2022 is starting to look, sound, and feel an awful lot like 1962. If one wonders how 60 years could go by with so much historical change and global shifting and yet still end up basically back at something reminiscent of the peak crisis point of the Cold War (the Cuban Missile Crisis), then it is necessary to go on a recent historical journey to offer an uncomfortable explanation as to how this has all come to pass: it is the fault of America’s Generation X.
It’s not exactly Generation X’s fault alone. But due to an unanticipated conflagration of unique historical and academic circumstances, the American scholarly landscape today when it comes to Russian analysis is surprisingly thin. The specific reasons for this might be somewhat surprising and are most certainly not openly discussed in various academic, professional, and diplomatic conferences. In fact, it is actively and even aggressively avoided. The dearth of American Generation X Russian experts is not because everyone just somehow forgot Russia still existed after the end of the Cold War. Rather, it seems what was forgotten was the undeniable uniqueness of Russian history: namely, that despite over 1000 years of political and historical evidence, American graduate schools in the 1990s forgot that Russia would NEVER allow itself to be politically irrelevant for long.
The West’s celebration of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the so-called ‘end of history,’ the unequivocal victory of democracy over its main political system-rival, was accompanied by an almost unconscious Russian deemphasis in prestigious American graduate schools. Yeltsin’s Russia was intellectually pushed aside by young aspiring scholars because, after all, it had not only lost the Cold War: it also now seemed to be an inefficient kleptocracy, a political also-ran, and a corrupt economic swamp, destined to remain unimportant on the coming 21st century’s global stage. The fact that this impression in America was aligned with a Russian demographic crisis in the 1990s – with its overall population shrinking as opposed to growing – and the American academic/political communities dismissively shook their heads and felt like the end of the Cold War quite possibly might just be the literal end of Russia. And so, by 1997, when many Gen Xers would naturally be advancing through their PhD programs, selecting dissertation committees, and deciding on complex theses, they were subtly but decisively given an adamant piece of advice: abandon Russia.
Keep in mind: this was not petty advice. It was meant to be well-intentioned. By 1997-1998, Russia seemed to most in the West as, at best, a place to study the problems of crime and corruption or flawed democratic transition. This was all political Russia could be good for from the level of elite American graduate schools. The mentoring of the next generation of experts, the one that was meant to take the leadership mantle from the Baby Boomers and lead American-Russian relations into the 21st century, stagnated and was stopped cold. The not-so-subtle hint given to doctoral students was simple but powerful: if you truly want a job in academia and want to do ‘important’ work, Russia is yesterday’s news. If you want to be on the cutting edge, look to the Middle East and jump on the Islamist bandwagon. That is where the real scholarly action (and future job demand) was going to be. Of course, the seismic event of September 11, 2001, just a short three years later, stamped out whatever doubt remained amongst these now advanced American Generation X PhD students. It was as if their mentors were prophets and had to be obeyed. And thus, the ultimate consequence that still limits the solving of Russian-American political problems today: the Lost Generation.
There are too few new thinkers or innovative minds that have emerged from Generation X when it comes to studying and understanding the Russian Federation politically and strategically. When examining and coding media sources and academic work, when viewing who mainstream media reaches out to for quotes and expert opinion, one is hard-pressed to find a quote from anyone under 50 who is not massively dependent on the ‘Soviet presumption’ for explaining behaviour. And this is not an ‘ageist’ argument. The problem is not how old a person is but rather under what style of educational mentorship would they have been trained. It is not coincidence that almost every single Russian foreign policy initiative today is characterized as some sort of revanchist attempt to resurrect (symbolically or literally) the power and glory of the Soviet Union. It is not odd happenstance that Putin is evaluated only in terms of thirsty Soviet dictatorship exclusively. Examine political reality today. Read as many sources of information possible. Whether it was the missile defense ‘shield’ in Poland and the Czech Republic, or Iran, or Syria, or the Sochi Olympic bombings, or Maidan, or Crimea, or the present special military operation around Kiev, what one sees are analyses that could have been cut from the New York Times in 1962 and just had the geographic key words altered. There is no imagination, no innovation, nothing evolutionary whatsoever. There has been no contrarian intellectual power transfer in America at all when it comes to understanding Russia. It is frozen in amber. Not surprisingly, the possibility for connection, collaboration, and dynamic negotiation is equally frozen.
Perhaps worse than this diplomatic reality, the situation within think tanks, academic associations, and institutes in the United States – all priding themselves on Russian expertise – is just as dire: put bluntly, there are negative career consequences for anyone interested in considering alternative ideas to the academic orthodoxy. Within Russian Studies, academic freedom is arguably under intense pressure so that there is only one acceptable kind of freedom. And that freedom is decidedly anti-Russian and deterministic. Complicating this, of course, was Russia’s stubborn unwillingness to remain irrelevant. The little black box of Russian abandonment or anti-Russian indifference created by American academia the past 25 years, now obliterated, means there is a new generation of PhD students emerging, once again intrigued, concerned, and fascinated by Russia. This new generation – a combination of Millennials, Y, and Z depending on how you define it, is in or entering PhD programs now. The concern, however, is that many of these programs are incredibly still run by either Baby Boomers on their last legs with an intense desire to see the old principles of the Cold War once again dominant or by a smattering of Generation X scholars who have spent their entire careers under a domineering orthodoxy that has not evolved beyond said Cold War. This leadership demands that the Cold War is the only political destiny allowed Russia. Given the influence this community has on American policymakers, why is anyone surprised at the lack of evolution in the Russian-American relationship?
In sum, there are very few Generation X thinkers directing programs today that are determined to open up new political and diplomatic possibilities, to encourage new thinking about Russia in a 21st multipolar global century not shackled to the mid-20th bipolar Cold War century. This does not bode well for the future of American-Russian relations or the future of Russian Studies in America. It certainly doesn’t bode well for diplomacy between the two countries, which is no small loss as everyone watches the events transpiring in Ukraine. Truly, this is about how the future gets defined. Right now, it is a future that looks depressingly familiar within a tightly framed intellectual past. It is a future shaped by a Lost Generation that allowed itself to be swayed by immediate trends and pressures of job placement. Instead of focusing on who to blame or where to place shame, it is now critical to see institutions be the intellectual change the world needs more than ever. There can be no diplomatic revolution without it.
*This is an updated version of an article I previously wrote back in 2015. At the time, I thought it was crucially needed because of how poor the state of Russian-American relations were. I am sadly disappointed that seven years later it seems necessary for such an update, given those same relations are arguably in an even worse condition.
Are Biden’s Troubles of his Own Making?
What a fractious world we live in. The somnambulist Biden has woken up in his nocturnal wanderings to hear complaints about China for its sea incursions close to the littoral areas of allies like Taiwan and Japan. Thus at the “Quad” (Australia, Japan, US and India) meeting in Tokyo, he reaffirmed US support for Taiwan, militarily if need be, to defend Taiwanese independence in what appeared to be a reversal of policy as earlier the US had recognized it as a province of China.
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) an economic union of the Quad and other Asia-Pacific countries has been revived — Trump had buried it earlier, aiming presumably higher but missing. Mr. Biden announced its reincarnation as the new Inter Pacific Economic Federation (IPEF).
All of which is the least of Mr. Biden’s headaches. There’s a full blown war in Ukraine to consider. And he promptly announced a $40.1 bill military aid package for Ukraine. Defense contractors couldn’t be more pleased. Lockheed Martin stock is up 6 percent in two days as it ramps up production of the Javelin anti-tank missile, doubling it according to the CEO to supply Ukraine.
Congress has now passed a $40 billion aid package. The amount is not trivial. For comparison, India, a country of more than a billion people with the third largest defence budget in the world, spends less than half that sum on weapons procurement.
The real question is going to be Mr. Putin’s response. He might well call it a move aimed at slaughtering young Russian boys, when he himself is asking for peace talks. Even President Zelensky, the quintessential blowhard politician, has been forced to admit that 50-100 Ukrainian soldiers are dying daily.
American interference in Ukraine has a long history. The planning and participation in a coup eight years ago (when Biden was vice president) and the selection of future leaders thereafter are all documented. On lack of European support for it at the time, Victoria Nuland, the then Deputy Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs responded famously, “F–k the EU.” She has the dubious distinction of being the chief promoter of the so-called “soft coup” which led eventually to the fall of the elected Viktor Yanukovych government and thence to the divisions in Ukraine. The results have been the deaths of an estimated 13,000 people and the displacement of millions.
Since 2014 about one million refugees have left the country as a result of wars in the Donbas. Another 1.6 million were internally displaced. Following the latest fighting in 2022, the number of Ukrainians who have left the country has risen by another 6.6 million and another 7.7 million are displaced from their homes to other parts of the country. That in total is over a quarter of the country’s population of 44 million.
It is painful, pitiful, atrocious and appalling that in the 21st century, political leaders instead of resolving disputes have behaved in a manner ending in a human tragedy of these proportions. Let’s just say, none of the participants need queue up for a Nobel Peace Prize, although one had already received it before this and other misadventures.
The WW III that Biden and All Other Neocons Are Leading U.S. Toward
The intensely neoconservative U.S. President Joe Biden is leading the world into a World War III against both Russia and China, but despite the U.S. spending annually around half of the entire planet’s military expenditures (not only in its ‘Defense’ Department but in its Treasury Department and other Government agencies), America is actually inferior to both Russia and China regarding leading-edge geostrategically crucial technologies of both nuclear and laser weapons, and is getting farther behind each year, because for both Russia and China their own national sovereignty is what their enemy, the U.S. Government, aims to conquer, whereas no one poses a threat to the U.S. Government’s continuing rule over its own people (it becomes increasingly a police-state). The U.S. Government is the only and supreme champion of sanctions and coups and invasions for regime-change producing the creation of new vassal-nations throughout the globe, whereas both Russia and China must protect themselves from that or else become themselves new U.S. vassal-nations. So: they are laser-focused on NOT allowing America to grab their nation. Truly, for them, this is an existential issue, NOT a matter (such as is the case regarding the U.S. Government) of growing to become the world’s first and only all-encompassing global empire (a luxury that only America’s billionaires, who control the U.S. Government, require). This basic distinction is the reason why whereas the U.S. has over 800 military bases spread throughout the planet, Russia and China are concerned ONLY about not allowing U.S. forces to be based so near to their borders as to enable a U.S. missile to annihilate their capital’s command-and-control within less than ten minutes and so to enable the U.S. Government to grab control of them so fast that the targeted nation’s (Russia’s and China’s) retaliatory weapons won’t be launched in self-defense.
Consequently, for example, the geostrategically-focused CRUX youtube site headlined on May 23rd “Why The World Fears Putin’s ‘Flying Chernobyl’ Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile”, and reported on Russia’s emerging “Buravestnik” nuclear-powered nuclear-warheaded missile that will be able to avoid all known types of anti-missile detection and tracking technologies and that will be able to fly for any distance because of its nuclear fuel. Though that pro-U.S.-Government, anti-Putin, CRUX-produced video says “Experts have underlined the threat that … this weapon may pose to the environment and human health” due to radioactive waste that’s released into the air during its flight, because there is no space inside the missile to store waste, even America’s National Defense magazine has admitted that “the amount of nuclear waste that this will produce is very tiny, … basically negligible,” which is hardly what CRUX headlines it as being — a “Flying Chernobyl.” CRUX went on to say, “Experts say that Putin’s Cold War mindset has normalised the development of such doomsday weapons.” It’s all regime-change-in-Russia propaganda.
In other words: the neocons’ aim to destroy Russia so fast that Russia won’t be able to destroy America in retaliation, is hogwash that’s probably funded, ultimately, by corporations such as Lockheed Martin, whose sales are exclusively or mainly to the U.S. Government and its allied governments (vassal-nations), which U.S.-and-allied weapons-making firms’ stock-values have soared ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991. It ended only on Russia’s side in 1991, but this supercharged it on America’s side. This unleashed a solely military-industrial-complex-controlled U.S. Government, which demands an ever-increasing percentage of the U.S. Government’s expenses to go toward its military, which, nonetheless, is privately owned and controlled; and its profits have soared.
The Secret U.S. & UK War Against Europe
The secret U.S.-and-UK war against Europe is well documented but little known, and some conceptual and historical background is pre-requisite in order to understand that documentation.
Historically, nations which share the same currency don’t go to war against one-another unless one of them is a colony of the other and is (like America’s colonies were in 1776) in a revolution to establish its independence against the imperialist one of them. Having a common currency is therefore a strong factor — but not a decisive one — toward peace between nations.
UK (Britain) has its pound, EU (the European Union) has its euro, and U.S. (America) has its dollar. U.S. (its dollar) and UK (its pound) are now in a war against EU (its euro), so as to help to extend into the future the dollar’s (America’s) existing dominance as the main global reserve currency — the future political and financial dominance by America, heading ultimately to control over all nations by America’s Government, practically obviating the United Nations and its (crippled) role till now as the authoritative source of international law: the laws that govern not within nations but instead between nations — replacing that existing body of international laws, by “the international rules based order,” in which America’s Government will be setting those “rules.” It’s an international struggle to replace the U.N. and all international laws, by a global dictatorship either by the U.S. and the UK, or else by the U.S. and the EU. All three of those currencies are, however, agreed together, to prevent there ever being control over international laws by the U.N. and its agencies, or by anything OTHER THAN the nations that are in America’s fundamental military alliance, which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: NATO. NATO is to be expanded in order to increase the U.S. Government’s (and the U.S. dollar’s) dominance, and thereby weaken the U.N.’s authority and its already-crippled and ever-weakening power.
UK’s aristocracy took control of American foreign policies on 25 July 1945, when, at the Potsdam Conference, America’s Anglophile General Dwight Eisenhower seconded Winston Churchill’s hostility against Joseph Stalin by telling the naive new U.S. President Harry Truman (who practically worshipped Eisenhower) that either the U.S. would ultimately conquer the Soviet Union, or else the Soviet Union would conquer America; and, so, the Cold War was then born, on that date, in Truman’s head, by his decision to agree with Eisenhower’s viewpoint and commence what became called “the Cold War” so as ultimately to conquer Russia. Truman then backed General George Marshall’s plan, The Marshall Plan, in 1948, to provide billions of dollars in U.S. reconstruction aid to any European country that would side with America against the Soviet Union in order to establish the planned future all-encompassing U.S. global dictatorship (control of the world by America’s billionaires and their corporations, especially granting them access to all countries’ natural resources).
America’s NATO military alliance was then created in 1949 to assist in the intended ‘anti-communist’ (actually anti-U.S.S.R) ultimate conquest (which would be the crowning achievement of America’s conquest over the entire world). Subsequently, America’s CIA brought America’s European allies together into what ultimately became the European Union, so that European nations would be controlled from Washington both militarily and economically. However, whereas formerly, the European Union was controlled by the U.S. Government almost as much as America’s NATO anti-Russian military alliance is, that is no longer the case; and, therefore, UK’s aristocracy, during 2016-2020, led a secret campaign, to remove UK altogether from the EU, and to install at 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Boris Johnson to do Brexit — British exit from the EU — in what Britain’s billionaires saw as being the right way, keeping “the Anglosphere” (U.S. and UK) in control over the world, as opposed to the way in which UK’s then Prime Minister Theresa May was negotiating with the EU, which would have weakened not only America’s control over Europe, but also UK’s control over Europe, which latter (control over Europe) the UK controls only indirectly by virtue of its “Special Relationship” with the U.S. Government, which controls Europe. (For UK to lose its voting privilege in the EU was puny in comparison to UK’s increased power over the EU through being uniquely allied with America’s Government, which controls the EU.) That constitutes the necessary conceptual and historical background, in order to understand the following:
On May 15th, Kit Klarenberg at The Gray Zone bannered “Operation Surprise: leaked emails expose secret intelligence coup to install Boris Johnson”, and demonstrated from leaked private documents, that an authentic conspiracy by a clique of supremely well-connected individuals within Britain — Britain’s Deep State, answerable only to Britain’s billionaires and hereditary aristocracy — had actually engineered Theresa May’s downfall as Prime Minister and her replacement by Boris Johnson, so that UK would no longer be allied with EU except as being EU’s superior, because of Britain’s unique bonding with its former colony, America.
Here is how the leader of that cabal or conspiracy explained, on 4 October 2019, his strategy to a small group of followers — students, perhaps — which fortunately still remains on youtube:
However, his jargon in that stunningly revealing video (which now must be understood in light of Klarenberg’s 15 May 2022 revelations) requires some additional important historical and terminological background.
“The five-eyes alliance,” that speaker said, “keeps the free world free,” but what does this mean? His “free” is actually a lie; really, it’s the opposite of free; it is the voting and taxpaying publics’ enslavement to the U.S. and British Military-Industrial Complexes (or “MICs”), after the 1991 termination of the U.S.S.R and of its communism and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance that mirrored America’s NATO, and it now means only the U.S. regime’s rule of the world by its aristocracy, who are psychopathic and who control and profit from their armaments-makers while their publics pay for it in taxes and destructions and corpses. It means precisely what the originator of this conspiracy, Cecil Rhodes, had first stated in 1877, and it does constitute the “Special Relationship” that UK and U.S. have had ever since this “Special Relationship” was finally and fully in place and fully functioning, starting on 25 July 1945, when Truman set America onto this fateful path, of conquering the entire world — Rhodes’s vision of the world’s future, and of how Rhodes would create the organization to bring it about. Here is from that historic 1877 statement, by Rhodes (which the speaker in that video was actually — and very skiilfully — representing: this is the original statement of that viewpoint):
I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. …
Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. …
What has been the main cause of the success of the Romish Church? The fact that every enthusiast, call it if you like every madman finds employment in it. Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. …
To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.
This was to be, and is, the foundation-stone of the renewed British Empire’s Deep State. (Here is its full document.)
Rhodses’s phrase “the best interests of humanity” expressed actually his racist-cultural viewpoint. It is, ultimately, an allegation that Her Majesty’s Government will be better to rule over international relations than any alternative, such as FDR’s intention for an armed United Nations, could ever be. Though Rhodes wanted international relations to be ruled by Britain’s aristocracy, FDR wanted it to be ruled by a U.N. which would be an armed democracy (federation) of nations. Hitler had his vision of a “Thousand-Year Reich,” but Churchill, who was an ardent Rhodesist, and who had been a protégé of Rhodes, favored, instead, Britain’s version of such an all-encompassing global empire, and this was/is to be achieved by harnessing Britain’s empire to the back of the far stronger American horse. Rhodes knew, even in 1877, that this would be the only way that the British Empire could successfully continue into future centuries.
Right now, the EU is sinking because by adhering to America’s demand to halt importation of gas and oil from the EU’s main supplier, which is Russia, energy-costs throughout the EU will soar and destroy their economy. And this is the strategy of Biden, and of Johnson. Biden, too, is a Rhodesist — just as Obama and Trump and Bush I & 2 and Clinton and Reagan were. The Governments of both U.S. and UK are Rhodesist. This doesn’t mean that in each and every matter, the two dictatorships agree, but that almost always they do; and, that when they don’t, UK’s Government doesn’t prod its American horse to buck and throw off its British rider, because those Brits know that this — riding on the American horse — is the ONLY way that they can continue the British empire to the extent that they have been allowed to do after WW II. The Rhodesists, and their “Five-Eyes Alliance” (Prins also refers to it as “the Anglosphere”, which is yet another phrase for what Rhodes was advocating for) are realists, who are trying to extend for as long as possible into the future their joint and collective aristocratic exploitation of the entire world. This means: keep Europe down, and all other countries out. It’s especially the case with regards to Germany, which is the EU’s industrial giant. As the New York Times reported on 5 April 2022:
Already Germany has reduced its dependence on gas from Russia [from 55%] by 15 percent, bringing it down to 40 percent in the first three months of the year, the energy ministry said.
But industry leaders have pushed back against imposing sanctions on Russian natural gas. Turning off the taps would cause “irreversible damage,” warned Martin Brudermüller, the chief executive of BASF, the chemical producer based in southwestern Germany. Making the transition from Russian natural gas to other suppliers or moving to alternative energy sources would require four to five years, not weeks, he said.
“Do we want to blindly destroy our entire national economy? What we have built up over decades?” Mr. Brudermüller said in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last week.
Already, due to pressure from the Biden Administration, and against German popular opinion and the pleas by German businesses of all sizes not to do it, Germany recently cancelled the recently completed Nord Stream II mammoth gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, which would have reduced gas prices in Europe. Instead, those prices are expected soon to double. And almost all of the EU will be taking a big hit from such decisions by Germany and other EU nations. It is a U.S./UK war against not only Russia but also Europe.
That is what Gwythian Prins, the leader of their cabal or conspiracy, who speaks in that youtube video, was actually talking about. (Klarenberg’s article says nothing about Rhodes, but what Prins says in this yotube video of him is likewise totally in keeping with Rhodes’s plan, about which the article by Klarenberg reveals lots of private evidence.) And America’s European stooges are doing everything they can to impose American rule, despite the fact that in certain details, UK’s aristocracy are profoundly dissatisfied with the extent to which the EU is not doing everything that UK’s aristocrats want them to do. UK’s aristocrats know that bucking the American horse would cause them to be thrown off of it. So, they choose, instead, to stay on it, and to merely nudge it whenever they want a minor change in its direction. And that is what Prins is advocating for, against the EU, upon his colleagues and students.
And that explains the documentation linked-to here regarding the U.S.-and-UK war against Europe. It is their war to keep Europe down, and all the rest of the world out, and only Britain still in the saddle riding the American horse to permanent victory, against the publics everywhere. It is for continuation of “the Washington Consensus.”
Klarenberg’s article includes lots of fascinating documentation, such as this photo of Prins’s email dated “September 22, 2018 at 4:53 AM” to a certain “Julian Blackwell, addressing his chum as ‘Trooper,’ a reference to the publisher’s SAS special forces background, and thanking him for his ‘hugely welcome and generous willingness to cover my foregone income for effectively the first half of this FY [financial year] [so that Prins would be able to engineer Boris Johnson’s replacing Theresa May].’” It would all be highly incriminating, if UK weren’t a dictatorship and Prins himself weren’t one of that dictatorship’s key agents. Interestingly, the organization at which Prins was speaking, “Veterans for Britain” (of which Prins is a board-member) was revealed on 5 December 2017 to be a “Dark Money” group fronting for Conservative Party UK and for Republican Party U.S. financial backers; and the group which revealed that was “Open Democracy,” which itself is funded by mainly Labour Party UK, and Democratic Party U.S., financial backers, but also by some middle-of-the-road (i.e., anti-Trump) U.S. Republican Party financial backers — in other words: “Open Democracy” is funded by billionaires in both America and Britain. In both countries, membership in the dictatorship class (the nation’s aristocracy) requires being a billionaire, or else close to that. The public are merely their suckers, to be manipulated (via propaganda from their media) however at least some of the billionaires want them to be suckered. There is consequently a constant contest between conservative and liberal billionaires, in order to s‘elect’ into national office only politicians who are backed by at least SOME of the billionaires. And one of the things that all of the billionaires are funding is propaganda in favor of keeping U.S. and UK on top, ruling the rest of “The Anglosphere,” and keeping Europe down, and all other countries out.
Unmasking India’s IB and RAW
India’s prime minister Narendra Modi granted a year-long extension in service to retiring heads of India’s Intelligence bureau (Arvind Kumar)...
How to Prepare for Your First Year in College
Securing college admission is an achievement you should be proud of. It feels even more fulfilling if you are admitted...
Russia Renews its Support to Mark Africa Day
Russia has renewed its unique confidence that “it will be able to ensure the development and implementation of many useful...
China and the Indo Pacific Economic Framework
The Indo Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) signed by a total of 13 countries, on May 23, 2022, in Tokyo is...
On international relations, the public is clueless, democracy fails
Nothing is more important to the people in any nation than international relations, because that includes national security, peace and...
Zelenskyy Could and Does Make Mistakes Too
The war in Ukraine has transformed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from a rather weak leader to a world-renowned one who has...
Are Biden’s Troubles of his Own Making?
What a fractious world we live in. The somnambulist Biden has woken up in his nocturnal wanderings to hear complaints...
Economy3 days ago
Education Must Come First in our Global Economic Agenda
Russia4 days ago
The U.S. doesn’t want to protect Ukraine; it wants to defeat Russia
Tech News4 days ago
WEF Unveils Virtual Global Collaboration Village as the Future of Strong Public-Private Cooperation
Defense3 days ago
Is Fatigue Causing Twists and Turns in Russia Ukraine War?
Science & Technology3 days ago
Space exploration and the future exploitation of asteroids
Finance4 days ago
Human Consequences from the Fragmentation of the Global Economy
East Asia3 days ago
What China Does Not Know about India
Economy3 days ago
What are Market Anticipations and Policy Expectations as Shares Tumble?