The Multipolar World Order (yes, it's coming)

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
NATO: "You need to have water, flashlights, and a radio on batteries to make sure you survive the first 36 hours.”

As NATO, which Fidel Castro called the ‘most perfidious instrument of repression known in the history of humankind’, loses its iron grip over the world, NATO now warns its citizens to prepare for war against Russia🇷🇺 or another one of NATO’s seemingly endless list of adversaries.

While the global south looks with optimism to a multipolar world, NATO seems hell-bent on doing everything to destroy the new power centres of the multipolar world.

https://rumble.com/v4jhmm0-putin-sta...irect-c.html?a

https://x.com/afshinrattansi/status/1770714614893826141

[Vicus]

Sanctions Empower Russia, 'Boomerang' on Europe and Undermine Dollar Hegemony – Experts 23 minutes ago



Western economic aggression against Russia only sped up its economic growth, with Moscow bolstering ties with the Global South and becoming one of its key pillars.

Russia's 3.6% economic growth in 2023 that dwarfed that of G7 countries shows that sanctions have failed completely, the Daily Mail has reported, quoting experts.

The outlet quoted US President Joe Biden as saying that the Russian economy “looks resilient”.
Nevertheless, experts admit that sanctions “influenced Russia's behavior enormously," but not in the way Western leaders and economists intended. Sanctions showed Russia that the West is hostile and prompted Moscow to bolster its ties with the Global South.

“Moscow has been forming strong alliances with its BRICS partners and some other states in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, with the aim of creating a new global balance of power," admited Dr. Ksenia Kirkham from King’s College, London.

She added that Moscow is busy developing alternative trade routes and payment systems that challenge Western economic power and, in the end, undermine US dollar hegemony and control over logistic chains – “the very mechanisms through which sanctions effectively operate”.

“Russia's isolation is a myth,” she admitted firmly.

Anti-Russian sanctions, however, are doing a great job of ruining European economies and bolstering Europe’s dependence on the United States.

“European countries have suffered greatly from a 'sanctions boomerang',” said expert on international relations Professor Alan Cafruny from the US’ Hamilton College.

After sanctions were introduced, European countries saw soaring gas prices that devastated their economies and sparked a cost-of-living crisis. The German economy, which was based on relatively cheap Russian hydrocarbons, suffered greatly and is currently facing a de-industrialization trend.

continue:

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240401/sa...117684289.html

[Ravenlocke]

Text:

Russian FM Sergey Lavrov holds a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen before this met in Guangzhou with Vice Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China He Lifeng. There she threatened the PRC with “serious consequences” if it turns out that Chinese business supports Russia in the conflict with Ukraine.

According to Yellen, companies should not provide material support or other assistance to the Russian defense industry. The head of the Ministry of Finance also believes that China’s production capacity allegedly harms China itself and producers in other countries. And while Yellen stopped short of making any threats about creating new trade barriers, she said she would not rule out additional measures to protect the emerging U.S. supply chain for electric vehicles, batteries and other goods from cut-price Chinese imports.

He Lifeng expressed “serious concern” about the increasing restrictions on the part of the United States in the trade and economic sphere.

As for statements about China's excess capacity, the US tactics are an example of double standards, because the West itself has been using such a scheme for centuries. In principle, Yellen’s words clearly fit into the US policy of neocolonialism. Such attacks are an illustration of the fact that Washington continues to regard China as an entity dependent on them. The States are experiencing economic agony and their loss of global supremacy.

Beijing is not going to listen to such statements, and the United States does not have enough tools to implement its strategy, given the close connection of the two economies.

The development of Russian-Chinese cooperation is outside the jurisdiction of the United States, which, in addition, can only offer the PRC new duties and sanctions.

https://x.com/mazzenilsson/status/1777363824296767693

¤=[Post Update]=¤

https://x.com/tassagency_en/status/1777377444997070933

https://tass.com/economy/1772063?utm...m_social_share

Bank of Russia supports accelerating bill on international cryptocurrency payments

Elvira Nabiullina also noted that more than 98% of financial transactions inside Russia are routed through the Russian equivalent of SWIFT, the Financial Messaging System of the Bank of Russia

MOSCOW, April 8. /TASS/. The Bank of Russia advocates accelerating the adoption of the bill on international payments in cryptocurrencies, but the start of such payments must be carried out in an experimental legal regime, according to Governor of the Bank of Russia Elvira Nabiullina.

At the same time, international settlements in digital financial assets will be launched without an experimental regime. The Bank of Russia has already received three applications from companies to use digital financial assets in international economic settlements, according to First Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Olga Skorobogatova. "We recently passed legislation that allows digital financial assets to be used in settlements for overseas economic activities in the absence of experimental legal frameworks. We've already received three applications from businesses interested in trying this," she said.

Nabiullina also noted that more than 98% of financial transactions inside Russia are routed through the Russian equivalent of SWIFT, the Financial Messaging System of the Bank of Russia (SPFS). "More than 98% of (financial) messages inside the country go through the SPFS now, with over 160 non-residents from 20 countries having joined the system," she said.

The regulator consistently creates conditions for international payments in national currencies, Nabiullina added. "Sanctions risks remain high when accounts in dollars, euros, as well as SWIFT, are used in the chain of payments," she noted.

The Financial Messaging System of the Bank of Russia has become the main channel for the exchange of financial information in carrying out payments on corresponding accounts inside Russia.

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
🇺🇸🌐BlackRock eats the world

BlackRock's managed assets have reached a record-breaking $10.5 trillion as of the first quarter of 2024.

This represents a 15% increase compared to the same period last year, and there has been a net inflow of $57 billion into their investment products.

multipolarmarket

https://x.com/dana916/status/1779661656672358491

[Vicus]

The arrival of Russian troops in Niger will reshape the US' regional calculations
Andrew Korybko
korybko.substack.com
Sat, 13 Apr 2024



africamap
While the possibly impending withdrawal of US forces from Niger is definitely a victory of sorts, the proverbial "Battle for the Sahel" in the New Cold War is likely far from over.


It was wondered last month whether the US could salvage its Nigerien base deal after the military authorities scrapped their partnership pact upon being disrespected by visiting American officials. The news that Russian instructors just entered the country on a training mission likely spells the end of the Pentagon's influence there. The departure of US troops might soon follow, though it's unclear whether it'll [be] due to the military authorities explicitly demanding it or voluntary to avoid Russia spying on them.


In any case, this is a monumental development since it means that Russian forces are now present in all three of the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation's states after deploying to its Malian core several years back and then entering Burkina Faso in January. Their bloc also withdrew from ECOWAS later that month too, which bolstered their credentials as a new regional integration framework for others to join if they're interested. The combined effect of all this is that Western influence in the Sahel was dealt a deathblow.



It's premature to pop the champagne, however, since the US is expected to pivot to the Ivory Coast as was explained here in mid-March two weeks before a top Alt-Media influencer wrote the same here in a way that indisputably plagiarized some of the aforesaid analysis. It's important to share a side-by-side comparison showing the three occasions where the second writer plagiarized the first, since those who were exposed to that later article might not be aware that its ideas were stolen from an earlier one:

* First Article: "Guinea is the top contender (to defect from ECOWAS) due to its recent political history and having the geographic capability to provide the neighboring Sahelian Alliance/Confederation with reliable sea access."


- Second Article: "Guinea already offers the geographical capacity to provide the alliance with credible maritime access. That will lead to the progressive extinction of the western-controlled, Nigeria-based ECOWAS."

* First Article: "The stage is therefore set for the US to deploy drones to France's Ivorian base on exaggerated anti-terrorist pretexts that really serve to keep the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation in check while also monitoring Russian activity there."


- Second Article: "What lies ahead for Empire? Perhaps US 'anti-terror' drones shared with Paris at the French base in the Ivory Coast to keep the Sahel alliance in check."

continue:
https://www.sott.net/article/490626-...l-calculations

[shaberon]

Posted by Vicus (here)
While the possibly impending withdrawal of US forces from Niger is definitely a victory of sorts, the proverbial "Battle for the Sahel" in the New Cold War...

Interesting re-configuration, but why does it need to be a "war"?

Russians have been invited over long distance into multiple countries, also in the guise of launching technical institutes and things like this. Not just military. Seems to be a "New African conversation", which is not particularly interested in battles of any kind. I guess France and the U. S. feel justified in saying "it belongs to them", and, any different idea is always "a war". Like the "War on Terrorism", an impossible thing with no goal, an abstract, unwinnable if not outright unperformable, especially while one is in the process of agitating terrorists.

Ivory Coast and probably Liberia remain comprador governments, and, I suppose there is a viper bite in Namibia. However, most of them seem to have found that sixty years of post-colonial influence has done nothing to help them with their problems, but, rather, kept them bogged down. Not sure the Germans figured that out yet.

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
US-UK sanctions against Russian metals to sting West and break dollar monopoly

The Anglo-American sanctions against Russian aluminum, copper, and nickel exports have already had a detrimental impact on Western economies and the dominance of the dollar, although its effect on the Russian economy remains to be seen.

The US Treasury Department on Friday slapped a ban on the import of Russian metals, resulting in the prohibition of trading Russian aluminum, copper, and nickel on the London Metal Exchange and Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

As a consequence, it is probable that the Shanghai Metals Market will receive increased supplies of Russian metals traded in Chinese yuan.

“There is always a way to work around sanctions. If something is desperately needed, people will find a way [to buy it],” explains Thomas Pauken, a consultant on Asia-Pacific affairs and author of a book on US-Chinese trade relations.

The very next day after the announcement of the Anglo-American restrictions against Russian metal exports, aluminum prices surged by 4.9% on the London Metal Exchange. When trading resumed on Monday, prices continued to climb by 5.44%, reaching levels seen prior to the sanctions. Additionally, nickel experienced an 8.8% increase.

This can make the sanctions against Russian metal industry useless, since the producers will compensate their losses from sanctions by the gains from higher prices.

“If the prices really skyrocket, then the sanctions never happened, they are a non-starter,” says Pauken.

He cites examples, when the anti-Russian sanctions helped the Chinese economy and led to the de-dollarization of trade between the two nations, stressing that such things happen “when a certain trade is not allowed, but still goes on.”

“I live in China, and my household electric bill is one-tenth of what Americans would have to pay. Russian energy supplies were very helpful for [the] Chinese economy.”


https://x.com/SputnikInt/status/1780302052163199295

[Ravenlocke]

I’m posting this news bit here if it doesn’t belong, mods please remove.


Text:
Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, engaged in discussions with Pakistan’s Army Chief, Gen. #AsimMunir, during his visit to #Islamabad.

The talks centered on bolstering the robust cooperation between the two nations across various domains, with a particular focus on enhancing security and strategic collaboration to promote global peace and stability.

Prince Faisal’s visit to #Pakistan, spanning two days, aimed primarily at strengthening economic ties between the two countries. Apart from his meeting with Gen. #AsimMunir, Prince Faisal also held discussions with President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar.

The discussions underscored the commitment of #SaudiArabia and #Pakistan to deepen their cooperation across multiple fronts, reflecting the enduring partnership between the two nations.

#SaudiArabia #Pakistan #Dubai #ISPR #AsimMunir #Rawal #Islamabad #China #MiddleEast

https://x.com/AsianPolitico/status/1780947306998616251

[Vicus]

EU leadership must go - member state's PM
RT
Wed, 17 Apr 2024

The current bosses in Brussels have failed in all of their major projects, Hungary's Viktor Orban has said...

The EU needs new leadership as the bloc's current top officials have proven entirely unsuccessful, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has claimed.
Orban made the comments at the European Parliament on Tuesday as part of a public discussion with Former Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and the leader of the French National Rally party, Fabrice Leggeri.


Hungarian prime minister insisted:
"Now we have a leadership in the EU with some major projects selected by themselves like green transition, RRF (Recovery and Resilience Facility) policy, migration, war [in Ukraine] and sanctions policy, and they all failed. The present leadership of the European Union must go away. And we need new leaders."
Orban said he intends "to come and take over Brussels," reiterating his earlier warning to "occupy" the EU's key institutions with his allies in order to bring change to the bloc.


According to the Hungarian leader, the rule of law and conditionality system created by the current EU leadership has "proved to be... an instrument of political blackmailing. If you do not behave as we expect, you do not get the money."


Hungary has not received "a single penny" from the RRF because European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has openly voiced dissatisfaction with Budapest's reluctance to accept migrants and its opposition to the bloc's gender policies, he said.


The EU's green transition "has failed because it has gone against [the] economic and industrial" interests of the bloc, Orban added. A switch towards climate neutrality should not be "politically motivated," otherwise "it would destroy the competitiveness of the European economy. That is where we stand today," he explained.


In contrast to many other EU members, the Hungarian leader has refused to provide arms to Ukraine and has consistently criticized the bloc's sanctions against Russia over the conflict. According to Orban, the time has come for Brussels to define "what it should do with the issue of the war" in order to find a solution to the crisis and prevent similar ones in the future.


Even goodwill gestures may "cause difficulties for the European economy," such as the recent protests by farmers in Poland, France, Germany and other nations, partly caused by the preferences given by the EU to Ukrainian food suppliers, he explained.

Orban also insisted that the issue of aid to Kiev should be "separated as much as possible from the issue of Ukraine's accession to the EU," formal negotiations for which were approved last year.

https://www.sott.net/article/490739-...mber-states-PM

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
Maria Zakharova:

🎬 Yesterday I was pleased to take part in the opening ceremony of the BRICS countries film festival, held as part of the 46th Moscow International Film Festival (#MIFF), and read out the welcoming speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergei Lavrov to the organizers, participants and guests. I also remembered the first film festival of the BRICS countries in 2020, how they then tried to “cancel” us and will continue to try to quarrel with us. Will not work.

✍️ Sergey Lavrov: The films reflect the entire palette of civilizations and societies represented in the unification. Diversity is in keeping with the spirit of BRICS - an open multilateral structure where equal member states strive to jointly search for effective solutions to pressing problems of our time and national development.

Your Film Festival is an excellent illustration of constructive dialogue and mutual enrichment of cultures. The significance of such an undertaking in the current conditions is difficult to overestimate. I am confident that it will be successful and will become a bright event in the life of our capital, and will also reveal in a new way the humanitarian component of the program of the Russian chairmanship in BRICS.

I wish you successful collaboration, bright, unforgettable impressions and all the best.

Moscow, April 19, 2024

https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/1781732043379904926

[Ravenlocke]

https://x.com/dana916/status/1783508802181927043

[Ravenlocke]

https://x.com/IrnaEnglish/status/1783458929252401368

https://x.com/IrnaEnglish/status/1783508887208853711

[Kryztian]

D.T. is not an advocate of the multi-polar order.

Trump plans to sanction countries for refusing to use dollar – Bloomberg
Advisers to the former US president are considering penalties for nations seeking to trade in national currencies, the outlet has reported
https://www.rt.com/news/596630-trump...lar-sanctions/

Economic aides to former US President Donald Trump are looking for options to stop countries from shifting away from the US dollar as it faces a growing challenge from emerging markets, including BRICS nations, Bloomberg reported on Friday.

The presumptive Republican nominee for the November presidential election and his team are discussing penalties against both allies and adversaries who seek to divert their trade from the greenback to other currencies. The options could include export controls, currency manipulation charges, and tariffs, the outlet said, citing people familiar with the matter.



The global trend toward using national currencies in trade instead of the dollar gained significant momentum after Russia was cut off from the Western financial system and had its foreign reserves frozen in 2022, as part of Ukraine-related sanctions.

A bill with provisions authorizing the US to confiscate frozen Russian assets, which Biden signed on Wednesday, could further spur de-dollarization, financial experts have warned. The so-called REPO Act, which was incorporated in the $61 billion military aid package for Kiev, authorized the US president to seize Russian state assets held in American banks.

As quoted by Bloomberg, Trump warned on Thursday that with US President Joe Biden, “you’re going to lose the dollar as the standard. That’ll be like losing the biggest war we’ve ever lost.”

According to the news agency, Trump’s economic advisers and his campaign team have specifically considered curbing de-dollarization efforts by BRICS countries.

The group – which recently expanded and now comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Iran, Egypt – is boosting the use of national currencies in mutual trade. It has even signaled the possibility of introducing a new single currency in the coming years.

Trump has repeatedly said that he wants the dollar to remain the world’s reserve currency.

“I hate when countries go off the dollar,” Trump told CNBC in March. “I would not allow countries to go off the dollar because when we lose that standard, that will be like losing a revolutionary war,” he said, adding that it would be a “hit” for the US.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
D.T. is not an advocate of the multi-polar order.

Trump plans to sanction countries for refusing to use dollar – Bloomberg

I've not seen or heard this discussed anywhere else, but any time soon we might see the BRICS countries sanctioning the west.

[Ravenlocke]

Text:

⚔️🗺️TRUMP PLANS TO FORCE NATIONS TO STICK TO DOLLAR-DOMINATED WORLD: former U.S. president's economic advisers making plans to stop multipolar world "from shifting away from using dollar", including punishing states for not using greenback.

Discussions include penalties for allies or adversaries who seek active ways to engage in bilateral trade in currencies other than dollar — with options including export controls, currency manipulation charges and tariffs - anon sources in article above revealing what could happen if former Prez, who's staunch supporter of dollar dictatorship, wins.

IntelRepublic

https://x.com/dana916/status/1784005010239443061

[Miller]

This has also been taken up by other news outlets, but if true what Trump would hope to gain as BRICS don't seem to need the US dollar at all and might even hasten its demise altogether.

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
🌍⚔🇺🇸 ❗️The largest economies in Africa and the Middle East are withdrawing their gold reserves from the United States.

Gold from many countries around the world is stored in the United States. However, more and more countries are expressing concern about the state of the country's economy and are deciding to withdraw their gold reserves.

Starting in 2024, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon, Senegal, Algeria and Saudi Arabia have decided to withdraw their gold reserves from the United States.

It should be noted that South Africa, Egypt and Nigeria are the largest economies in Africa.

stayfreeworld

https://x.com/dana916/status/1784216438300918022

[Bill Ryan]

An interesting 19-minute video in which Alexander Mercouris lays out how the US, for reasons that are hard for anyone with even a basic understanding of diplomacy to understand, is making enemies of more and more countries in the world almost every single day.

U.S. foreign policy isolates the U.S.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WWi-dhKxLFA

[Chuck]

A good article here published in March 2024

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/a...-and-less-war/

A Bolder American Foreign Policy Means More Values and Less War

The Gaza war and the regional conflicts it has unleashed are revealing that, no matter how much political, financial, and military capital Washington invests, it can no longer force the policy outcomes it wants—if it ever could.

At every turn, the United States has enabled the Israeli invasion and decimation of Gaza, even as the Biden administration has touted its hopes for peace. It is a losing strategy. The world knows that the United States could force an end to the Israeli campaign and has chosen not to, and Washington’s international reputation is near an all-time low. A growing portion of the American electorate appears to be turning against Biden, at least in part because of the hypocritical U.S. policy on Palestine.

America’s role in the war has not only been politically costly. By the amoral measure of military victory, Washington has also been ineffective. The combined might of the United States and Israel has not been enough to achieve Israel’s stated goals, including the release of hostages and dismantling of Hamas. And American firepower has failed to deter Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping.

The United States has a way out of this mess, but it must act quickly: Washington needs to develop a recalibrated foreign policy tailored to America’s more limited power, and to a more competitive, less easily regimented global environment. While the government and American policy elites might not be ready to hear this message, sooner or later they will have to reckon with reality. In the meantime, progressives must begin developing a U.S. foreign policy that promotes American values while being more attuned to Washington’s attenuated influence.

An Inevitable Transition

Washington’s inability to drive events in the Middle East or achieve policy goals, and its shrinking global standing, are symptomatic of a long-term trend. American hegemony, while not fully expired, is in retreat. The United States must contend with an increasingly dynamic global balance of power. In the emerging world order, it is no longer possible for one or a few dominant states to impose their will on smaller countries, or on the swelling array of hybrid and nonstate actors that populate modern-day wars. Many so-called middle powers choose to balance multiple, overlapping alliances over preferential relationships with Washington. As the international order is transformed, the United States looks increasingly like just one player, albeit a significantly powerful one, among many.

This moment of transition contains elements of both risk and reward for the United States. On the one hand, America is well-placed to be a leader in the new international order. It is still the most powerful country with the most alliances, the most attractive economy, a huge military footprint, and a dominant platform in world culture.

Washington needs to develop a recalibrated foreign policy tailored to America’s more limited power.

But Washington will only be a beneficiary of the new order if it is willing to change the way it approaches its foreign policy. And right now, the rules-based order Washington claims to represent and the United States’ already damaged moral authority—an important pillar of its international influence—both look increasingly tenuous.

In a previous commentary, “Time to Discard the Bad Policy That Enabled the Gaza War,” we drew on conversations with dozens of policy experts and officials to map the roots of American policy misalignment in the Middle East. We argued that, before October 7, the United States had bought into the idea that the Middle East could be stabilized by a mixture of realpolitik, economic self-interest, authoritarianism, and managing rather than resolving wars, including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. We argued that the American approach has proven counterproductive, increasing challenges to U.S. interests and international standing, and leading to an unending cycle of conflicts that spread human misery while deepening the Middle East’s strategic malaise.

Until now, Washington has refused to acknowledge its shrinking hegemony. It has tried to stay the course, and ended up in an even weaker position: multiple wars, severely eroded moral authority, and increasing insecurity. Here, we argue that the United States can negotiate these changes and still maximize its global influence, but only if it changes its approach to foreign policy.

Mismatched Ambitions and Influence

Simply put, a realignment of the international order is underway, and American foreign policy is not keeping up. At least since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, American foreign policy has been out of sync with U.S. capabilities: Even when its power was undisputed, the United States was unable to act as the world’s policeman, but nevertheless sought to assert itself as the indispensable global power. A series of events, bad policies, and setbacks since the 2003 invasion—painful not only for America’s self-image but for many communities destabilized or destroyed in the shockwaves—have been insufficient to force a correction.

Now, a more multipolar order is emerging, one in which the United States is likely to remain a preeminent player, perhaps the single most influential state. But Washington will no longer be able to determine outcomes or assume that its economic and political heft insulate it from paying major costs for its missteps.

U.S. government officials and many in the policy elite acknowledge that the world is changing. But they are not quite ready to contemplate, at least in public, an American strategy that accepts a more modest understanding of U.S. influence; or that accepts that Washington will have to triage its priorities on the global stage. President Trump’s “America First” and President Biden’s “foreign policy for the middle class” had one thing in common: neither acknowledged that U.S. power is in relative decline. Despite many differences, both doctrines began with a false belief that Washington could sustain international dominance at minimal cost and risk. Like pre-October 7 Middle East policy, these ambitious proposals to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy all too often disintegrate on contact with the real world.

Sooner or later, one U.S. administration or another will have to confront reality: there is no magic formula that will allow the United States to maintain its current level of global power and influence, prioritize its national interests and domestic politics, and continue to project moral authority without incurring huge, politically unpalatable costs.

At least since the invasion of Iraq, U.S. foreign policy has been out of sync with its capabilities.

The good news is that the United States can maintain its position of global leadership. Less welcome news is that this will mean a painful rethink of America’s place in the world and a different sort of leadership than the kind the United States displayed during the Cold War and the decades after it. Instead, it must act more like France and Germany do in the EU, or American automakers eventually did in response to globalization: leading as the first among equals in a competitive marketplace, and recognizing the outer limits of its influence and power. Crucially, the United States must understand the American value-add relative to other countries, by genuinely prioritizing issues like multilateralism and human rights that are core to its identity, and which its competitors disregard. If it can strike the right balance, the United States can accomplish important good for the world while pursuing its own interests and acknowledging the interests and priorities of other countries.

The Middle East would be a good place to pilot this new foreign policy—not only because the current violence and crisis demand better policies, but also because it is in the Middle East that U.S. aspirations are most strikingly misaligned with actual American power.

A New Approach

A new American approach would prioritize global cooperation to meet the sweeping structural challenges of our age. In bilateral relations with other states, the United States ought to recenter values. To execute this new approach, the U.S. government would have to set realistic expectations about what American power can achieve in regions like the Middle East.

Neither the United States nor Israel, for example, can dismantle Hamas—especially not with the current war in Gaza. The brutal military campaign has become an exercise in radicalizing the Palestinian population against Israel and the United States, and is driving the Middle East into region-wide conflict.

What is within American power is putting a stop to the Gaza war—not just pausing the fighting—and pursuing a political settlement to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, based on international law (including the 1967 borders), that reduces the chance of mass violence by any party. These actions would significantly improve regional security, and American standing in the Middle East and the world, while taking away a significant pillar of anti-American groups’ platforms.



The genuine pursuit of peace would also be politically and financially costly, and take years across multiple U.S. administrations. The United States needs to acknowledge that it cannot achieve its goals alone, and must seek to share the burden—including with key international competitors. America needs to reframe Middle Eastern conflict and instability as a global systemic issue on a par with COVID-19 or climate change, and seek a genuinely multilateral response that includes rival superpowers, including, for example, China.

For years, China has been a free-rider on American security guarantees in the Middle East while lambasting Washington for its regional policies, including on Israel–Palestine, propping up Iran’s economy, and seeking improved relations with American allies and partners. Beijing clearly has a vested interest in the stability of a region that is essential to its energy supply and the global trade routes that underpin its export-led economy, and has dipped its toes into mediation in the region. The United States should push for more‚ by publicly calling on the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom) to join Washington in supporting an Israeli–Palestinian peace process that includes a prominent role for regional mediation, and a Middle Eastern security framework that they jointly guarantee, with the United States and China taking the lead.

Actively encouraging autocratic competitor states to become more involved in the region might appear to be counter to U.S. interests and values. But a multilateral diplomatic effort on Israel–Palestine, and the development of a regional security architecture guaranteed by the Security Council that prioritizes conflict resolution and regional detente, would free the United States to stand up for its core values in ways that it struggles to achieve when it acts alone.

The United States is often hesitant to push its regional allies to comply with international humanitarian or human rights law, because it fears it will lose influence over their behavior, or that they might realign toward competitors like China. The Biden administration hoped its post-October 7 bear hug of Israel would provide it with influence over the military campaign in Gaza. But it hasn’t worked at all—Israel’s assault has been merciless, and it is now bearing down on Rafah, the last refuge of more than 1.5 million Palestinians. Meanwhile, keeping China completely out of the region is a lost cause: many regional players, including Israel and U.S. partners like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are already seeking improved relations with China, and will continue to do so in future.

Washington could secure its core strategic interests—trade and energy—with the other elements of this policy shift in place: A peace process would be underway in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The new security architecture would improve regional stability and, crucially, catalyze conflict resolution rather than merely managing conflict. Regional conflict between global superpowers would be somewhat mitigated. Washington could then condition military and other forms of support to its regional allies and partners (for example, Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia) on improved human rights and rule of law. In doing so, it would also call the bluff of partners who have tacitly threatened to defect to the Chinese or Russian camp, but know that neither Beijing nor Moscow is willing or able to provide the kind of security guarantees the U.S currently does.

No More Hegemony on the Cheap

A dose of realism would be required to successfully push for multilateral peace-brokering and stability initiatives while pursuing a values-based bilateral foreign policy. These policies would by no means achieve perfect outcomes, and would require the United States to accept some big up-front costs, including increased regional influence for its rivals and turbulent relations with long-standing partners.

Yet failure to correct the course would have much worse consequences. If Washington continues on its current path in the Middle East, it will remain on the hook for regional security as its influence fades and China and Russia continue to exploit conflicts to their own benefit.

The reality is that if American leaders continue to pursue a policy of hegemony on the cheap, while shunning other powers’ help on major structural issues, the American competitive advantage in world affairs will continue to shrink. Washington will be viewed as just another self-interested power among many, one struggling to maintain alliances with states whose values do not align with its own, yet unable to make some of the transactional accommodations that nondemocratic competitors have no problem making.

The American government and policy elite might not yet be ready to openly espouse a strategy that accepts the limits to U.S. influence and opens doors to competitors. But the realignment of relative world power is already underway, and in practice the United States has two obvious choices. It can double down on the status quo, and continue pretending it is still the world’s sole superpower while paying lip service to values that it fails to back with meaningful policies—thus forfeiting still more influence. Or it can embrace change, steer into the multipolar transition, and seek to lead, both in partnership with other strong countries, and as a force for good in the world.

Political constraints make it easier to stay on the current, flawed path, at least in the short term. But the best choice is clear: a more modest international role for the United States will ultimately be the braver and more effective policy.

[Ravenlocke]

I’m posting this here but if it belongs elsewhere Mods please remove.


Text:
🇷🇸🇭🇺 Serbia-Hungary railway points to pragmatic teamwork rather than trade warmongering

While the EU, egged on by Washington, has been haranguing China over what it termed "unfair competition," Serbia and Hungary have opted for mutually beneficial investment with Beijing.

A case in point is the Budapest-Belgrade railway, being built with help from Chinese companies.

Here are some key points regarding the milestone project that Brussels considers an eyesore:

🔺The Serbia-Hungary railway is a crucial component of the ongoing rail infrastructure development in the Western Balkans.

🔺This massive upgrade project was launched with the specific goal of reducing travel time between the Belgrade Center and Budapest Keleti railway stations.

🔺The Belgrade-Budapest line is a double-track electrified railway that spans approximately 350 kilometers. Of this total length, over 190 kilometers run through Serbia, while around 152 kilometers pass through Hungary.

🔺In Hungary, the construction has brought together both Hungarian and Chinese companies, including the China Railway International Corporation (CRIC) and the China Railway International Group (CRIG).

🔺In Serbia, the effort involves Chinese and Russian companies (namely Russian Railways International).

🔺The 75 km high-speed railway section in Serbia, connecting Belgrade and Novi Sad, was completed in 2022.

🔺Once the Hungarian section of the railway is completed by the end of 2025 or early 2026, the travel time between the capitals of Serbia and Hungary will be reduced from approximately eight hours to just 2 hours and 40 minutes.

🔺The megaproject aims to enhance regional transportation, increase freight capacity, and bolster Europe-Asia relations.

🔺With crucial significance for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Central and Eastern Europe, the project is viewed as a part of the Serbian and Hungarian governments' reorientation away from the EU towards China.

https://x.com/SputnikInt/status/1787864078641185213

¤=[Post Update]=¤

https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1787934526133649723