Cold War schemer: Reminiscing in its past ‘victory,’ US brings color revolutions to 21st century to maintain its hegemony

 

Editor's Note:

Since the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine began, the international community has grown increasingly aware of the roles the US and NATO have played behind the crisis.

From launching color revolutions around the world to leading NATO's eastward expansion to hem in Russia's territorial space; from imposing sanctions on "disobedient countries" to coercing other nations to pick sides… the US has acted like a "Cold War schemer," or a "vampire" who creates "enemies" and makes fortunes from pyres of war. The Global Times is publishing a series of stories and cartoons to unveil how the US, in its superpower status, has been creating trouble in the world one crisis after another.

This is the fourth installment.

Supporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFP -Anti-government protestors wait at the entrance of a barricade in front of the Dynamo Kiev stadium in Ukraine on February 23, 2014. Photo: AFP

On the evening of December 25, 1991, the hammer and sickle flag representing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was slowly lowered over the Kremlin, and the flag of the Russian Federation in white, blue, and red was raised on the same flagpole.

The change of flags signified the official disintegration of the Soviet Union, which had existed for 74 years, as well as the end of the 44-year Cold War.

There were no ceremonies held in Moscow that night, just the dull tolls of bells from Spasskaya Tower from across the Kremlin. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific, Americans proclaimed internationally how they had defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War victory.

It has been 31 years since this period in history, and several major changes have taken place in the world order and international patterns. However, these have not dispelled the arrogance of the US enraptured in the title "winner of the Cold War" and its overconfidence in the "maker of history" conclusion.

Standing at the start of the third decade of the 21st century, people can witness how American politicians still view every country considered to be a threat through the Cold War lens. They are still keen to incite ideological hostility and battle their own imaginary enemies, which makes the dissipation of the dark Cold War clouds virtually impossible. The shadow of the Cold War has spread from Washington to Beijing and Moscow.

From disintegrating the Soviet Union to designing the "Ukrainian Trap" step by step with the intention of achieving the strategic goals of "eliminating" Russia, suppressing Europe, containing China and maintaining an absolute hegemony, the "strategic master plan" adopted by the US can kill many birds with one stone in order to dominate the world.

The US is still a schemer that harbors a Cold War mentality.

US plays 'central role' in political demise of Soviet Union

"NATO is a defensive alliance that has never sought the demise of Russia," said US President Joe Biden, defending the eastward expansion of NATO in a speech he delivered in Warsaw on March 26, but turning a blind eye to the "not one inch eastward" pledge that NATO had made in the 1990s. Biden's words were not a complete lie, as there's little possibility of trying to eliminate (or, achieve the demise) of a nuclear world power with more than 17 million square kilometers of land and a permanent seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council.

A physical "demise" of Russia is almost impossible. Nonetheless, the US-led NATO has been attempting to "eliminate" Russia in the past decades in various aspects including politically, economically, culturally, and ideologically, in order to keep dividing and weakening Russia, observers noted. Having acted out a similar script on the Soviet Union, the US is now looking forward to an encore performance on present-day Russia.

"The American role in the political defeat of the Soviet Union... was indeed central," Zbigniew Brzezinski, a renowned US geopolitical expert who served as President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, pointed out in his book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. "The defeat of the Soviet Union was the consequence of a forty-year bipartisan effort that spanned the presidencies," he wrote. "...almost every US President made a substantial contribution to the outcome."

A prominent example of this "effort" was the US' Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as the "Star Wars program," which was proposed by then US President Ronald Reagan in March 1983. The US proposed the program to try to maintain its nuclear superiority, hoping to bring the Soviet Union's economy to its knees through space arms races.

The US announced the end of the program after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The release of the secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents in the Cold War era showed that the "Star Wars program" that the US had hyped was no more than a calculated strategic deception.

Another "Cold War tool" resorted by the US was its foreign propaganda machine system, such as the Voice of America (VOA). Founded in 1942, VOA began to serve the US' Cold War strategy after WWII, and became the main tool for the US government's promotion to the Soviet people of, not only the American way of life but also the principles of the "free world."

In the 21st century, the US still wields its ideological "soft knife," playing up its color revolution intrigues under the disguise of "democratic values" to countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Tunisia, which only brought about three instances of political turmoil, mass impoverishment and war.

US engrossed in creating purported enemies

The end of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union did not bring about an end to the US' Cold War mindset, which continues to haunt the White House, Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and the CIA even today. American politicians view the international situation through a "zero-sum game" and "ideological competition" mindset, and keep seeking out purported enemies - now Russia and China.

It is truly a reflection of the US' geopolitical strategic ambition when former US President Barack Obama said that "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors" or when the incumbent, Biden, said Russia is the country that most "threatens [the] security" of the US while China is US' main competitor. There has long been an anti-Russian consensus among America's political elites.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia had pinned great hopes for the West. But as former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "We lied, we cheated, we stole… we had entire training courses" and "It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." That encompasses reasons why an ambitious schemer cannot be trusted. 

  

https://youtu.be/DPt-zXn05ac

From 1999 to 2020, NATO increased its membership from 16 to 30 through an eastward expansion, completing the 3,000-kilometer-long strategic encirclement of Russia.

Since 2014, Russia has been slapped with 5,532 sanctions, according to sanctions monitoring database Castellum.ai, followed by Iran, Syria and North Korea. And Moscow has been subjected to 2,778 new sanctions in less than two weeks since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops' advancement into Ukraine.

At the same time, the US has been trying to undermine Putin's domestic authority, paving the way for a potential "color revolution" in Russia.

Who set the 'Ukraine trap'

Analysts point out that the current situation in Ukraine is a trap that the US has spent years digging into and is determined to draw Russia into.

To prevent Russia from becoming a threat to US hegemony again, the US has promoted two "color revolutions" in Ukraine, first by putting the pro-West Viktor Yushchenko in the presidency in 2005 and then forcing pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych out of office in 2014.

At the same time, NATO's continuous eastward expansion further pushed Russia ever closer to the set trap.

Since August 2021, the US government has been speculating about Russian troops along the border with Ukraine and the possibility of an "imminent invasion" of Ukraine, which further provoked Russia.

It is almost certain that not only does the US want to deter Russia, but it also wants Russia to send troops to Ukraine, said Tang Shiping, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, adding that the real purpose of the US' actions was to force Russia to use force against Ukraine.

Supporters of US-backed Ukrainian opposition leader wave flags during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine on November 28, 2004. Photo: AFP

The tactic of weakening Europe's strategic autonomy by putting it in a dangerous situation, a tactic that the US always used during the Cold War, is being played out again in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In this gradual escalation of the situation in Ukraine, the US continues to provide funds and weapons to Ukraine and impose a full range of sanctions on Russia. The sense of crisis created by the US has also strengthened Europe's dependence on the US and NATO, thus greatly enhancing the US' chokehold over Europe, experts noted.

Complex security issues should not be dealt with in a simplistic approach of determining whether "friend or foe" or "black or white," said Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi during a virtual meeting with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell Fontelles on March 29, 2022. "Facts have proven that the outdated Cold War mentality and camp confrontation leads nowhere in Europe, let alone the acts of taking sides and dividing the world," Wang noted.

Dragging the Cold War to the 21st century

"After 1991, the Cold War did not really end, as the US and NATO have not stopped strategically hemming Russia's territorial integrity. In recent years, the US has also regarded China as its main competitor, trying to shape an external environment that is not conducive to China's development through various means," Lü Xiang, a research fellow on US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times.

American politicians not only harbor a "Cold War mentality," but also continue to promote a new "Cold War strategy."

Robert Gates, former secretary of defense, wrote in the Washington Post on March 3 that "A new American strategy must recognize that we face a global struggle of [an] indeterminate duration against two great powers that share authoritarianism at home and hostility to the United States."

The two countries Gates refers to are undoubtedly Russia and China. Containing them and ensuring that no one can shake US' hegemony has become the core of the US' current global strategy.

"NATO members have demonstrated their loyalty to Washington by vowing to follow its orders aimed at ultimately containing Russia," the Russian Foreign Ministry's spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on March 24, adding that Washington once again "disciplined" its allies by pressuring sovereign countries and erasing Europe's strategic autonomy.

Supporters of Pro-Russian groups protest during US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin' visit in Bulgaria on March 19, 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: AFP

In terms of China, the US government has introduced the "Pivot to Asia" and the "Indo-Pacific strategy," and has united with Japan, India, Australia, and other countries in the region to consolidate small strategic cliques such as "QUAD" and "AUKUS," trying to contain China from multiple directions.

Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, summed up that the competition between the US and China will be all-rounded, involving governments and societies; in-depth competition could lead to a serious weakening or even decoupling of China-US ties in the fields of industrial chain, science and technology, and people-to-people and cultural exchanges; in terms of intensity, competition is extraordinary.

"Since President Joe Biden entered the White House a year ago, he and his top advisers have insisted they are not looking for a return to the superpower competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that dominated global affairs for nearly five decades. Yet one year into his presidency, Biden's actions have indicated otherwise," a commentary published on the US National Interest website stated, adding that in all areas of US foreign policy, the Biden administration has a Cold War-style mentality.

"The Cold War was not a golden era of foreign relations, but instead was a tragedy that cost millions of lives around the world. Washington cannot fall for feel-good nostalgia about its Cold War victory," it stated

Source link.

RELATED ARTICLES

 

Instability brewer: Behind every war and turmoil in the world is shadow of the Star-Spangled Banner

In order to seek global hegemony, the US has used many resources including political, economic, cultural, educational, and ...

Ukraine crisis instigator: US-led NATO reneges on ‘Not one inch eastward’ promise to compress Russia’s space to the extreme

Since the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine began, the international community has become increasingly aware of the ...

Unmasking The Superpower: Vampires in the war

Amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict, arms dealers have made a big fortune in the ongoing war, and financial predators ...

 

Related posts:

 

US hegemony: the culprit of Ukraine crisis, benefiting from Ukraine’s misfortune

  The Ukrainian side has seen China’s neutral position on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine   The US’ attitude will be the biggest obs...

 

Calls on EU to form independent policy, encourages bloc to take primary role for Ukraine resolution

    China EU Photo:VCG China-EU leaders' meetings send positive signal towards world peace, development: Vice FM     Chinese President ...

 

That sinking feeling from Down Under: Australia, United Kingdom and United States (Aukus) pact

AUKUS plans to provide nuclear submarines to Australia seriously endangers nuclear non-proliferation

Asean nations caught in a quandary over AUKUS Pact 

 

AUKUS plans to provide nuclear submarines to Australia seriously endangers nuclear non-proliferation

 

Beyond the submarine feud, contains China's rise 

 

'We lied, we cheated, we stole', ‘the Glory of American experiment’ by US Secretary of State/Ex-CIA director Mike Pompeo

 
 

 

 

SAVING FUE AS PRICES AT PUMPS SOAR

 Money-saving fuel tips for drivers as petrol and diesel costs rise

Calls on EU to form independent policy, encourages bloc to take primary role for Ukraine resolution

 

 

China EU Photo:VCG

China-EU leaders' meetings send positive signal towards world peace, development: Vice FM

   

Chinese President President Xi meets with European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen via video link at the 23rd China-EU leaders' meeting on April 1, 2022. Photo: Xinhua

Chinese President Xi Jinping, during a video meeting with EU leaders on Friday, offered four suggestions on how China and the EU can cooperate to help with the current Ukraine crisis, especially on supporting the EU play a primary role in promoting communication among the EU, the US and NATO and finding solutions to build an effective and sustainable EU security framework.

Observers said that China is offering pragmatic solutions to the EU while encouraging the EU to be diplomatically independent on the Ukraine crisis; and instead of pressuring China to join in sanctioning Russia and being kidnapped by the US, the EU should take control of its own destiny and take action for its security.

President Xi met with European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen via video link at the 23rd China-EU leaders' meeting on Friday and exchanged views on bilateral cooperation and the Ukraine crisis.

China finds it deeply regrettable that the situation in Ukraine has come to where it is today. China's position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear-cut. China always stands on the side of peace and draws its conclusions independently based on the merits of each matter.

While offering suggestions to help with the Ukraine crisis, Xi said that China supports the EU's efforts toward a political settlement of the Ukraine issue, and has been encouraging peace talks in its own way. China will stay in touch with the EU to prevent a bigger humanitarian crisis.

Xi noted that the root cause of the Ukraine crisis is regional security tensions in Europe that have built over the years. A fundamental solution is to accommodate the legitimate security concerns of all relevant parties. China supports Europe, especially the EU, in playing a primary role, and supports Europe, Russia, the US and NATO in holding dialogue to face up to the tensions that have built up over the years and find solutions for a balanced, effective and sustainable security framework in Europe.

Xi also pointed out that China and the EU need to commit themselves to keeping the situation under control, preventing a spillover of the crisis, and, most importantly, keeping the system, rules and foundation of the world economy stable, to bolster public confidence.

Xi's four proposals on the Ukraine crisis are pragmatic and rational, and take into account the long-term considerations. Since the crisis has already taken place, the key was not to emotionally blame each other but to offer practical solutions, Wang Yiwei, director of the institute of international affairs at the Renmin University of China, told the Global Times.

Xi's proposals highlighted the potential cooperative areas for China and the EU to help ease the situation based on the consensus that both China and the EU called for a ceasefire and peace talks, Wang said.

To prevent a regional conflict from spreading also shows that the West should not just impose sanctions but to cut their losses, Wang said, warning that too many sanctions may result in economic stagnation, inflation and even a debt crisis for Europe.

Hours before the China-EU leaders' meetings on Friday, Chinese analysts warned that China-EU relations cannot be kidnapped by the Ukraine crisis, and Europe should no longer be abducted by the US in foreign policy, as it will greatly undermine the EU's own interests, making it difficult to ensure economic recovery and people's livelihood, and runs counter to Europe's aim of pursuing strategic independence.

Before the talks, several sources from Europe claimed that Brussels is seeking to warn Beijing about supporting Russia in the Ukraine crisis, and some EU officials said any help from China to Russia would "jeopardize" relations with its biggest trade partners - Europe and the US - saying trade between China and the bloc is much higher than that between China and Russia.

The EU should have a clear understanding that standing with the West to sanction Russia does not conform to the principle of China's diplomacy, Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, told the Global Times on Friday.

"The EU is now kidnapped by the US on security, but that does not conform to the strategic independence the EU has pursued," Cui said, noting that to avoid being caught in hot water again, the EU must take control of its own destiny. And developing ties with China provides the EU an opportunity to develop in a more balanced and comprehensive way in the long run.

It will result in a great negative impact on the EU if it takes trade measures against China. "Especially amid the impact of an energy ban with Russia, damaging trade cooperation with China will make Europe fail to ensure its post-pandemic economic recovery and people's livelihood," Cui said, noting the EU would be "very unwise" to do that.

Expanding cooperation

During the talks on Friday, President Xi also pointed out that the Ukraine crisis has come on top of a protracted COVID-19 pandemic and a faltering global recovery. Against such a backdrop, China and the EU, as two major forces, big markets and great civilizations, should increase communication on their relations and on major issues concerning global peace and development, and play a constructive role in adding stabilizing factors to a turbulent world.

Xi stressed that, since last year, China-EU relations have made new progress despite challenges, and China-EU cooperation has achieved new results despite difficulties. It has been proven that China and the EU share extensive common interests and a solid foundation for cooperation, and that only through cooperation and coordination can the two sides resolve problems and rise to challenges.

President Michel and President von der Leyen said that China is an important force in the world. The EU attaches great importance to China's international standing and role, and to developing relations with China. The EU reaffirmed its commitment to the one-China principle and expressed its desire for candid exchanges with China to sustain the good momentum of EU-China relations. It also expressed readiness to keep deepening cooperation with China

The past year has seen growing challenges in China-EU relations, especially after the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment was stalled by the unilateral freeze taken by the European Parliament in May. However, economic and trade ties between the two remain strong and continue to expand. In the first two months of 2022, the EU surpassed ASEAN as China's biggest trading partner after losing the spot in 2021, as trade between China and the EU surged 14.8 percent year-on-year at $137.16 billion.

"China and the EU can work together in dealing with some of the impact of the Ukraine crisis or the global economy by establishing pragmatic cooperation mechanisms, which will also benefit China-EU relations," Cui said.

On the Ukraine crisis, China and the EU, as two major powers, could strengthen cooperation on promoting peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, and between Russia and the US, and provide humanitarian assistance to Ukraine as well as explore economic cooperation to achieve a stable world economy, analysts said.

Xi's speech highlighted that China and the EU should act as two major forces, and offset uncertainties in the international landscape with the stability of China-EU relations, Wang said.

Wang stressed that stable China-EU relations meant that their relations cannot be abducted by the Ukraine crisis, human rights issues or by some countries like Lithuania.

Source link

 

Related Articles:

China, EU share consensus, to jointly face global crisis as two major stabilizing forces: FM China and the EU have much in common in basic positions. Both sides support peace talks, and efforts to ease tensions and to prevent large scale humanitarian crisis. Neit

 

China, EU should seek further cooperation, strengthen policy coordination: Premier Li

China called for cooperation with the EU as Chinese Premier Li Keqiang stressed on Friday that the two sides should seek "new highlights" in their relationship and strengthen "policy coordination" in major areas.

 

Washington a factor in potential pitfalls for China-EU summit

The China-EU summit offers opportunities for repairing and improving relations. But with such opportunities, there lurk serious pitfalls ...

US should have heeded Lee Hsien Loong’s advice: Global Times editorial 

Better for EU to manage unreasonable anticipation on China in talks, break from US' coercion: expert 

Yuan’s use in global forex reserves reach 5-yr high, may rise further amid sanctions between Russia and the West

 

 Related posts:

 

US hegemony: the culprit of Ukraine crisis, benefiting from Ukraine’s misfortune

  The Ukrainian side has seen China’s neutral position on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine   The US’ attitude will be the biggest obs...

US hegemony: the culprit of Ukraine crisis, benefiting from Ukraine’s misfortune

 

The Ukrainian side has seen China’s neutral position on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine

 

 

US hegemony: the culprit of Ukraine crisis

 "Let the gull'd fool the toils of war pursue, where bleed the many to enrich the few," wrote the 18th-century English poet William Shenstone.
`
That is what is exactly happening during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Whether it's the people of war-torn Ukraine, sanction-ridden Russia, or insecurity-ingrained Europe, all have suffered greatly. The US, the culprit of the Ukraine crisis, has been constantly taking advantage of others' misfortune to maintain its hegemony.
`
Every why has a wherefore. Edward Carr, a leading British scholar of international relations, reminded people more than 80 years ago that the US was a master in using kindness to disguise selfishness. Boasting abundant resources, strong industry and geographical advantage, Ukraine could have achieved development. While the country pursued a relatively balanced policy in the early years of its independence, the US supported and incited the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Square Revolution in 2014 to push for a pro-Western agenda, splitting Ukraine politically from within and geopolitically between Russia and Europe. It is really thought-provoking that the "Gateway to Europe" has become one of the poorest countries in Europe, the frontline of NATO's eastward expansion, and the fault line of "color revolutions" and conflicts.
`
In 2014 when the crisis broke out in eastern Ukraine, while Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine held several rounds of consultations and signed two Minsk Agreements to cool down the situation, the US took an opposite direction to fan the flame by inciting the anti-Russian and pro-Western forces in Ukraine to escalate the conflicts on the ground. In the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, the US is reaping the benefits without getting itself involved militarily. It never intended to come to Ukraine's rescue, the idea used as a political tool by the US to trap Russia in a seemingly endless conflict.
`
We might need to go a bit further back into history to conclude how the US hegemony had created all the security trouble for Europe, Russia and Ukraine. It is well known that the US became a global superpower after the two world wars which plunged Europe into chaos and destruction and led to its dependence on the US military hegemony and NATO. Looking for a pathway to common security, Europe and the US signed the Helsinki Accords with the Soviet Union in 1975, which saw the establishment of the Organization for Security and Cooperation as well as the indivisible, cooperative and comprehensive approach to security.
`
However, after the Cold War, the US overturned the European security agenda and rejected Russia's bid to join NATO four times. The aim was to make Russia the imaginary foe to justify US hegemony. Since 1999, the US launched five major NATO expansions, pushing its borders eastward by more than 1,000 kilometers to include a large number of Eastern European countries, splitting Europe further. It also promised Ukraine, Georgia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) NATO membership, posing a realistic threat at the doorstep of Russia.
`
Due to the hegemonic mentality and actions by the US, the vision of indivisible common security broke into pieces, and Russia, Ukraine and Europe were left in a security dilemma and constant conflicts. Former US congressman Tulsi Gabbard stated in a recent interview that President Joe Biden could have ended the crisis by promising not to admit Ukraine to NATO. But he didn't, because the US is seeking an excuse to impose sanctions on Russia, and it could profit from war for the American military-industrial complex.
`
Ukraine has become another victim in a series of global security crises instigated by the US, just like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Now the hegemonic power is pushing for an Asian version of NATO expansion via its Indo-Pacific Strategy, aiming to contain China.
`
Hegemony is the source of evil and chaos, while the common security is the only correct option to avoid and end crises. Whether it is Europe or Asia, the rationales of security are the same: Security cannot be enjoyed exclusively, but only shared; It is not a zero-sum game, but win-win cooperation. History may prove again that, the one who makes a fool of others will eventually make a fool of himself. 

Source link

 

 Washington benefits from Ukraine’s misfortune

 By March 24, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has lasted one month. All peace-loving people in the world hope that this bloody conflict, which could have been avoided, could end soon. However, the US and NATO, which hold the key to resolving the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, have made no practical moves to end the war. Instead, they are still intensifying contradictions and escalating confrontation, creating obstacles for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.
`
US President Joe Biden left for Europe on Wednesday, where he will attend the NATO summit, the G7 summit and the European Council meeting. According to media reports, Biden will work with European allies to coordinate next-stage military assistance to Ukraine and will announce a new round of sanctions against Russia. On the one-month mark of the conflict, Biden carried out his intensive diplomatic offensive in Europe, yet nothing on his agenda is not about adding fuel to the fire.
`
When touching upon Biden's European trip, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that there will be hard days ahead in Ukraine as "this war will not end easily or rapidly." This is not so much a "judgment" by the US, but a carefully guided direction by Washington. Washington wishes the war will not end, so it can maximize the use of the conflict to gain geopolitical value from it. In other words, it is seeking to benefit from Ukraine's misfortune.
`
Because of this, the US and Europe may seem to appear close, but their substantive differences are deepening. While Washington is obsessed with delaying Russia-Ukraine negotiations, Europe wants security and stability. There are emerging anti-war voices in Europe, and these voices include disapproval toward Washington's arms delivery to Ukraine. More and more Europeans realize that blindly sending arms to Ukraine is heading toward the opposite direction of the security goals they pursue. In addition, the result of long-term extreme sanctions must be that the US gets rich, Europe pays the bill and Ukraine bleeds. Washington can't hide these petty ideas.
`
Also because of this, Biden has to "stabilize" Europe when it has wavering intentions. It is not difficult to imagine that Washington will pull out the "transatlantic friendship," "democratic alliance," and other small cards from its pockets and distribute them to friends as passes to the world VIP club, using the illusory "honor" to extract high "dues." Washington also exerts strong pressure on neutral countries that "don't join the club," criticizing India for being "shaky" on one hand and sensationalizing China's "threat" to peace on the other. Isn't this a typical mafia approach?
`
As the saying goes, "It is up to the doer to undo the knot." The Russia-Ukraine conflict is the result of the intensification of the conflict between the US and Russia, and the key to the problem lies in the hands of the US. If Washington really wants the "hard days" of the Ukrainian people not to continue, then why did it choose to "coordinate" with Europe to send weapons to Ukraine and sanction Russia, and refused to talk directly with Russia? The answer is clear: the US does not want real peace talks. That's why one can see such an absurd scenario: despite knowing where the way out is for the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Washington is still desperately wiping the sign which says "No Thoroughfare" at the end of a blind alley.
`
Washington has been good at putting on the show - promoting hegemony under the guise of "democracy," and making a fortune from war in the name of "peace." Yet it does not mean such an approach will never be outdated. Over time, people will eventually see through it. The evolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict will prove Washington's nature as a warmonger. 

 Source link

Global hypocrisies exposed | The Star

US owes world an answer on bio lab as UN Security Council to hear Russian claim of US labs in Ukraine

`

The horrific truth about the biological research labs in Ukraine.

WHO advises Ukraine to destroy pathogens in public health labs to prevent disease spread

Russia, U.S. accuse each other at UNSC over military biological research in Ukraine

China urges U.S. to disclose more details about biolabs in Ukraine

China resolutely opposes development and use of bio-chemical weapons

 

China follows an independent foreign policy of peace. On Ukraine, the sovereignty & territorial integrity of all countries should be respected, purposes & principles of UN Charter observed, and legitimate security concerns of all countries taken seriously. pic.twitter.com/4jc2bGKkTB

— Qin Gang 秦刚 (@AmbQinGang) March 11, 2022

Screengrab of Russian Defence Ministry briefing showing US-sponsored biolabs on Ukraininan territory. Photo : Russian Ministry of Defence

The Russian Defense Ministry released on Thursday documents it acquired from the personnel of a bio lab in Ukraine. The documents expose the US and its NATO allies' research on biological weapons in Ukraine, including research on spreading the highly infectious bird flu virus through migratory birds and on pathogens such as bacteria and viruses that can be transmitted from bats to humans. Russia said the documents show that a large number of serum samples belonging to the Slavs have been transferred and that the experiments in Ukraine are similar to what Japan's Unit 731 did in WWII. The documents were uploaded online by Russia for free download.
`
The US reaction has somewhat missed the point. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki made eight consecutive tweets to condemn Russia for spreading disinformation, but advoided mentioning about the US' bio lab in Ukraine. She claimed that "we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine." But she didn't offer any evidence. Such condemnation didn't help clear the doubts of people around the world. Instead, such a response is pale and illogical.
`
Nevertheless, US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland confirmed during a hearing that Ukraine has "biological research facilities" when asked if Ukraine has bioweapons. She also said the US is working with Ukraine to prevent Russia from getting "those research materials."
`
The contradictive remarks futher deepened the world's doubts about the US. Does the US have a bio lab in Ukraine? Why did the labs rush to destroy the materials right after Russia-Ukraine conflict started on February 24? Are those labs engaged in scientific research or weaponizing the research results? What is the relation between the Pentagon and the US' 336 bio labs around the world? How does the US guarantee the safety of those labs? Why has the US been exclusively blocking the establishment of the verification mechanism of the Biological Weapons Convention for more than 20 years? What is it worried about? What exactly is the connection between the Fort Detrick lab and the COVID-19 pandemic?
`
Biological military activities are not trivial. It is reasonable and legitimate for the international community to question the US for that. Right after WWII, the US spent 250,000 yen (several thousand US dollars at that time) on acquiring the infamous Unit 731's data, but never published what the data was used for. In nearly 30 years, the number of P4 labs on US soil increased by 750 percent - accompanied by an increasing risk of virus leakage. Because of protests from within, the US chose to establish labs overseas. Over the years, however, there have been deadly leaks linked to US military biological labs in Ukraine, South Korea, Kazakhstan and Georgia. But angry protests in those countries were simply crushed by the US manipulating public opinion.
`
Biological weapons are seen as weapons of mass destruction together with nuclear and chemical weapons. Any suspicion of private development of biological weapons must be promptly investigated. Russia's information release was very specific and should draw the attention of the international community. The veracity of those materials must be determined by a multi-party inspection team led by an authoritative international organization, rather than by the US alone. The US should know that smearing others cannot bleach itself. If it is really innocent as it claims, it should take the opportunity to publish what is the truth and receive multi-party investigations to prove its innocence.
`
It must be pointed out that this was an accidental discovery in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which has nothing to do with the conflict itself. The determination of the merits of this incident should not be linked to the position on the Russia-Ukraine issue. The international community, including Europe, should put strong pressure on the US and not be swayed by the disinformation claims of Washington. The US owes the world an answer on this matter.

Source link

 

Security Council to hear Russian claim of US labs in Ukraine

 

UN Russia Ukraine US Banned Weapons

The U.N. Security Council scheduled a meeting Friday at Russia’s request to discuss what Moscow claims are “the military biological activities of the U.S. on the territory of Ukraine,” allegations vehemently denied by Ukraine's leader and the Biden administration.

“This is exactly the kind of false flag effort we have warned Russia might initiate to justify a biological or chemical weapons attack," Olivia Dalton, spokesperson for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said late Thursday. “We’re not going to let Russia gaslight the world or use the U.N. Security Council as a venue for promoting their disinformation.“

The Russian request, announced in a tweet Thursday afternoon from its first deputy U.N. ambassador, Dmitry Polyansky, follows the U.S. rejection of Russian accusations that Ukraine is running chemical and biological labs with U.S. support.

In response to this week’s accusations by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova — made without evidence — White House press secretary Jen Psaki warned that Russia might use chemical or biological weapons against Ukraine, the neighbor it has invaded.

Psaki called Russia’s claim “preposterous” and tweeted: “This is all an obvious ploy by Russia to try to justify its further premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified attack on Ukraine.”

 Source link

 

Ukraine - day 16: Russia's bioweapons claim, YouTube state media ban ..

https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2022-03-11/Ukraine-day-16-Positive-shift-in-talks-4-5-million-homeless-18jOF0W4QMg/index.html 

 

 Russia's ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia accused Ukraine of manufacturing biological weapons in a Security Council meeting./Timothy A Clary/AFP

 

 

 

RELATED ARTICLES

 

US tries to refute 'rumors' about its bio-labs in Ukraine, but can we believe it?

The US has a rich repertoire of measures to pressure its rivals. As long as the country does ...

US-Funded Bio Labs in Ukraine Conducted Research Into Bat Coronavirus, Russian MoD Says

The American authorities previously admitted that Ukraine hosts "biological research facilities", expressing concerns they could come under the ...

US-funded bio-labs raise public health concerns

The US has admitted to setting up bio-labs in Ukraine after Russia revealed evidence of the US disposing ...

 

Related posts:

Suspicions hover over COVID-19 origins search in US

Fort Detrick, UNC labs at center of virus origins controversy

 

China says ‘no’ to US smears over COVID-19 as 20 million Chinese petition for Fort Detrick probe

 Update Online petition for Fort Detrick probe draws 20m signatures; China urges US to open UNC lab, disclose military games patients...

 

FORT DETRICK, THE UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL WARFARE LAB IS WHERE CORONAVIRUS ORIGINATED

 Coronavirus Covid-19 started in US, CDC director says so!

 

What really happened in US’ UNC labs, US Army Fort Detrick, with records of ‘lab-created coronaviruses’ incidents, supervision loopholes and audacious germ researchers ?

Searching for Covid-19’s origin

 

US’ real strategic color of selfishness, hypocrisy revealed in Ukraine crisis

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT 

 Click here to stay tuned with our live updates on Ukraine tensions.

 

Since dramatic changes took place in Ukraine, the US, which had repeatedly promised to protect Kiev at critical moments and continued to "add fuel to the fire" of the situation, has once again come into the spotlight. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a video speech complained that Western countries have abandoned Ukraine and left it to defend itself alone. Some Western netizens even asked: Where has the US been which provoked the war and said it "stands with Ukraine?"
`
However, has the US really disappeared? On the contrary, it is quite busy gaining more "strategic interests" from the flames of war in Ukraine. The latest remarks by the US on the Ukraine situation released by the White House have underlined two points: First, turning Russia into "a pariah on the international stage" through sanctions and other measures; second, NATO has been "more united and more determined than ever" and this is "good news."
`
As for Ukraine, which Washington uses as a pawn, in addition to reiterating that the US wouldn't send troops there, Washington only simply said it "will support the Ukrainian people as they defend their country," and "will provide humanitarian relief to ease their suffering." Washington has once again displayed its selfishness and hypocrisy to the world. People have seen that after the US pushed Ukraine into the fire, it stood aside, pretending to care about the country and saying "I support you, keep fighting!"
`
It is fair to say the evolution of the situation in Ukraine until today is a geopolitical tragedy. From the very beginning, it's a bitter result of the US' strategic selfishness and shortsightedness. As early as 1998 when the US Senate approved NATO's eastward expansion plan, the late senior US diplomat George Kennan had foreseen today's tragedy. He said then, "This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves."
`
However, the arrogant American elites always think they can profit from crises. For years, the US has incited conflicts, manipulated the situations from offshore and reaped benefits. It is accustomed to be the one who adds the fuel to the fire without paying any cost. What it wants is to realize its instant interests. The US shows no consideration for the suffering of the locals pushed into the forefront. When there is a real crisis, the so-called commitments it initially made will only become empty diplomatic rhetoric. Those politicians don't care about the suffering of local people at all, but attempt to attract attention under the guise of "humanitarianism."
`
This reminds people of when it abandoned the former Afghan regime last year, the US also said on multiple occasions it would provide "humanitarian" assistance to Afghanistan. But shockingly, the reality is that the so-called US "humanitarian" assistance hasn't been provided to the Afghan people, but the US carved up the $7 billion in frozen funds that Afghanistan's central bank had deposited in New York. As the culprit of the Afghan issue, after satisfying its own strategic interests, the US only left the locals "an avalanche of hunger and poverty," leading to the severe malnutrition of millions of children in Afghanistan.
`
The US often talks about humanity, justice and morality, but what it really does is calculating interests. Washington's strategic selfishness and hypocrisy have been laid bare again and again in international political practices. Reports indicate that at least 37 million people have been displaced in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria as a direct result of the wars fought by the US since September 11, 2001. There is even a saying that wherever the US "intervenes," conflicts, chaos and terrorism will appear.
`
A country is called a major power not because of how strong its ability to form cliques or to realize its own self-interests is. What matters is its responsibility and ability to safeguard international peace. If a country only cares about its own interests, fuels the flames everywhere and constantly exports chaos to others, no matter how powerful it is, it is inevitable its credibility will go bankrupt and its hegemony will come to an end.
`
For countries and regions that still have fantasies or act as pawns of the US, the Ukraine crisis is a good reminder: A "partner" who announces "good news" when you are in difficulties is untrustworthy

Source link

 

RELATED ARTICLES

 

Washington bears 'special responsibility' for Russia-Ukraine situation: Global Times editorial

Washington, in particular, should shoulder the “special responsibility,” instead of continuing to be the source of chaos.

 

All sides should give Russia, Ukraine some space to resolve issue: Global Times editorial

China has no self-interest in the Ukraine issue. It has always upheld a fair and responsible attitude and ...

Fear of US abandonment haunts DPP authority: Global Times editorial

If "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces misjudge this goodwill and attempt to gain a sense of security by riding ...

.

Russia to create a turning point since disintegration of USSR

Hu Xijin

This incident and war have given small countries an important lesson: when they are caught between major powers, they should try to avoid completely being inclined to one side and helping this side challenge the other.

Ukraine Is A Part Of Russia, Meaning Russia ... - Simon Parkes

The US tries hard to hijack world's view on Russia, but more countris not buying it

The US tries to manipulate the world's opinion on Ukraine tensions under the guise of “maintaining the rules-based international order.” Fortunately, more and more countries have realized the US' shameless purpose of using them to advance its own interests.

 

Related posts:

 

Russia ‘ready to talk’ after militarily paralyzing Ukraine in hours

 Black smoke rises from a military airport in Chuguyev near Kharkiv on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a..

Checkmated over Ukraine; Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?

 

 

 

 

`

Checkmated over Ukraine; Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?

 Cornered: Ukrainian armoured vehicles blocking a street in Kyiv as Russian troops stormed toward Ukraine’s capital on Saturday. – AP Nato's actions have made it's Western allies incapable of doing better for Ukraine than Ukraine can do its own relations with Russia

WHEN the wilfully unstoppable force of Nato expansion hits the steadfastly immovable object of Russian national security, war erupts.
`
By February 24 when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Moscow’s challenges became exposed and grew more acute.
`
Russia cannot hold Ukraine in any sense as resentment to its incursion swells. There can be no assurance Russia can succeed in whatever it seeks to do to Kiev.
`
As in all military interventions, moving in is always easier than pulling out – which must eventually happen. And then what?
`
All disputes must conclude in negotiations, especially between neighbours, and it is now harder to negotiate. Meanwhile Russia is cast as the sole villain, so an invasion could not have been its preferred option.
`
As a power play it is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions and superpower dimensions. Ukraine and Nato may have top billing but the US and Russia are the key actors.
`
The 1947 Dunkirk Treaty between Britain and France was a contingency agreement against German or Soviet aggression. This grew to include the Benelux countries and then the US and six others to become today’s North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
`
By 1955 Nato expanded to include WWII foe Germany, leaving the Soviet Union out in the cold. Moscow then established its Warsaw Pact alliance in trying to achieve some balance.
`
Since then, Moscow stayed in Nato’s sights on the other side of the fence. Nato’s first Secretary-General Hastings Ismay described its role as “keeping the US in, Germany down, and Russia out.”
`
Nato is a Cold War device that was not dismantled after the Cold War but has instead grown. But the official rhetoric in the early 1990s was of consolidation with a few contemplating dissolution.
`
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in 1991, Nato officials from the US, Britain, France and Germany repeatedly assured Moscow that Nato would not expand. Nato had become the most serious organised challenge to Russian national security.
`
US Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Seitz said expansion of membership would not happen “either officially or unofficially.” His British counterpart added that expansion was “unacceptable”.
`
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher agreed and said so. Then Nato’s expansion happened.
`
When Russia complained, Nato stalwarts said any agreement was only verbal and not written down, implying that what they said could not be trusted. Later Nato claimed there had not even been a verbal agreement.
`
Earlier this month Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper reported that Prof Joshua Shifrinson of Boston University had found a declassified document confirming that a pledge on Nato’s non-expansion had been made. Elsewhere it is reported that President Bill Clinton broke that pledge.
`
In 1999, Nato expanded by including former Soviet bloc countries Poland, Hungary and Czechia. Russia seethed but could do little.
`
In 2004, Nato expanded further by admitting former Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russia complained again but once more its security concerns were ignored.
`
As Nato missiles aimed at Russia moved closer to its borders, Moscow protested but Nato said they were only there because of Iran. Russia was unconvinced.
`
After Ukraine’s independence its government continued friendly relations with Russia. But the US engineered the 2004-05 Orange Revolution that toppled the government and replaced it with one closer to the West.
`
France and Germany invaded Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries with each attack ending in disaster. Napoleon’s and Hitler’s forces nonetheless made damaging incursions into the Russian heartland and national psyche.
`
Today France and Germany are among European nations careful in managing relations with Russia. However, a US-led Nato with less experience and less sensitivity to Russian security concerns has acted with less care.
`
Russia remains the world’s largest country by area rich in natural resources like oil and gas. It is not a threat to Europe or even Ukraine if agreements made can be honoured, but provoking it can produce a different result.
`
Using Nato to challenge and undermine Russian interests will not end well for anyone. US interests are protected with the Atlantic Ocean as buffer, but European members of Nato share a continent with Russia and would have different priorities.
`
The UN wants Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine and return to base almost as much as Russia wants Nato to withdraw from its eastward momentum and return to the 1997 Nato-Russia Founding Act. Although neither may happen soon, Moscow has no interest or expressed desire to occupy Ukraine so the former is more likely than the latter.
`
Ukraine for now is trapped in a vicious cycle of violence and disintegration beyond its control. It is a familiar plight of pawns caught between incompatible great powers.
`
Ukraine wants urgent negotiations with Russia while Russia wants Belarus to host talks on the Minsk accords for a ceasefire and phased measures towards a compromise. Even if talks are possible it will be an uphill task since Moscow and Kiev have different interpretations of the 2014-15 terms.
`
Among Biden’s errors is targeting Putin personally as if another Russian leader would have acted differently. Even Boris Yeltsin would have done the same over Ukraine, while a nationalist like Vladimir Zhirinovsky would have acted tougher and earlier.
`
For the West to dump the Nord Stream 2 deal supplying Europe with Russian gas punishes only Europe which now has to pay many times more for US supplies. On Feb 4 Russia signed a new US$117.5bil oil and gas deal to supply China instead.
`
Western observers worry that China may learn unsavoury lessons from Russia’s actions in Ukraine to further its disputed claims in Asia. Any lessons would be more akin to Nato’s gradual encroachment on Russian territory.
`
The apparent beneficiary from Ukraine’s crisis is China, being a distraction for the West which also increases Moscow’s dependence on Beijing. But China is also awkwardly positioned as it wants to maintain good ties with all parties.
`
The only unqualified beneficiary of the crisis is China-Russia relations, which must count as another major strategic blunder for Nato and the West.
`
Bunn Nagara is a political analyst and Honorary Research Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

By Bunn Nagara, Author at ISIS

Source link

 

Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?

`

The Russian pipe-laying ship 'Akademik Tscherski' which is on deployment for the further construction of the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline, is moored at the port of Mukran on the island of Ruegen, Germany, on Sept. 8, 2020. The gas is still flowing from Russian even as bullets and missiles fly in Ukraine. But the war is raising huge questions about the energy ties between Europe and Russia. The conflict is helping keep oil and gas prices high due to fears of a possible reduction in supplies, and consumers will continue to face financial stress from that. 

 

The real-life cost of war: People walk at the border crossing between Poland and Ukraine, in Medyka, Poland, on February 24, 2022. Photo: Reuters

 Moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar world was always likely to be messy and risk-prone. But few saw how fast we moved from beating war drums to actual armed conflict between the Great Powers, the latest being in Ukraine. Are we on a march of folly to World War III, or have key players lost sight of reality?

`Lest we forget, World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945) were fought to keep down rising powers—Germany and later Japan.
`
Russia and China suffered the most casualties in WWII, and both were allies against German Nazis and Japanese militarists.
`
The United States became the real winner, but decided after WWII to contain communism in both the Soviet Union (USSR) and China.
`
Fifty years ago, in 1972, US President Nixon set aside enmity against China, restored US-China relations, and in one strategic stroke, isolated the Soviet Union, leading to its collapse two decades later.
`
The great achievement during the Cold War was the avoidance of nuclear conflict, with the Cuban missile crisis being a live test of brinkmanship.
`
Both sides climbed down when the USSR removed missiles from Cuba, and the US quietly removed missiles from Turkey.
`
President Kennedy understood that grandstanding on moral issues should be restrained, because in a nuclear war, mutually assured destruction is madness.
`
After seven decades of peace, the Western media has been painting the multipolar world as a black-and-white conflict between good vs evil, democracy vs autocracy—without appreciating that the other side may have different points of view that need to be heard.
`
By definition, a multipolar world means that liberal democracies will have to live with different ideologies and regimes.
`
Today, YouTube and the Web provide a wealth of alternative views than mainstream media, such as CNN or BBC.
`
Prof John Mearsheimer, author of the influential book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," offers the insight that the Western expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) was the reason why Russia felt threatened.
`
The more the Nato allies try to arm Ukraine, the more insecure Russia gets.
`
In essence, Russia wants a buffer zone of neutral countries like Austria, which are not members of Nato, but that does not exclude trade with all sides.
`
Carnegie Moscow Center analyst Alexander Baunov described how "the two sides appear to be negotiating over different things.
`
Russia is talking about its own security, while the West is focusing on Ukraine's."
`
What he is describing are two sides that are each in their own social bubble or virtual reality (VR) Metaverse, deaf to the other side's views.
`
The term "Metaverse" came from a 1992 dystopian sci-fi novel titled "Snow Crash," where the Metaverse is the virtual refuge from an anarchic world controlled by the Mafia.
`
Today, Metaverse is an online virtual world where the user blends VR with the real, flesh-and-blood world through VR glasses and software augmented reality (AR).
`
In other words, in Metaverse, your mind is colonised by whatever algorithm and virtual information that you get—real or fake news.
`
Metaverse is escapism from reality, and will not help us solve real world problems, especially when we need to talk eyeball to eyeball.
`
The Metaverse designer is more interested in controlling or influencing our minds, feeding us what we want to hear or see, rather than what information we need to have to make good decisions. The risk is that we think VR conflict is costless, whereas real war has real flesh-and-blood costs.
`
.In short, the more we look inward at our own Metaverse, the more we neglect the collective costs to the world as it lurches from peace to war
`
Surprisingly, I found the right-wing influential Fox commentator Tucker Carlson asking better questions than CNN or BBC commentators.
`
In his show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in the segment "How will this conflict affect you?" he asked bluntly why Americans should hate Putin and what the war will cost every American.
`
Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large. 

Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large.
`
In sum, the decade of 2020s may face a tough period of escalating conflicts at local, regional and global levels, with proxy wars that disrupt each other's economies and social stability.
`
If states fail, and poor and hungry people migrate at a larger scale, even more border conflicts are likely, since most will want to go to the richer countries in the North, such as Europe and America.
`
There is no ideal world where everyone is good and the other side is bad.
`
In a multipolar world, there will be all kinds of people that we don't like, but we have to live with them.
`
A negotiated peace is better than mutual destruction.
`
In Metaverse, virtual life can be beautiful, moral and perfect, but the real world is lurching towards a collective nightmare.
`
We should not kid ourselves that the Metaverse VR of self-deception is the real world.
`
We either sleepwalk to war, or have the courage to opt for sustainable peace.
`
The real question is: Who is willing to climb down and eat the humble pie for the sake of peace?
`
By Andrew Sheng is adjunct professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing and the University of Malaya. He was formerly the chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong. 

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng (born 1946) is Hong Kong-based Malaysian Chinese banker, academic and commentator. He started his career as an accountant and is now a distinguished fellow of Fung Global Institute, a global think tank based in Hong Kong.^[1] He served as chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) before his replacement by Martin Wheatley in

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link

 

Related posts:

 

Russia ‘ready to talk’ after militarily paralyzing Ukraine in hours

 Black smoke rises from a military airport in Chuguyev near Kharkiv on February 24, 2022, after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a...

 

 

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

  ` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...

 

American Bible versus Chinese Dao Dejing, What is the real crisis of global order?

 

Western concept of democracy lacks historical contexts, disrespect cultural difference, conquest by force, colonisation, slavery, genocide, human rights, doctrine of discovery embodied in their laws ! 

 

Malaysia must retool education, skills to adapt to knowledge economy

 

Can the great powers avoid war?

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY 

 

China calls for building a community for man and nature at US-held climate summit