Global geopolitics is inevitably linked to major world events. The results of this, however, can be disastrous for well-known geopolitical theories and major geo-strategies.

On March 29, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong visited Washington, and had a meeting for about an hour with U.S. President Joe Biden, who had just returned from Europe. The two held a joint press conference after the meeting, focusing on the consensus between the two countries, including U.S. participation in the Asian region, Singapore-U.S. cooperation, and the adherence to the rules-based international order. From this joint press conference, many intriguing signs can be seen, and they are all important geopolitical messages.

Since President Biden took office, he has actively promoted the “Indo-Pacific strategy”. At the joint press conference, although Prime Minister Lee expressed his “welcome” to America’s proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, when referring to the Asian region at the beginning of the meeting and in the subsequent press conference, Prime Minister Lee repeatedly and politely used the phrase “Asia-Pacific”, instead of “Indo-Pacific” that Americans often talk about.

This is not a trivial question of word choice. Behind these vocabularies is the issue of the actual status and role of India as an Asian power, which has become increasingly obvious since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Not long before, on March 31, Daleep Singh, the U.S. deputy national security advisor for International Economics in the Biden administration, publicly warned India not to help Russia to weaken the dollar or face “consequences”.

According to relevant news, the White House said on March 29 that Daleep Singh would visit the Indian capital New Delhi to meet with Indian government officials, and the two sides will discuss on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Indian officials on March 31, Singh asked India to narrow its economic and military ties with Russia, refrain from increasing imports of Russian energy and from any moves that could weaken the dollar.

“We are very keen for all countries, especially our allies and partners, not to create mechanisms that prop up the ruble, and those that attempt to undermine the dollar-based financial system”, said Singh. Earlier, Reuters had reported that India and Russia were preparing to launch a rupee-ruble payment scheme to counter U.S. financial sanctions.

Possibly because the meeting with Indian officials was unsatisfactory, Singh sternly warned after the meeting that any country that helped Russia to evade Western sanctions would face “consequences”. It is worth noting that he is not the only U.S. official who is dissatisfied with India. Many U.S. officials have previously accused India being “unstable” in its response to the issue of confronting Russia, and that India is an “exception” among U.S. allies.

In reality, the very notion that India being an ally of the U.S. is merely a unilateral imagination on the American side in its attempt to constraint China. The level of naivety of this imagination at time has even reached an incongruous level. In a recent think tank conference that I have seen, a professor at Georgetown University in the U.S. who seemed to be dissatisfied with India’s performance in regard to the Russia-Ukraine war, accused India of not taking the side of the U.S. This was responded by a vehement rebuttal of an Indian think tank scholar on the spot. The Indian scholar said that India knows how to take care of its own interests, and there is no need for the U.S. to make irresponsible remarks. He continued that India’s economic growth rate is three to four times that of the U.S., and the poor in the United States are ubiquitous. The U.S., stressed the scholar, has no right to accuse India. He said that the war in Ukraine was provoked and instigated by the U.S., and that President Biden’s son has business interest there, while the U.S. also engages in “biological warfare” in Ukraine.

This is not merely an accidental reaction of a nationalistic Indian scholars. Indians are certainly proud of their country’s achievements, and this in fact has broader social basis. Naresh Gujral, an Indian member of Parliament, accused the West and the U.S. in regard to the war in Ukraine, saying that on the one hand, the West continues to buy Russian oil and gas, and on the other hand, it hypocritically tries to India to circumvent Russia’s energy supply. Sanjaya Baru, who served as the adviser to former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, also emphasized that “India doesn’t have to fall in line with either the East or the West”. In other words, the U.S. should not expect India to do what it demands its allies to do.

India has indeed, outwitted the U.S. in the geopolitical field.

Because of the war in Ukraine, India has revealed the U.S.’ blind spot in geopolitical vision. In the past, the U.S. misunderstood that India was an “ally”, even offered Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi special treatments, and upgraded the “Asia-Pacific strategy” which was based on the U.S.’ traditional allies to the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” for comprehensive cooperation with India. Prime Minister Modi then gladly enjoyed all these “special treatments” and the clear support provided by the U.S. in the India-China conflict. Yet, India has no plans to do anything further, and nothing has changed. Therefore, apart from the issue of the India-China conflict, India has never intended to be an ally of the United States. The thought that India being its ally is just a unilateral and naive wishful thinking of the U.S. strategy.

In the Russia-Ukraine war, even China, as a “competitor” of the U.S., “acted in concert” with it even more than India, the so-called American “ally”. At least, China has yet to have military relations with Russia, even if it is rumored that Russia has made a clear request for military assistance to China. India, on the other hand, continues to maintain and deepen military cooperation with Russia amid the war in Ukraine, not only in terms of conventional weapons, but also negotiating with Russia to import a large number of Sukhoi Su-30 fighter aircrafts, which practically continues to support Russia’s military industry.

Perhaps, the U.S. would find out that India has made a fool of it.

The degree to which India’s reaction in the Russia-Ukraine war has been open, obvious, and straightforward. India is tantamount to publicly accusing the U.S. geopolitical scholars and geo-strategists as self-righteous and ignorant. It appears that American geoscientists and strategic planners will be busy for a long time to come, just to revise the large number of policy documents to redefine India’s geopolitical status, and to produce huge amount of books and speeches to explain themselves.

Historical realists have repeatedly criticized Professor John Mearsheimer’s realist view, in the sense that the world cannot be defined with the needs of the geopolitical game, along the line of “the enemy of my enemy my a friend”. With their arrogant tradition of scientific imperialism, Americans have repeatedly made mistakes in this regard. First, there was Afghanistan; and now there is India. This is actually a simple issue. Looking back, today’s so-called “realism” is actually a dumbing-down of the complex global geopolitics.

Indeed, any mistake in geopolitics will result in troublesome outcome.

It is no mystery that Mexico has always subdued itself towards the desires of the United States of America, the imposing neighbor of the north. However, the extremes to which the current government of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is willing to go are rather alarming. He claims it is all done in the name of security, when in reality it is only putting a band-aid in a huge and bleeding wound. On one hand he claims the migration policy of Mexico is focused on preserving human rights, and on the other he continues to deploy more and more military forces to the country borders.

Since Donald Trump’s administration, the government of the U.S. has pressured Mexico to take more action to stop such massive flow of people looking to apply for refugee status. In addition to putting more pressure, after Trump threatened to impose higher tariffs to all Mexican products crossing the border, triggering a possible trade war; Andres Manuel decided to militarize even more the migration policy of the country and criminalize migrants. On March of 2021, 8715 soldiers from the Guardia Nacional, SEDENA and the Secretaria de Marina (National Guard, Navy Secretariat, and the Ministry of National Defense) were deployed in the north and south border of Mexico. Soldiers who are clearly not trained to deal with people in transit and who have committed serious human rights violations against migrants: in 2020, 51 complains against the brutal and aggressive actions of soldiers towards migrants, were filed. Likewise, from 2014 to 2019 nearly 3000 complains regarding military abuses were cataloged; abuses raging from arbitrary detentions to physical assaults and torture.

Nonetheless, the strategy to militarize borders, push migrants to other countries as if they were ‘someone else’s problem’ and claim is all for security purposes is neither a new one, nor Mexican-exclusive. Guatemala has a long history of using military and police force to violently stop the advance of different migrant caravans. Nowadays, it has around 20 checkpoints with military soldiers and federal police officials. Furthermore, in Joe Biden’s administration two of the most harmful policies continue to be enforced: Title 42 and the Remain in Mexico Program. Title 42 allows U.S. Border Patrol and Customs to carry out expulsions of anyone who can be a threat to the country’s health; called expulsions since they are not carried under immigration law. Up till now, 2,276,871 migrant arrests have happened, from which 63% resulted in this type of expulsions. Moreover, the Remain in Mexico program is as shocking because it forces Central Americans to return to Mexico while their claims are processed. Returning migrants most of the times means putting them in back in the dangerous situations they tried to escape from in their countries.

Evidently, the militarization of the social phenomenon of migration is not new. Rather than it being done in the name of security, these actions violate the security of people in transit. Migrants face many forms of violence: kidnapping, rape, ransom, torture and even death. Now they also must deal with travelling through more dangerous routes due to the inhumane deployment of military forces and the all-around militarization of migration policies. Plus, another factor that is quite disconcerting is how Andres Manuel is turning this militarization into a nationalist narrative;  just like the U.S. and Guatemala. The heroism of troops dealing with such ‘intense’ situations is constantly commemorated, without understanding that it is just a narrative to hide highly repressive tactics. Every time the army is involved it cannot be forgotten that it is a display of hard power. Thus, the tactics done so far only promote racism, xenophobia and aporophobia.

For some reason, I am the only person who publicly asserts that America’s roughly a thousand billionaires virtually own the U.S. Government, and that they donate so much money to the candidates who win the primary elections, in both political Parties, for the U.S. House and Senate, and for governorships, so that America’s billionaires actually winnow-out and eliminate each and every political candidate who wants to serve the public more than to serve billionaires. In other words: political conflicts in America are conflicts between its billionaires — not conflicts actually within America’s public-at-large (such as would be the case in any authentic democracy). In other words: America is ruled for the benefit ONLY of those roughly a thousand individuals who own the controlling blocs of stock in America’s largest corporations, including in virtually all of America’s ‘news’-media, and in the corporations (like Lockheed Martin) that derive all of their profits from selling to the U.S. Government and to all of its foreign vassal-regimes or ‘allies’. In other words: America’s great Founders, who had waged the Revolutionary War in order to replace the existing aristocracy, which was British, and to replace it with an authentic majority-rule democracy, have finally (as-of the present time), failed, because America now has actually a reborn aristocracy, and this reconstituted aristocracy consists of America’s own billionaires. They’re just as much a dictatorship as Britain’s aristocracy were, but almost entirely homegrown instead of 100% foreign (such as that British aristocracy were). This reconstituted aristocracy consists of the wealthiest Americans, instead of the wealthiest Englishmen. Therefore, America’s conflicts — both foreign and domestic — are either against foreign countries that America’s aristocracy aim to add to their existing empire, or else are against America’s public, or are against both. The foreign conflicts are dealt with by imposing economic sanctions, subversions, coups, and military invasions; but the domestic conflicts are dealt with simply by the ancient aristocratic maxim of “divide and rule” — splitting up the enemy (in this case the American people) into gays versus straights, Whites versus Blacks, “our” religion versus their religion or no religion at all, or any other manufactured (such as ethnic) “us versus them,” but not EVER the ACTUAL one, which is billionaires-versus-the-public. This is how they stay in power and constantly increase their power (their dictatorship).

A typical example of evasion of this reality, on the part of America’s Democrats (the fools of billionaires who fund the Democratic Party) is Matt Taibbi’s March 29th “Meet The Censored: Chris Hedges”. It opened:

This past weekend, celebrated journalist and author Chris Hedges woke up to find six years of episodes of his Russia Today show On Contact vanished from the show’s account on YouTube. Though almost none of the shows referenced Russia or Vladimir Putin directly, and the few that did tended to be unflattering, his association with Russian state media was enough to erase hundreds of interviews about topics ranging from Julian Assange’s imprisonment to censorship to police brutality to American war crimes in the Middle East.

Now on Substack, Hedges has a long and uncomfortably colorful history of being muffled. The former New York Times correspondent covered wars from the Balkans to the Middle East to the Falkland Islands, and authored books like War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, American Fascists, and The Death of the Liberal Class, and through 2002, when he won the Pulitzer Prize as part of a team for Exploratory Reporting, he defined mainstream respectability and excellence in journalism. He might have had it easy, spending the latter part of his career on the Thomas Friedman/David Brooks Memorial Gravy Train of overpaid lectures, University trusteeships, and fellowships at obscure think-tanks, if he’d just kept his mouth shut.

He didn’t.

Then, there was the interview portion, which included, for example:

MT: This two-step process feels like a backdoor way of getting rid of unorthodox voices. In other words, weren’t you on RT in the first place because you’d been bounced out for opposing the war in Iraq? Now, because of your association with RT, you’re off YouTube. Is this a way to get at, not just people connected with Russians, but people with unpopular views generally?

Chris Hedges: Yeah. That’s how it works. They push you to the margins and then, they demonize those spaces on the margins. This has long been the habit of the dominant ruling elites. So for instance, Robert Scheer, whose website I write for, Scheerpost— and of course, we were all fired from Truthdig, this is just a never ending saga — but he ran Ramparts. I think it was Spiro Agnew said, “It’s a magazine with a bomb in every issue.” We could never get advertisers.

In other words: they use obscurantist phrases such as “the elites,” or the opponents of “people with unpopular views generally,” instead of saying “America’s billionaires,” or even “America’s super-rich.” That’s like, in Nazi Germany, referring to “the Nazi Party,” instead of to Adolf Hitler or to the billionaires who had backed him. It’s referring to the agents, not to the principals. It’s referring to the employees, not to the employers (who selected and hired and fired those). None of Germany’s billionaires became hanged at Nuremberg. In fact, all of them became financial backers of the regime that America’s ruling billionaires installed in West Germany and who now control all of Germany as being an American vassal-nation (a ‘U.S. ally’). But, in fact: Among the publics in NATO nations, only Germans opposed Ukraine joining NATO (57% to 36%) (in contrast to all other NATO publics, which were even more than 57% in favor of Ukraine being allowed to join NATO). The German Government does ONLY what the U.S. Government ALLOWS it to do. That is the very definition of a “vassal nation,” or “colony.” Whereas Germany’s public were 57% opposed to America’s Ukraine policy, Germany’s Government were so supportive of America’s Ukraine policy as to have terminated its own and Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline in order to comply with America’s demand, and therefore brought upon their own people the soaring gas-prices that could destroy Germany’s economy. How could a country be more of a vassal nation than that?

Of course, on America’s Republican Party side, the accounts are no less diversionary than on the Democratic Party side, but they are, instead, if anything, even more false, because of the Republican Party’s open and overt worship of the super-wealthy, as-if those people are God’s appointees to rule. It’s actually just one faction of America’s billionaires against the other faction of them. This limitlessly-grasping, insatiable, dictatorship (or regime) is what America’s billionaires want to rule the entire world. Or, as their puppet Barack Obama had phrased the matter, on 28 May 2014 (shortly after his coup that regime-changed Ukraine in February 2014) to America’s future military elite: “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.” And, of course, the way that his audience-members there can professionally “respond” is purely by specifically military means. That’s what their employer, the U.S. regime, is paying them to do. The regime has told them that this is an economic function, to keep America’s aristocracy on top, so that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” All other nations are “dispensable.” That future military elite are to serve this economic function, by military means.

Why are all of the ‘news’-media hiding this fact from the public? Why am I still the ONLY reporter who uses such a phrase as “the U.S. regime”? Until that changes, this regime’s endangerment of the entire world with a globe-annihilating World War III can only continue to increase, unimpeded. That’s because it relies, 100%, upon the lie, the myth, that America is a democracy. Without that myth, this Emperor would have no clothes. America is ruled one-dollar-one-vote, not really one-person-one-vote. Economic inequality within a nation tends naturally to destroy any democracy that might exists in the given country and turn it into an aristocracy instead. Such extreme economic inequality as America has, turned it into a dictatorship by and for the super-rich. For the sake of the future of the entire world, this Emperor’s clothes must now increasingly be ripped right off — exposed to the entire world so that it will be seen as being what it actually is.