEORY by MAO is of course tied to MAO'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD which is tied to STALIN'S industrialization of USSR----all tied to global 1% from European and US --------ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ----GLOBAL 1% 'OUR REVOLUTION'. This is why in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----MAO'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD is the goal of our US MOVING FORWARD. This is not a Chinese economic plan----it was hatched by LEAGUE OF NATIONS/ONE WORLD OLD WORLD global 1% KINGS AND QUEENS.
Here we see international media which our US national media mirrors pretending these EASTERN TRADE ROUTE NATIONS ARE WEAK when they are the ones to be made EXCLUSIVE.
REAL left social progressive academics have been reading this WORLD AFFAIRS and FOREIGN AFFAIRS and WORLD BANK AFFAIRS for 40 years ---this is how we KNOW what MOVING FORWARD will look like and we know this article is FAKE NEWS trying to make all this seem current and not manufactured.
Always pretending MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD has to be met with more civil unrest/civil wars----or in this case WW3.
China and Russia: An Axis of Weak States
Gordon G. Chang WORLD AFFAIRS JOURNAL
When Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met for the fifth time last year—at the October APEC summit in Bali, Indonesia--the Chinese leader spoke about “the uniqueness of China-Russia relations.” Indeed, the ties between the two countries, as both Beijing and Moscow now perceive them, are truly one-of-a-kind. They view themselves in the same terms and see their interests as converging. Closer than they have been at any time since the early 1950s, China and Russia have embarked on a grand project—challenging the American-led international system.
As many have feared, these two large states, one bent on changing the world and the other perhaps simply obstructionist, are a formidable pair and can alter the international system, if not exactly as they please, then at least in ways that can shake its foundations. Yet despite appearances, China and Russia are weak states, and today’s narrative of resurgence could soon be replaced by the story line of decline. It is in decline, in fact, that they may find the alliance that has long eluded them.
A decade ago, when Beijing and Moscow started flexing their muscles, the “strategic partnership” both nations often talked about was mostly a mirage. True, they had signed a comprehensive “friendship and cooperation” treaty in 2001, yet their bond was weak. Then, both China and Russia saw their relations with the West—principally the United States—as more important than their ties with each other. In both capitals, there were thinkers who perceived the other to be the “ultimate strategic threat in the long-term,” as a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute termed it.
New members on the Arctic Council like China, India, and other Asian countries underscore the rush to secure energy and mineral resources and shorter trade routes.Moscow had settled its border with China not so much to improve relations with Beijing as to allow it to concentrate on historic foreign policy objectives along its western and southern frontiers. And its first moves in this regard were largely successful. The “energy superpower,” as it now identified itself, was able to use abundant oil and gas reserves to reassert dominion over the “near abroad” and regain influence in Western Europe.
On his way to establishing the Russian Federation as a major power, Putin made it clear there was little room for the Chinese at the heart of the global order as he conceived it. As late as 2011, he proposed the “Eurasian Union,” a grouping of nations once comprising the Soviet Union. He may have spoken of it as only “one of the poles of the modern world,” but in reality he saw it as closer to the center of the international system, “serving as an efficient link between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region.” As Putin imagined it, China would in effect merely be one of the parts of this system at one end of the world.
High prices for Russia’s hydrocarbons allowed its willful leader to pursue his great ambitions, and the resulting geopolitical competition with China essentially ensured that relations with Beijing remained troubled. Not only did the two nations intensify their rivalry in Central Asia and the Middle East, they faced off on Russian territory, in the country’s Far East, which became the most fundamental irritant in Sino-Russian relations.
This continent-sized area, stretching from Lake Baikal to the Pacific Ocean, was then home to fewer than seven million Russian citizens, and it was depopulating faster than other parts of the shrinking nation. At the end of last decade, demographers had projected that by 2015 the number of Russians would fall to perhaps as few as four and a half million.
The story was different on the Chinese side of the boundary. East of Mongolia and abutting Russia are three Chinese provinces that contain almost a hundred million residents. Ambitious and restless Chinese left overcrowded villages and headed to the wide-open Russian plains. The migrants, legal and not, benefited their new homeland, driving the economy there by trading goods, farming the soil, marrying Russians, and working hard.
Xenophobic Russians, who often spoke of the “yellow peril,” always believed Beijing was using the migrants to promote a “Sinification” that would ultimately result in the annexation of the Russian Far East. Moscow’s concerns were stoked by irredentist Chinese officials, who from time to time grumbled about the “lost territory” in reference to portions of Russia’s Far East, including Vladivostok, once ruled by the Manchus, whom the Chinese of today consider to be their own kin. The tottering Manchu Qing dynasty ceded the area to czarist Russia in two “unequal treaties”—as the Chinese define the agreements—in 1858 and 1860.
In a series of deals, the last signed in July 2008, the two sides finally delineated their border, the fifth-longest in the world at almost two thousand seven hundred miles. Yet both the Russians and the Chinese know that no line separating rivals is ever really final.
Moscow’s deep-seated insecurity over the border is why the tie-up between Russia’s state-owned Rosneft with China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), announced in October 2013, was truly the “breakthrough” deal it was called. After years of recalcitrance, Putin finally agreed to Beijing’s demand for an equity stake in a lucrative oil field in Eastern Siberia. It was not the first time that Russia had agreed to give the Chinese an ownership interest in an energy field—that occurred in 2006—but it was by far the most significant. The Rosneft-CNPC arrangement, in all probability, will accelerate China’s penetration of the sparsely settled Far East and perhaps give Beijing a platform to reach into the Russian heartland itself.
Why the Russian change of heart? The Wall Street Journal reported that the arrangement was “a sign that Moscow is overcoming its fear of Chinese encroachment on Russia’s Far East.” It’s more likely that facts on the ground convinced the Kremlin that it had no alternative but to give the Chinese what they wanted. In short, the Rosneft-CNPC contract signals a turning point in which Beijing has gained, now and for the foreseeable future, the upper hand.
The fundamental problem for Russia is that Putin, during his three terms as president and one as prime minister, has done little to diversify the economy away from oil and gas exports. Since his pretensions to global power always rested on the price of hydrocarbons, the consequences of that inaction are visible now that global prices for gas are tumbling due to the US-led shale boom, and oil is beginning to follow the downward trend, which could last decades. Russia is already feeling the effect. “Alarming” is the one word heard in Moscow in recent months to describe the stagnating Russian economy. Putin himself used the term in April.
At the same time that oil and gas prices are falling, energy customers are looking beyond Russian suppliers. Europe is finding new sources of natural gas, and Asia is turning to North and South American fields. As a result, writes Daniel Graeber of OilPrice.com, “the Russian economy is starting to retreat behind the former Iron Curtain.”
These trends have made Russia look east. “Geopolitically, Russia realizes it has to work with China,” notes Ildar Davletshin of Moscow-based Renaissance Capital. Significantly, Moscow and Beijing, at the time of the announcement of the Rosneft deal in October, agreed to greater diplomatic cooperation and coordination, perhaps best symbolized by the signing of twenty-one cooperation agreements by Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev and his counterpart, Premier Li Keqiang. “Bilateral relations have never reached such high levels,” said Medvedev while in Beijing.
Will the Chinese-Russian “strategic entente” endure? Despite some skepticism in the international community, there are reasons to believe that it will. For one thing, Moscow’s perceptions of its own weakness have been largely responsible for its move to improve ties with Beijing, and those perceptions will last for as long as the Russian economy flounders.
Moreover, the Chinese, for their part, will value their Russian friends more as time progresses. At the moment, the opposite is thought to be true in some quarters, that Beijing will see less and less value in a declining Russia and that a China owning the twenty-first century will not need Moscow except perhaps as a source of oil and gas, which it will be forced to sell the Chinese whether or not they are friendly.
Just as Russian economic weakness is driving Putin toward the Chinese, it is also making Russia attractive to a China that finds it hard to form alliances but nonetheless realizes it needs friends, even distant ones. President Obama’s critics may see his “pivot” to Asia as “unresourced” and “hollow,” but for the Chinese it is real and an unmistakable warning that Washington is beginning to reevaluate overly generous China policies. In Putin, Beijing’s policymakers not only see someone who shares their general outlook and is willing to poke Washington in the eye, but also someone with enough of a sense of history to accept the role of pliable junior partner. Last decade, it was Putin who kept the Chinese at arm’s length. In the last couple of years, however, he has adopted a far more conciliatory attitude. As he said of Beijing in April 2012, “We do not have a single irritating element in our ties.”
Washington may find it odd that China should seek to fortify its relations with a sinking Russia rather than with the United States, but as nationalism replaces prosperity as the Communist Party’s primary basis of legitimacy, it becomes increasingly difficult for Beijing’s leaders to embrace their counterparts in either the liberal democracies or the many neighbors with which China has territorial disputes. At the moment, Beijing maintains expansive land and sea claims against an arc of nations from India in the south to South Korea in the north. Furthermore, its ambitions to close off the international waters of the South China Sea bring it into conflict with seafaring nations, especially the US, which has for more than two centuries protected freedom of navigation.
On the other hand, there is virtually no strand of anti-Russian political thought in Beijing. With President Xi’s public campaigns promoting both Marxism and Maoism, the fashion is to lament the passing of the Soviet Union and express pity for a Russia that has, in the view of the Chinese elite, fallen from superpower status to a power of second or third rank. “Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse?” Xi has been quoted as asking during an internal party meeting in December 2012. “An important reason was that their ideals and convictions wavered.” Russia is an object lesson as well as an ally.
Xi’s view of the Soviet demise is incorporated into a documentary that party cadres are now forced to watch. In Memory of the Collapse of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, jointly produced by a Communist Party organ and the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, blames the disintegration of the USSR on Mikhail Gorbachev’s attempt to introduce Western-style political reforms, the relaxation of the Soviet party’s monopoly on ideology, and Boris Yeltsin’s privatization of state entities.
The lessons of Memory of the Collapse are buttressed by those of a more recent film from October—General Liu Yazhou’s Silent Contest, a screed co-produced by the National Defense University, the Army General Staff, and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The film mourns the Soviet Union and in virulent terms attacks the US for trying to cause a Soviet-type failure in China. Liu is reputed to be a progressive—he penned a controversial essay in 2010 arguing that China must adopt American-style democratization or face a Soviet fate—so his participation in this officially sponsored rant is a sign the party is demanding conformity with its pro-Moscow/anti-US views.
In the 1950s, the Chinese proudly said, “today’s Soviet Union is tomorrow’s China,” and this sense of familial closeness has survived to this day, even if the prediction itself has been discarded. With America essentially identified as China’s geopolitical opponent, it is only natural that Xi finds Putin a natural ally, and that Beijing’s recent foreign policy initiatives show increasing coordination with the Kremlin.
The issue highlighting the closeness of the relationship is, of course, Syria. China and Russia vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions on the Syrian civil war, and when the Obama administration threatened military action over the use of chemical weapons last year they worked the back channels and press podiums to protect the regime they both had an interest in preserving. Moscow and Beijing even dispatched warships to the eastern Mediterranean in a maneuver that looked like a warning to the US Navy and NATO vessels in the area.
And when they had gotten their way, Presidents Putin and Xi jointly took to the world stage to announce their triumph on Syria. At the Bali summit, the Russian leader cited “coordinated decisions” as a primary example of how the two capitals were strengthening their relations and projecting a new power. His Chinese counterpart said the Syrian matter was an instance of how China and Russia “are cooperating very closely to resolve urgent and acute international and regional issues.” “Syria,” correctly notes Arthur Dong of Columbia University, “is symbolic.”
It is also a preview of things to come. Russia and China are working together to protect the theocratic Iranian regime, a sign that in the Middle East and Persian Gulf China and Russia are moving from competition to cooperation. But it is in Asia where the two countries are most overtly pursuing their collaboration, acting through the Beijing-launched Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which the Chinese see as their own NATO. And in October, President Xi invited Moscow, in the words of the official Xinhua News Agency, to join China in guaranteeing “security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.”
At a time when Russia is in obvious decline, the invitation to play a broader role is welcome. Xi’s overture, even if insincere, is noteworthy because Beijing has almost never asked other nations to cooperate with its grand designs. If nothing else, it indicates the degree to which China sees Moscow as “the ideal candidate” for the role as Beijing’s “global partner,” as Tian Chunsheng of the State Council’s Russian Development Research Center put it.
This cementing of ties means the US could find itself facing a formidable Sino-Russian alliance in another multi-decade geopolitical struggle played out across continents. Of course, the outcome of that contest could very well hinge upon how durable the China-Russia combination proves to be.
In the Cold War, an insecure and angry Beijing abandoned Moscow and joined Washington. Now the Chinese look like they are switching sides again, and to make matters worse, their rise looks inexorable. The concern, therefore, is that this time the US and the liberal democracies will be overwhelmed by a China-Russia alliance.
Yet this partnership may in fact be one of a paper tiger and bear. For one thing, neither China nor Russia stands for anything more than its own narrow self-interest. They may denigrate the notions of freedom and democracy, but neither has any philosophical alternative to offer.
Moreover, their emerging partnership may be built on a shaky foundation. That Russia is deeply troubled in terms of its economy and regime legitimacy is clear. Perhaps less obviously but no less inexorably, the People’s Republic is also beginning to experience challenges posed by, among other things, accelerated demographic decline, a degraded environment, and worsening racial and ethnic turmoil.
The most immediate problem confronting Beijing, however, is the economy, which for more than three decades had been the motor of its rise. Its state-led economic model is clearly exhausted as official growth rates continue to fall. Government investment is increasingly inefficient, resulting in a dangerous buildup of debt, and property bubbles around the country are threatening to burst. Manufacturing, the pride of China since the 1950s, is stagnant, and the service sector may not be nearly as big or vibrant as Beijing’s statistics portray it to be. Tellingly, the number of jobs in China is beginning to shrink, a sure sign of danger, and Chinese enterprises are investing abroad in large part because opportunities at home are lacking.
The essential problem for the party is that entrenched interests are blocking reforms that are necessary for growth. Therefore, the prospects for a broad-based and long-lasting recovery in China are narrowing. Should the economy continue to erode, the Chinese leadership could very well find itself in much the same position as Putin is in now. And just as Putin turned to China when his economy turned sour, it is possible Xi will lock China’s destiny to Russia’s even more tightly for the same reason. The two countries, after all, have complementary economies: one is a manufacturing powerhouse with few natural resources and the other is the mirror opposite.
Nonetheless, the best economic partner for Beijing is America, which created the framework for China’s ascent and for decades eased and encouraged its entry into the international system. Today, the world’s two largest economies interact in many ways, to the benefit of both. But since Xi Jinping’s elevation as Communist Party leader in November 2012, his emphasis on reactionary thought, not to mention his signature call for “ideological purification,” is a warning that theory-based politics can push China in many wrong directions.
So, despite everything, his country’s pairing with Russia could be durable because it fits well with Xi’s notion that the Chinese Communist Party must hold fast to its “ideals and convictions,” what he said the Soviets foolishly abandoned. This would not be the first time in history that the People’s Republic—or China, for that matter—has rejected modernity.
With the FLIPPING OF EARTH'S AXIS------the economic/political axis our Western Europe, US and AMERICAs will be mentioned only as those distant FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES third world global factories filled with global labor pool 99% ----and US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE able to find work with the few billion others forced to live as SURVIVOR on the Hollywood TV series. This is basically how our third world Asian 99% have lived these several decades not knowing what in the world was MOVING FORWARD.
Below we see an article too long to post but a good read telling us ARABIC shifting to East having been MOVING FORWARD these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
Turkey’s Shifting Axis to the East: Implications of Regional Integration with the Neighborhood*
Mustafa Acara,, Levent Aydın b,c,a
Professor of Economics, Aksaray University, Turkey
b Assist. Prof. Kırıkkale University, Turkey
This paper analyzes the impact of Turkey’s regional integration with the neighbourhood in an applied general equilibrium framework. The standard GTAP model has been extended to address the two main components of Turkey’s possible integration: mutual elimination of import tariffs and free movement of labor among regions. The results suggest that all regions (Turkey, Russia, Former Soviet Union and the Middle East) would experience welfare gain under trade liberalization policy reform. Labor mobility does not cause considerable changes in real GDP (less than 0.1 percent) through falling real wages in the labor exporting regions.
THE OBAMA DOCTRINE replaces the MONROE DOCTRINE------the MONROE DOCTRINE was written declaring the shores of United States to be protected against any INVADERS whether war or economic------OBAMA DOCTRINE ends that protection of US shores and moves all our defense to that of EASTERN EUROPE------RUSSIA et al. This is the shift from ROMAN CATHOLIC to RUSSIAN ORTHODOX moving our foreign sovereignty of MALTA to the EASTERN HEMISPHERE.
This article is also too long to post ----please Google and glance through to see what we knew ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FLIPPING OF ECONOMIC AXIS would look like several decades ago.
The Global Power Shift to Asia: Geostrategic and Geopolitical Implications
Subhash Kapila* 17 April 2012
Global power shifts are strategically and politically significant, as normally they are rare and chronologically well-spaced out. Global power shifts tend to displace or restructure existing international orders and are therefore prone to generating strategic and political turbulence.
The global strategic landscape and political and financial structures so far have been dominated by the United States and Europe. Asia remained dominated by European colonisation for nearly two centuries and was thereafter dominated by the United States comprehensively and strategically for another century.
Asia’s economic resurgence and cumulative financial strengths over the last two decades have largely contributed to the global shift of power to Asia. Today, Asia overshadows the United States and Europe in economic and financial strength. This has greatly contributed to Asia’s growing political leverages internationally.
In tandem with Asia’s economic resurgence has taken place the fast-track military modernisation and expansion of Asian military capabilities. The continued growth of Asian economic, political and military strengths have contributed to the emergence of Asia’s leading countries–China, India and Japan
–as global players on an ascending trajectory.
Global power no longer resides in the trans-Atlantic region. The global shift of power to Asia portends that an “Asia unbound” and consciousness of its comprehensive strengths
would now increasingly demand greater say in the strategic, political and economic future of the world.
In 2011-2012, the United States seems to have officially acknowledged the global shift of power to Asia, which the international strategic and political analysts had pointed out
for more than a decade. Acknowledging this global shift of power to Asia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted, “It is becoming increasingly clear that the world’s
strategic and economic center of gravity will be the Asia Pacific, from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of America.”
An assessment of military capabilities and defence economies, The Military Balance 2012 published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies comes to the same conclusion
–i.e. that global power has shifted to Asia.
The debate on global shift of power to Asia intensified after the global financial crisis of 2008. The reality that global power has shifted to Asia is undisputed but what is being contested is whether the United States as a result is in “absolute decline” or "relative decline."
The Obama Doctrine
of 2012 directing a United States strategic pivot to Asia Pacific
through the relocation of U.S. forces from Europe and reductions in the Middle East
further substantiates that the global shift of power to Asia is a matter of fact.
Significantly, unlike the essentially military challenges to the existing international order in the early twentieth Century by Germany and Japan, the current power challenges and
power shifts in global power are being generated fundamentally by Asia’s economic and financial strengths
– all contributing to significant Asian political leverages over the
established international order.
How Asia’s increased defence expenditures arising from growing economic strength shape Asia’s future strategic roles with greater strategic might really depends on whether the challenged current unipolar power, the United States, chooses to be adaptive or confrontational to Asia’s newfound power and military influence.
We wanted to post this VERY BORING ACADEMIC video for those of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE liking details. The article we posted yesterday discussing CONSTANTINE founding of BYZANTINE ISTANBUL TURKEY Eastern Orthodoxy has a long history of HISTORICAL FICTION-----just as our LONGFELLOW RIDE OF PAUL REVERE. Each nations' founding comes with MYTH-MAKING. What happened when CONSTANTINE moved headquarters from ROME to TURKEY? The FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE followed by DARK AGES. What happened to Roman Empire during DARK AGES? Those global banking 1% KINGS AND QUEENS looted and sack the empire's wealth and VOILA----we moved from DARK AGES into RENAISSANCE----extreme wealth extreme poverty. CONSTANTINE FLIPPED THE ECONOMIC AXIS building that Eastern hemisphere trade route.
Here is our old friend global banking 1% LITERARY FREEMASON STAR----Umberto Eco writing that novel---historical FICTION-----planting that seed of CONSTANTINE maybe never being killed---maybe there was never a REVOLUTIONARY WAR but simply a handing of BYZANTINE to GLOBAL % MUSLIM ISTANBUL. This is exactly how our US revolution is taught in REAL public K-university. That mid-night ride of PAUL REVERE----those BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR were written in poetry and novels ----HISTORICAL FICTION. There is no fiction to our US being made a sovereign nation----having 300 years of our 99% WE THE PEOPLE fighting for our freedom, liberty, justice, and pursuit of happiness---it is these founding MYTHS created by global banking OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'Byzantium, History, Spotlight
The immortal emperor: what happened to Constantine XI Palaeologus'?
So, ECO in BAUDOLINO creates that novel lying about the future producing history. This is what today's CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global banking 5% pols and players have been doing these few decades of MOVING FORWARD.
So, it just happened that around the fall of CONSTANTINOPLE/BYZANTINE TURKEY the KIEVAN PERIOD started----that 500AD Russian MOVING FORWARD from VISIGOTH/SCYTHIAN to NEW WORLD ORDER.
We are told by those OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS that this FLIPPING OF ECONOMIC AXIS will be the last.
The Kievan period
The Christian community that developed into what is now known as the Russian Orthodox Church is traditionally said to have been founded by the Apostle Andrew, who is thought to have visited Scythia and Greek colonies along the northern coast of the Black Sea. According to one of the legends, Andrew reached the future location of Kiev and foretold the foundation of a great Christian city. The spot where he reportedly erected a cross is now marked by St. Andrew's Cathedral.
grand prince of Kiev
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
See Article History
Alternative Titles: Saint Vladimir, Svyatoy Vladimir, Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Vladimir Veliky, Vladimir the Great, Volodymyr Sviatoslavych
Vladimir I, in full Vladimir Svyatoslavich or Ukrainian Volodymyr Sviatoslavych, byname Saint Vladimir or Vladimir the Great, Russian Svyatoy Vladimir or Vladimir Veliky, (born c. 956, Kiev, Kievan Rus [now in Ukraine]—died July 15, 1015, Berestova, near Kiev; feast day July 15), grand prince of Kiev (Kyiv) and first Christian ruler in Kievan Rus, whose military conquests consolidated the provinces of Kiev and Novgorod into a single state, and whose Byzantine baptism determined the course of Christianity in the region.
Vladimir was the son of the Norman-Rus prince Svyatoslav of Kiev by one of his courtesans and was a member of the Rurik lineage dominant from the 10th to the 13th century. He was made prince of Novgorod in 970. On the death of his father in 972, he was forced to flee to Scandinavia, where he enlisted help from an uncle and overcame Yaropolk, another son of Svyatoslav, who attempted to seize the duchy of Novgorod as well as Kiev. By 980 Vladimir had consolidated the Kievan realm from Ukraine to the Baltic Sea and had solidified the frontiers against incursions of Bulgarian, Baltic, and Eastern nomads.
Although Christianity in Kiev existed before Vladimir’s time, he had remained a pagan, accumulated about seven wives, established temples, and, it is said, taken part in idolatrous rites involving human sacrifice. With insurrections troubling Byzantium, the emperor Basil II (976–1025) sought military aid from Vladimir, who agreed, in exchange for Basil’s sister Anne in marriage. A pact was reached about 987, when Vladimir also consented to the condition that he become a Christian. Having undergone baptism, assuming the Christian patronal name Basil, he stormed the Byzantine area of Chersonesus (Korsun, now part of Sevastopol) to eliminate Constantinople’s final reluctance. Vladimir then ordered the Christian conversion of Kiev and Novgorod, where idols were cast into the Dnieper River after local resistance had been suppressed. The new Rus Christian worship adopted the Byzantine rite in the Old Church Slavonic language. The story (deriving from the 11th-century monk Jacob) that Vladimir chose the Byzantine rite over the liturgies of German Christendom, Judaism, and Islam because of its transcendent beauty is apparently mythically symbolic of his determination to remain independent of external political control, particularly of the Germans. The Byzantines, however, maintained ecclesiastical control over the new Rus church, appointing a Greek metropolitan, or archbishop, for Kiev, who functioned both as legate of the patriarch of Constantinople and of the emperor. The Rus-Byzantine religio-political integration checked the influence of the Roman Latin church in the Slavic East and determined the course of Russian Christianity, although Kiev exchanged legates with the papacy. Among the churches erected by Vladimir was the Desiatynna in Kiev (designed by Byzantine architects and dedicated about 996) that became the symbol of the Rus conversion. The Christian Vladimir also expanded education, judicial institutions, and aid to the poor.
Another marriage, following the death of Anne (1011), affiliated Vladimir with the Holy Roman emperors of the German Ottonian dynasty and produced a daughter, who became the consort of Casimir I the Restorer of Poland (1016–58). Vladimir’s memory was kept alive by innumerable folk ballads and legends.
So, Eastern Russia Orthodoxy was just getting a hold as Byzantinium was facing CONTINUOUS WARS heading into decline.
We do not educate on CATHOLIC SECTS ---we love all of our 99% of REAL Catholic citizens who simply want to worship their religious beliefs ignoring all these FLIPPING OF ECONOMIC AXIS BY OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. We want to remember that it is the 99% of REAL Catholic and Jewish citizens killed by the hundreds of millions these few thousand years that lets us know they are NOT WINNERS.
So, this is why we see in international and national media this constant imagery of TRUMP/PUTIN----TRUMP being that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% ROMAN KINGS AND QUEENS-----PUTIN being that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KEVIAN/RUSSIAN KINGS AND QUEENS.
Just as Eastern global 1% KINGS AND QUEENS did as US and Western Europe took the stage as FLIPPING THE ECONOMIC AXIS after 1492 -------they, like Constantine disappearing into the midst came to West -----now our Western OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS will disappear to the EAST.
This historical fictions surrounding KIEVAN RUS vs other national founding MYTH-MAKING are not important. One sells the idea that a NORDIC VIKING founding of RUSSIA---the others take the ARABIC BYZANTINE-----WHO CARES?
World War 3: Russia V USA - Trump could send weapons to UKRAINE in bid to force Putin back
PRESIDENT Trump is “actively reviewing” plans to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, according to the US defence secretary, as US relations with Russia look set to plummet even further.
By Will Kirby
PUBLISHED: 08:00, Fri, Aug 25, 2017 | UPDATED: 08:15, Fri, Aug 25, 2017
James Mattis said the US “stands with Ukraine” after the country’s president, Petro Poroshenko, said there are at least 3,000 Russian troops on Ukrainian soil.
The eastern European country has been reliant on support from Washington since a pro-Western government took power in 2014 after relations between Kiev and Moscow plummeted when Russia annexed Crimea.
Mr Mattis declared that Russia held up its end of the Minsk ceasefire agreement meant to end the separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine, and that the United States would maintain sanctions on Moscow.
He said: "Despite Russia's denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe.
"On the defensive lethal weapons, we are actively reviewing it, I will go back now having seen the current situation and be able to inform the secretary of state and the president in very specific terms what I recommend for the direction ahead.”
In a markedly different approach from the Obama administration, Mr Mattis went on to play down fears that supplying weapons could result in tensions reaching crisis point.
He added: ”Defensive weapons are not provocative unless you are an aggressor and clearly Ukraine is not an aggressor since it is their own territory where the fighting is happening.”
The Ukraine defence minister Stepan Poltorak said: “From the first day of the Russian aggression we appealed to all countries of the world to help us in the form of lethal weapons.”
President Trump made certain comments during his campaign trail last year, such as recognising Crimea as a part of Russia, which gave fears to the Ukraine that the US would build closer ties with Moscow.
But Mr Mattis said: “It’s not easy making a sovereign state, especially right now with the way Russia has been violating territorial integrity.”
Senator John McCain has also spoken out on the issue, calling on Trump to act.
He said: “It is long past time for the United States to provide Ukraine the defensive lethal assistance it needs to deter and defend against Russian aggression.”
According to US officials, a plan to provide defensive weapons to Ukraine has made its way to the White House but has not yet been given the all clear by President Trump. Thus far the Pentagon says it has provided a staggering £586million ($750 million) in non-lethal aid to Ukraine since 2015.
Michael Carpenter, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence for the region, said supplying weapons "will be a huge boost of support to Ukraine.
He added that the weapons under discussion cannot effectively be used to take territory, which means providing them would help stabilise the situation.
John became Ars Technica's science editor in 2007 after spending 15 years doing biology research at places like Berkeley and Cornell'.
Meanwhile--------the DOUBLE TALK on EARTH'S FLIPPING AXIS-----tied to science is the magnetic pole discussion and here we see yet another explanation of what may or may not be occurring. Know what? Before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA we could read our US scientific journals and KNOW THEY WERE RIGHT---we could see a consensus of scientists saying about the same thing----today after the corporatization of our US public universities we can read a different scientific opinion giving scores of different FAKE NEWS.
So, here is ARSTECHNICA------love their imagery -----they are global banking 1% ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID ---SMART CITIES. The history of flipping magnetic poles has seen many FLIPS with evidence the interruption to life on EARTH not that great-----so any FLIPPING of magnetic poles that may happen in several hundreds to a few million years would hit SMART CITIES TECHNOLOGY hardest ----while 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE are told to stay indoors as much as possible.
Again, the REAL left social progressive concern over FLIPPING OF EARTH'S MAGNETIC POLES will be centered on the effects of CENTER CORE magnetic rock mining by global banking 1% MOVING FORWARD to depleting the EARTH of all its magnetic rock. This will effect our EARTH's magnetic fields and by extension the protections from SOLAR AND GALACTIC HARMFUL RAYS.
Well, if global banking 1% strip our EARTH's core of magnetic rock then indeed there may never be a FLIP in future.
What will happen if the core of the Earth cools down?
Sahaj Ramachandran, Amateur astronomer
Answered Dec 29, 2015 ·
The Earth's core is indeed cooling down, but it will take billions of years to completely to do so. But what would happen if the core was frozen solid?
For one, Earthquakes would not occur, nor would volcanoes be active. It may seem to be a good thing, but for humans and other organisms that utilize minerals, it is a bad thing in the long run. Without a molten core, churning up of minerals, especially to the surface, would not have happened. And this is very crucial. Especially to many human civilizations.
But that is not the main problem. Without a molten core, Earth's magnetic field would no longer exist. Without it, the beautiful light streaks (Auroras) seen at the polar region would not exist. That's the least of our problems. The magnetic field acts as a shield to the Earth from harmful radiations, especially those from the sun. We would be burned. The molten core of the Earth is crucial in sustaining life.
Flip or flop? --Earth’s magnetic field may not be flipping
While the magnetic field is changing, geology suggests our poles won't trade places.
John Timmer - 5/1/2018, 11:05 AM
Going back millions of years into Earth's history, our planet's magnetic field has frequently gone its own way. The magnetic north pole has not only wandered through the north, but it has changed places with the south magnetic pole, taking up residence in the Antarctic. Going back millions of years, there's a regular pattern of pole exchange, with flips sometimes occurring in relatively rapid succession.
In those terms, our current period of pole positioning is unusually long, with the last flip occurring nearly 800,000 years ago. But the magnetic field has grown noticeably weaker since we started measuring it more than a hundred years ago. The poles have wandered a bit, and there's an area of even more dramatic weakening over the South Atlantic. Could these be signs that we're due for another flip?
Probably not, according to new research published with the refreshingly clear title, "Earth’s magnetic field is probably not reversing." In it, an international team of researchers reconstructs the history of some past flips and argues that what's going on now doesn't much look like previous events.
The work relies on reconstructing the global magnetic field tens of millions of years ago. Whenever rock is formed—from sediment deposits or volcanic eruptions, for example—the Earth's magnetic field influences how small particles of magnetic materials line up within the newly formed rock. That influence gets locked into place as a magnetic signature in the rock, one we can read today. Combine that with rocks we can get dates on, and it's possible to tell what Earth's magnetic field was doing in the distant past.
But, as we mentioned above, the Earth's magnetic field isn't entirely uniform; it changes location and can develop weak points. To get a more complete picture, the researchers pulled out data on the magnetic field's strength and orientation from around the globe. This was then plugged into a global model, which took locational information into account to build an estimate of the entire magnetic field's strength during the period of two reversals.
The period covered was between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago. We mentioned earlier that the magnetic field has had the same orientation for nearly 800,000 years, so this would seem like a rather dull period. But the reality is that the Earth's magnetic field has only had that orientation for most of the time. About 41,000 years ago, there was something called the Laschamp event, where the field reversed for only about 500 years. It also covered something called the Mono Lake excursion, where the poles shifted positions dramatically before returning to closer to the geographic poles.
The good news?
In neither of the events did the magnetic field look much like it looks today. Rather than still having strong poles (as we currently do), the magnetic field as a whole was relatively weak. And, rather than having a single area of weakening as we currently see, there were multiple areas around the globe, including near the equator, where the local magnetic field reversed shortly before the entire planet's field flipped. During this time, the elevated presence of some specific atomic isotopes indicate that the weakened magnetic field allowed more cosmic rays to reach the surface.
Flips that were flops
But the changes during these times were often rapid, so we shouldn't be entirely confident that what we're seeing might not suddenly resolve into something new and more similar to earlier events. But researchers, as their paper's title implies, don't think that will be the case. And that's because their model has identified a couple of times when the magnetic field looked a lot like the current one, and there wasn't a flip.
These occurred 48,500 and 46,300 years ago. In both cases, there was an area of low magnetic field intensity in the Southern Hemisphere; in one case, it was centered over the South Atlantic, and on the other it was just to the west, on the far side of South America. At least one of these corresponds to a period of elevated production of some specific isotopes, again suggesting that the field had weakened.
So the authors argue that these are the real analogs of our current situation, and they resolved without a big flip. "We infer that for excursions to occur," they write, "a weakening of the field across much of the globe spreading from multiple sources is required, and not just localized weakening expanding from an South Atlantic Anomaly-like feature."
And that's relatively good news. In addition to the possibility that a pole flip would make countless compasses obsolete, the increased cosmic rays allowed into the atmosphere by a weakened magnetic field could also cause problems. That's because, in addition to creating some new isotopes, this sort of radiation can damage DNA. There has been a semi-regular worry about the prospect that a magnetic pole reversal would burden life on Earth with a greatly elevated rate of mutations, so this study is reassuring.
Less reassuring, however, is the fact that the researchers identified a few additional periods where production of these isotopes spiked without anything obvious going on in the magnetic field. There are clearly some things we still need to get a handle on.