There has been an awful lot of noise and blowing wind of late across all forms of social media about an impending WWIII between the United States and Russia, most of which involves further involvement and an intensified escalation within Syria. With the US airstrikes (alongside its allied partners, the UK and France) on Friday night (American time), that crescendo is no doubt going to hit an all-time high of anticipation. To that I offer one small contrary warning: don’t hold your breath for the mushroom clouds just yet. There is still too much evidence of designed respectful interaction between the United States and Russia to even begin to suspect a major physical confrontation directly between the two will take place. And this includes last night’s airstrikes.
While there is no doubt that current relations between America and Russia are not exactly glowing and positive, there are also numerous examples of restraint to show that both sides do not wish to pursue a war with each other. In some cases, the very evidence that has put people all over the world in a frothy orgasm of Cold War bloodlust is actually the evidence people should be noting for why war is unlikely. Consider the following incidents/initiatives that have taken place over the past few years and consider how often any one of them could have resulted in war and other serious military repercussions between adversaries:
- Russia supporting with its own military presence the Crimean secession referendum
- American retaliatory sanctions for said support, resulting in the Russian ruble losing literally half of its value, significantly damaging the earning and consuming power of regular Russians
- Russian retaliatory initiatives for those sanctions, most notably the alleged hacking of the 2016 American Presidential election
- The Magnitskii Act (followed up with still more sanctions just last week), which is basically a form of punishment by hubris: America blacklisting influential friends of Putin (oligarchs) from having access to enter America
- The closing of diplomatic offices in both Russia and America, with further escalation to a tit-for-tat diplomat rejection plan where both countries keep kicking each other’s diplomats out of their respective countries.
- One country accuses the other of overlooking chemical gas attacks against the Syrian people
- One country accuses the other of fabricating chemical gas attacks against the Syrian people
- Rumors of a ‘pee tape’ morally compromising the President of the United States while on an earlier visit to Russia
- Rumors of secretly going after to freeze and/or steal billions of dollars President Putin supposedly has stashed all over the globe
- And, of course, the biggest one of all: both sides intervening in another country’s internal civil war but on opposite sides of the conflict
This is a fairly impressive list of disagreement, discord, conflict, and outright aggression. There have been wars breaking out all over the globe for far fewer incidents and over far less intense accusations and maneuvers. This is why so many today are obsessing over the so-called New Cold War. In fact, the opposite is reality: we should not be welcoming the New Cold War. We should be welcoming the New FAKE Cold War. All of the reasons given above should have been reason enough for kinetic confrontation between the two countries. And yet no direct military conflict has arisen. The United States has now done ‘surprise’ airstrikes in Syria not once but twice. And, “miraculously,” no significant, if at all, formal uniformed Russian military presence has been killed in either of those airstrikes. When the White House goes before the press conference microphones to thank its allies for their cooperation and assistance, the unrecognized reality is that one of those allies is de facto Russia: the two sides have clearly collaborated at least in terms of communication before the airstrikes to ensure that only the proper Syrian military targets are hit and the formal Russian military presence has time to evacuate the direct area. This, of course, is bad news for any and all Syrians: basically, what both countries have been saying throughout the entire civil war is that it is just fine to spill Syrian blood as long as American and Russian blood is not spilled with it. This is the feather pillow of proxy wars. At least when it comes to Americans and Russians. Again, no comment on how much it has been a sledgehammer for both Syrian sides within Syria.
The problem with the analysis ongoing about Russian-American relations is that it is ultimately guilty of that egregious academic sin: a lack of falsifiability. We teach our young doctoral students that whenever any serious investigation is begun, they must ensure that their project has the chance of actually being wrong. This principle of falsifiability is built into our projects and our brains so as to ensure we do not bias or project our desired results into our findings. Given the complex, ambiguous, and competing alternatives nature of global security and war, it is easy to see why this is so important: it is mind-bogglingly easy to ‘get the results you want’ if you are determined to see an issue in one particular way. Finding the data and interpreting the evidence is rather simple. The problem is that the analyst must strive to not ignore competing evidence and alternative explanations that muddy the waters for the desired outcome. This is what has been happening for nearly three years (at least) when it comes to how we analyze Russian-American relations. The very data that so many media outlets and presumed Russian experts in the West use as ‘proof’ for an undeniable New Cold War is just as easily positioned to show how two countries have chosen to NOT go to war with one another and NOT confront one another physically when they easily could have and many other countries in the same position would have. Instead of proven bad news, it is just as easily argued as proof of good news.
Interpretation. This is the essence of our business in global affairs, international security, and intelligence. Right now, we are violating some of our core research principles in order to maintain a single desired analytical outcome. Perhaps most disturbingly, the desired outcome in this case is the more dangerous one, the more violent one, and the more irresponsible one. Perhaps it is odd to say, but at the moment it seems the people we all have to thank for avoiding the precipice of real war are not our intellectuals and scholars, but the leaders of the two countries that everyone keeps trying to say are hell-bent on destroying each other. Welcome to the odd logic of the New Fake Cold War the curious reality of feather pillow proxy wars.
Can these 6 worldwide Google search trends predict the 2020 US presidential election?
Whilst international observers are commonly deployed in fragile or new democracies in the developing world, elections in the developed world are viewed from outside, partially out of a sense of stake-holding in the outcome by the rest of the world (due to the preponderance of the West in the affairs of these countries) and partially out of curiosity, and therefore are consumed as a piece of popular culture. Out of these, the US electoral cycle is perhaps the most closely watched the world over. This is no coincidence as in each successive year previous records are shattered in terms of expenditures on advertising by the various campaigns. The digital sphere has become the main arena in which the various campaigns reach out to potential voters. By one 2019 Forbes estimate, the current electoral cycle has seen “an increase of 59% from the 2016 election year when an estimated $6.3 billion was spent,” which represents nearly 16.5% of total local broadcast TV advertising revenue for this year, whilst digital media is forecast for 21% of political ads, whilst cable TV and radio both claim 14% and 5% respectively.
This disproportional share for digital spending is indicative of what scholars have termed as the rise of “computational politics, ”defined by one study as “the application of digital targeted-marketing technologies to election campaigns.” With this increase arises the question of which candidate will come out victorious, and whether expenditure is a predictor for which will win. In the last (2016) election, this proved not to be the case, as the Democrats, at $1.191 billion, raised nearly twice as much in dollar terms than the Republicans (at $646.8 million) but still lost. More recently, we’ve seen Michael Bloomberg being forced to drop out of the campaign, despite spending as much as $936.2 million, whilst Sanders and Biden, the last two Democratic contenders, had spent $162.3 million and $84.7 million, respectively. In fact, US elections are notoriously difficult to predict with a fair degree of certainty. Be that as it may, looking at some data in the previous sixteen years (i.e., four electoral cycles) makes for some insightful analysis, and potential projections.
Briefly, I trace over the 2004-2016 period Google queries for American presidential frontrunners and eventual winners and incumbents in the world. All data utilised in this article is obtained from Google Trends, a publicly available dataset of worldwide Google searches since 1 January 2004. All charts were generated by the author from sorted data. The Google Trends scores are values that are calculated on an index that places scores from 0 to 100, where, according to Google,“100 is the location with the most popularity as a fraction of total searches in that location, a value of 50 indicates a location which is half as popular.” The four following charts below show the growth for searches for each candidate between 2004 and 2012.
The undeniable trend from all four charts is that the candidate who gets the most searches goes on to win the election, despite both candidates getting an uptick the most amount of searches in November, the month of the election (with the eventual winner experiencing the most amount of searches). Given the results from the four election cycles, it is worth peaking assessing the amount of searches for the two Democratic frontrunners against Donald Trump.
Despite the field only being in a phase of narrowing down, past results show that the eventual winner starts getting the most amount of searches as early as January of the election year.
The only exception was the 4th of March, the day after Super Tuesday, when Joe Biden got the most amount of searches, gaining 40% of the searches, whilst Sanders got 31% and Donald Trump got 29% (see pie chart above). Following the 4thof March, however, the ranking reverted to Trump being more searched than both Democrats, whilst among the Democrats themselves, Vice-President Biden began being more searched than Sanders, which continues to be the case at the time of writing.
For the majority of the first quarter of 2020, therefore, has Trump having 77% of the searches, whilst the two Democrats only have 23% of the searches, split between Bernie Sanders (14%) and Biden (9%). If global Google search trends are any proxy for name recognition, therefore, we can reasonably expect Trump to be re-elected as President in November, regardless of which Democrat is eventually nominated. Indeed, any different outcome would go against the grain of the last four elections.
The Post-Coronavirus World Will Be Far Worse than the Pre-Coronavirus World
Signs, especially in the United States, are that the post-coronavirus-plagued world will have even more inequality of wealth, within each nation, than existed prior to the plague. Billionaires are demanding to be included in the bailouts by their governments; and, because billionaires financed the careers of the successful politicians who won seats in their country’s legislature, those demands are almost certain to be complied with. Only the least-corrupt nations will be able to recover fully from the current plague.
In the United States, one Party, the Republicans, doesn’t even pretend to be concerned about the sharp growth of wealth-inequality that has occurred after 1980; but the other Party, the Democrats, do make that pretense; and so a deal is being worked out in the U.S. Congress that both Parties tout as being a ‘balanced’ bailout bill, because it will bail out both the megacorporations that the billionaires own and control, and the public — their workers (especially the ones that those billionaires are now laying off). Because of the enormous give-aways to the billionaires, deficit-spending by the government will be soaring out of control, and ultimately paper money will plunge in value, which will bring on a global depression that will be even worse than 1929. Some governments will find ways to nationalize the wealth of billionaires and perhaps also of centi-millionaires in order to fund the continuing needs of the public, and there will be a scramble by many of those super-rich to relocate to countries where they still will be able to bribe enough government officials so as to provide safe haven for their accumulated wealth. Graduated exit-taxes will be instituted by any of the industrialized countries that aren’t totally corrupt, but the most extremely corrupt industrialized countries will experience massive capital-flight and a future as a “third world” nation, under extended martial law.
On March 22nd, Zero Hedge headlined “‘Stop The Coronavirus Corporate Coup’: Here Is A List Of Everyone Demanding A Bail Out” and Matt Stoller listed the many different categories of mega-corporate lobbyists who were urging the Senators and Representatives, whose campaigns they fund, to bail out their respective industries. The few other news-sites that republished or linked to that list were other alternative-news sites, not any of the mainstream ones. This was a major news-report, which deserved to become a top topic of public conversation, but that didn’t happen; and here is an example of what it said (and which the rest of the press were hiding):
Mitch McConnell wants big business to rule, so he’s playing a trick. He is refusing aid to workers. Democrats are negotiating with him to try to get unemployment assistance and social welfare. McConnell knows Dems won’t pay attention to corporate bailouts if he takes the public hostage, and Democrats know that they can hand out favors to big business if they just talk about how they got larger checks for workers.
So McConnell will put a bill down in front of Nancy Pelosi, with some good stuff like unemployment insurance, but also the really ugly stuff to hand over America to big business. The corporatists in the Democratic Party will tell her “Pass the corporate coup bill, after all we have to do something right now!” And because she doesn’t have the votes from within her own caucus because of these corporatists, and because she doesn’t particularly care if America is sold off to big business, she will do that.
It’s a song-and-dance routine, performed by the two “good cop, bad cop” political Parties (both being fascist), in order to satisfy not only the audience (the voters) but the producers (the billionaires).
On March 21st, I headlined “Triage Starts in Government Bailouts: Who will get the money?” at Strategic Culture, and submitted that news-report to all U.S. major news-media and most of the minor ones. 24 hours later, it was picked-up by only a few minor, very courageous, ones: The 21st Century, The Duran, Free World Economic Report, The Russophile, and Verity Weekly. The corruption is so pervasive that all of the news-media that 99.99% of the public rely upon for their ‘news’ were filtering out the news of the impending massive public subsidies to America’s billionaires by America’s ‘public representatives’ — shoveling the public’s money to the billionaires as bailouts.
Stoller was obviously correct that the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, “is refusing aid to workers” and (though Stoller — being himself a Democrat — didn’t use nearly such direct language to say) the Democratic Party’s leader in the House was trying to wrangle enough of the desperately needed funds for the American public (all sorts of workers, and, here, especially the most important ones, such as nurses, police, etc.) so that congressional Democrats would be able to give the billionaires what they demand, while still getting enough aid out to everybody else in order for congressional Democrats to be able to hold their congressional seats after November 3rd. (In America, keeping the poor away from the voting-booths, and undercounting the votes that they do cast, are usually insufficient in themselves so as to prevent a Republican landslide, and so as to supply the bumper-sticker benefits to non-billionaires that will be needed if Congress isn’t to become 100% Republican.)
In a profoundly corrupt country, over 99% of the press will filter-out such basic details of the true extent of the corruption, because, otherwise, the revolution that results will be against the aristocracy, instead of against the public itself (and producing martial law), and a revolution like that could produce actual democracy, which the few people who fund politicians’ careers fear the most. They much prefer, if a revolution is coming, that it be clearly against the public (and result in martial law, which will protect only themselves), not against themselves. In fact, such a country has a government almost solely in order to protect the aristocrats from the public, and almost not at all in order to protect the public from the aristocracy.
Interestingly, the very next day, on March 22nd, my headlined news-report was “Coronavirus Cases Soaring Much Faster in U.S. Than in Other Countries” and even that report had no takers in America’s major ‘news’ media, despite its being merely a presentation of the statistical data, which discredited the U.S. Government in comparison with almost all of the other governments in the world. (Only Turkey and Luxembourg had even worse figures at that time, but they were just beginning to count their coronavirus cases.)
On March 25th, I headlined “Coronavirus: Why Russians Are Lucky to Be Led by Putin”, and wrote that “within just three more days, America will have the world’s largest total number of cases, if Italy won’t. And after yet another day, the U.S. will almost certainly have the world’s largest total number of cases.” Both statements came to pass. On March 26th, America’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published their projection of the rise and subsiding of the coronavirus-19 in the U.S., and predicted that this country would end up with 460,000 cases and 81,114 deaths from the disease, and that America’s epidemic would virtually end by July 1st. I headlined about that, on March 28th, “Projection: U.S. Coronavirus Deaths to = China’s Total Coronavirus Cases”.
Though all of these news-reports are major, and deal with the news-event that is currently obsessing all of the world’s news-media — which is the coronavirus plague — the news-media that are owned or otherwise controlled by America’s billionaires rejected them all and are doing everything else that they possibly can to delay, if not to block entirely, the crucial information from reaching America’s voters, and this is happening during an election year. The Jeff-Bezos-owned liberal neoconservative Washington Post reliably reported on March 28th that “in private discussions, the president has been driven much more by economic concerns, according to people involved in internal debates or briefed on them. Trump has long viewed the stock market as a barometer for his own reelection hopes.” Safety of the American people is a secondary concern for him. That was being reported by a Democratic Party billionaire against Republican Party billionaires, but what it actually indicates is America’s being controlled by its billionaires, of both Parties. The public, here, actually don’t count.
Under conditions such as this, one can easily understand — with this type of information, which is being hidden from the public — only politicians who satisfy the wants of the nation’s billionaires stand even so much as a chance to win seats in Congress or other high elective office. The public are so misinformed that they are like horses with blinders on and which are being driven by a master to whom they are expendable and replaceable, not objects of authentic and caring concern for their welfare. Everything has a price to such a master, who will grab at any chance to replace any of the public by a cheaper alternative, so long as “the job gets done” — to satisfy their own unlimited greed. The deception of the public is so extreme that America’s Establishment are so brazen as to blame China and Russia for the “disinformation” about the cornoavirus-19 pandemic. The U.S. regime is utterly shameless.
These bailouts of billionaires will destroy what little was left of a democratic future for America — and for any other nation that happens to be nearly as corrupt.
Is this to be the long-term impact of coronavirus-19? Is there an alternative likely scenario? Perhaps the coronavirus plague won’t spread as uncontrollably as is feared, but even if that is the case, what justification exists for bailing out any of the super-rich, in response to an emergency that is causing widespread suffering? And yet, America is doing that.
Washington- Beijing Moves: Conflict of Choices?
At the beginning of the 21st century, the relationship between US and China have transformed rapidly as the latter surpassed the former in being leader in global economic and political scene. The role of china in fast pace technologies the latest development in hard, soft and smart power and artificial intelligence are key pillars in shaping nations’ security and foreign policy. The prevailing international order determines the dynamics of world politics. The contemporary world facing non-traditional security threats, such as ethnic sectarianism, Global warming, transnational migration issues, and resources.
Sino- American rivalry in the new age is a tussle for domination international politics. America’s principle architecture nineteenth-century world order, establish hegemony, facing a primary threat from the rising power China of the 21st century. The current nature of the international system reflects competition rather than cooperation, however, there is an increasing idea that the world is converging as a result of globalization.
Historically, the Sino-America relationship is in fierce competition, over political, ideological and preservation of cultural identities. Though the People Republic of China established in 1949 in a cold war era, the formal relations establish after Richard Nixon visits China in 1972. The nature of competition varies from time to time. In the era of interdependence, where states depend on each other in complex mechanism of security, economy, technology, and resources which are interrelated variables, the two powers in a mood for global domination
Traditionally, Americans followed the policy of protectionism but after the end of the world war II, policy shifted to address the global problems. In meanwhile, the Chinese portrait itself ” Hide your strength and bide your time”, but after the 18th National Congress party meeting and Xi Jinping as a new president, guiding a new ideology called “Xi Jinping Thoughts” assert that “The greatest strength of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the leadership of the Communist Party of China; the Party is the highest force for political leadership”. The policy reflects the Chinese ambitions in the future international scenario and that was the challenging phase of America to counter this global aspiration.
With evident, China becomes a second-largest economy in the world, competing America in the global economy, taking lead in technology, effective weapon delivery system and highly modernize military equipment showcase itself as an alternative power in the world. These development trigger America to adopt the offensive policy, which Donald Trump administration announced in First National Security Strategy in 2017, define China as a “Competitor” threat for national and strategic interests of Americans worldwide.
Subsequently, the current pendulum of Washington- Beijing partnership is fluctuating over the multiple issues and crises. The economic competition is fault line of the crisis, Washington shows its concern on China’s economic model which has state-led development, not a free market mechanism. In addition to that, this model creates a misconception between the two states. This competition led to the trade war in 2018 which intensifies economic rivalry and ultimately impose a huge tariff on steel and aluminum and China retaliatory measures in exchanging supplies and goods. Similarly, Chinese set a new pattern of alignment providing soft loans to -developing countries for instance Pakistan in terms of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) building a connectivity infrastructure under the banner of the “Belt Road Initiative, to connect Asia, Central Asia , Europe, and Africa that threats American ambition for global power.
The second impediment in the bilateral relationship is Technology competition. In the global world, technological advance countries establish strongholds to compete for new multifaceted challenges. China on earlier phase of development relies on western technology for building military equipment and other telecommunications devices. But the recent developments reflect china’s capabilities to overcome this issue by establishing innovation center and independent research center, to avoid any future blockade by Americans. This technology tussle have seen in last year when America banned Chinese based Huawei Company to build a 5G technology and transfer to other countries. America act promptly feels it’s a national security threat, blacklist the company and issued a warning claiming China using this technology for spying.
Lastly, Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said, “conflict is a choice, not a necessity.” This expression illustrates Sino- American relations in ongoing tensions. In an era of complex interdependence, choices, and options are always on the table to resolve global issues, stabilize international order, shared economic prosperity, addressing global warming issue. Washington- Beijing policy to control world affairs damaging the international order. America intention towards the Indo-Pacific region to contain Chinese influence particularly in South China Sea, stationed thousands of maritime troops to shun any Chinese’s involvement destabilized the region. American policy to support the Taiwan issue, Chinese authorities shows displeasure claiming internal matter of china. China increasing changes its image represent as a world leader option to deal with challenging world affairs issues, by using soft power image and not interfere in the internal matter of any states, whereas American image diminished in the promotion of democracy and protection of Human Rights. American policymakers criticized the Chinese strict state regulation policy towards its citizens and Uighur Muslims in name of radicalization.
The future of Sino-America relation is uncertain, unclear no one predicts the actual situation, evolving circumstances, and paradigm shift in international system determine position who leads the world?
Understanding the Question of What Hopes China can bring to the African Continent
Today, China plays a new role in the international system, garnering increasing attention around the globe. In its expedition to...
Less Than Half Pay for Media, News and Entertainment, But Willingness to Pay Is Rising
Less than half of consumers pay for media, with 16% paying for news and 44% paying for entertainment – but...
Five Ways to Lead: Workforce Principles for the COVID-19 Pandemic
As organizations address the longer-term implications of COVID-19, it is imperative to focus on the needs of all stakeholders, from...
Inflation and Economic Crisis in Pakistan
Cooperation on International level to protect economy and financial markets is a good development, but in our country with sealed...
COVID-19 cruelly highlights inequalities and threatens to deepen them
In many countries, income inequality has risen steeply since the 1980s, with adverse social and economic consequences. The COVID-19 pandemic...
How to protect yourself from cybercrime
Cybercrime has rocketed since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic as many try to exploit people’s fears. Below are tips...
Global Response to Coronavirus Exposes Governments’ Fault Lines
There’s a message in Pakistani and Egyptian responses to the Coronavirus: neither ultra-conservative science-rejecting worldviews nor self-serving autocratic policies aimed...
Terrorism3 days ago
The Threat of Nuclear Jihad in Central Asia and Russia
International Law2 days ago
Curious Case Of Nirbhaya And International Court Of Justice
Europe3 days ago
Covid-19: Macron’s conflicting crisis communication
International Law3 days ago
Affixing China’s Liability for COVID-19 spread
Middle East2 days ago
Iran Proposed Five-Nation Bloc for Regional Stability, Peace, and Progress
East Asia2 days ago
BRI to Health Silk Route: How COVID-19 is Changing Global Strategic Equations?
Europe2 days ago
Italy’s Last Unexpected Eurosceptic Friend: Edi Rama and his “Lesson to Europe”
Americas3 days ago
Why Trump Will Probably Win Re-Election