Scott Bessent's Covert MAGA Strategy for Trump 2.0 | Lu Qiyuan

Many people believe Trump 2.0 will be a 'peaceful' presidency, but I think they are mistaken. If war becomes the best option to overcome the US crisis, Donald Trump will not shy away from further conflict. Trump and his team are determined to maintain US dominance on the global stage as an empire—nothing has changed in that regard. While some may hope for the decline of the US empire, and I can understand that sentiment, the following isn't about whether the US should or shouldn't remain an empire. It's about how the Trump 2.0 administration is attempting to salvage the situation.

 

 Lu Qiyuan, Geopolitical Economist.

Through Elon Musk, Trump will aim to reform and abolish much of the federal bureaucracy, including challenging some of the core interests of the military-industrial complex. If he succeeds, it could shatter the entire establishment system, including the massive oligarchy operating behind it, particularly in the pharmaceutical and military sectors. However, the question remains: Can Elon Musk and his new department, DOGE, accomplish this goal? Honestly, I don't think he can. To make America great again (MAGA), there are three things the United States and its leadership must avoid:

• The collapse of the US military: To prevent the US military from collapsing, significant reform is necessary. As it stands, the US military is only capable of operating at the battalion level and is no longer able to challenge a major power in large-scale conventional warfare. While US combat tactics and intelligence networks remain the best in the world, the country’s conventional forces—including the Army, Navy, and Air Force—are falling behind. The US still holds an upper hand over smaller or medium-sized countries, but in conventional warfare with a major power, the military would stand little chance. If this situation persists for another five years, the US will be unable to challenge even medium-sized nations. The military’s strength today lies in special forces, covert operations, and tactics like assassination—but in terms of large-scale warfare, as seen in Ukraine, the US is no longer capable of handling such conflicts. This is a serious issue. The US military cannot collapse; it is a basic requirement for maintaining a global hegemonic empire. Over time, parts of the military have been privatized, but these private forces are unlikely to match the capabilities of groups like Russia’s Wagner, and their loyalty could be questionable. This privatization has left the US military in a fragile state.
• The collapse of the US dollar: To stabilize the US dollar, the US must address its looming debt crisis and budget deficit. At $40 trillion in federal debt, the US is approaching a dangerous threshold—a breaking point after which the dollar could face a severe collapse. This wouldn't necessarily mean a collapse against other currencies, but rather a collapse in value relative to assets like Bitcoin, gold, or other key commodities. This is a critical issue that cannot be postponed. The US needs to begin addressing this problem by 2025 and show clear results by 2026.
• The collapse of US capital markets: The US capital market is a key pillar supporting the US empire. To prevent its collapse, the US must achieve a degree of reindustrialization. Currently, the capital market is one of the few remaining supports for the US dollar itself.

But let’s now turn to Scott Bessent, whom Trump has chosen as his Treasury Secretary. To me, Bessent is the real gladiator behind Trump 2.0, not Elon Musk. I believe Bessent is one of the most important members of Trump’s Cabinet, and his role will be crucial in keeping the US empire alive. So, when Scott Bessent enters the Trump Cabinet, we can be sure that Trump’s ultimate support still comes from the same old force, because Bessent is one of the most powerful champions of the US establishment deep state.

 

» Bessent is one of the most powerful champions of the US deep state. «

 

Bessent is extremely intelligent and capable. Many are confused about George Soros' financial attacks around the world, including his famous campaign against the British pound in 1997. The truth is, it wasn’t Soros who was the main architect behind that; it was Bessent. Soros became famous because of Bessent, not the other way around. Bessent’s capabilities go beyond what most people can imagine. He possesses a deep understanding of monetary, currency, and financial systems—and, more importantly, he has real-world combat experience in financial warfare. He is a genius. But like everyone, Bessent also has his flaws. People like him, who are highly capable and self-confident, often don’t hide their moves or intentions. He has outlined the following four main goals for the Trump 2.0 administration:

1. The US budget deficit must remain within 3%.  
2. The US GDP growth must exceed 3%.  
3. The US crude oil production must increase by 3 million barrels per day.

4. The US must turn Mexico into an economic vassal to replace China in their supply chain.

Let me offer my prediction: In terms of US debt control, Scott Bessent suggests that the federal deficit needs to be limited to around $1 trillion for fiscal year 2025. This is nearly an impossible task. According to my calculations, US debt will reach $40 trillion by the end of the third quarter of 2025. Achieving this goal would require drastic cuts to federal spending, and I don’t believe Elon Musk has the ability to accomplish that. The US federal government simply won’t be able to generate enough revenue in time to cover the deficit. If the goal is to increase state revenue, the only way would be to militarize the entire country—which is not only nearly impossible, but something I would strongly advise against.

As for the 3% annual GDP growth goal: I believe it is achievable. Given Bessent’s capabilities, I think he could reach this target by maintaining a capital accumulation rate above 6%.

 

» You know what I did? I left troops in Syria to take the oil. I took the oil. «
Donald Trump in a January 2020 interview on Fox News.

Now, let’s focus on the goal of increasing crude oil production by 3 million barrels per day in the US: This is one of the clearest indicators of Trump 2.0’s strategy. But why 3 million barrels? Why this specific number? This is not a random figure. Do you know how much OPEC is reducing its production? Exactly 3 million barrels. Saudi Arabia has cut production by 1 million barrels, Russia by nearly 1 million barrels, and the remaining reductions add up to roughly 3 million barrels. So, while OPEC is cutting production by 3 million barrels, the US is increasing its production by the same amount.

Do you think Scott Bessent wants oil prices to fall? To crash? Maybe down to $20 a barrel? Do you think the energy giants would be happy with that? No, they would be furious because the cost of production in the US is around $30 a barrel. Do you think Bessent hasn’t thought about this? Of course, he has. He likely predicts, just as I do, that oil prices could rise to $150 a barrel. That’s why I said Bessent shouldn’t have made these statements public—they act as a warning signal about a potential US military operation. It suggests that the US might be preparing to take action against Iran and, in doing so, potentially shut down the entire Persian Gulf. That’s why Bessent wants to increase US crude oil production by 3 million barrels.

 

 

» When I left in 2021, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over. 

We would have gotten all that oil. It would have been right next door. But now we're buying it. «

Donald Trump, June 10, 2023.

For those who don’t understand the logic behind this, there’s a fundamental principle of supply and demand in the oil market: When OPEC reduces production, it typically signals a slight decrease in demand. However, when supply drops dramatically—such as due to war—prices can skyrocket, often exponentially rather than linearly. The US, as one of the few remaining major oil producers, stands to benefit from a major conflict in the Persian Gulf. With countries like Russia and Venezuela under heavy sanctions, the US could potentially monopolize oil prices, using this leverage to strengthen the US dollar against other currencies. This is essentially the same strategy the US employed in the Ukraine conflict, where by provoking the war and cutting off Russia’s energy supply to Europe, the US launched an attack on both the euro and the ruble.

 

 » Mexico is gonna have to straighten it out really fast, or the answer is absolutely. «

Donald Trump, November 25, 2024.

Scott Bessent, normally an extremely capable strategist, shouldn’t have revealed these goals so early, as doing so gives countries like China the chance to prepare and implement countermeasures. His statements now serve as a warning signal to world leaders about what’s to come and suggest that it is less likely the US will directly provoke a proxy war targeting China. During the anticipated surge in oil prices, the US could successfully collapse the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound, helping Scott Bessent achieve his goal. 

 

 

» Trump suggested missile strikes into Mexico against drug cartels. «
Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense in the first Trump administration, May 6, 2022.

On top of that, there's an additional strategy: The US could swiftly vassalize Mexico, rapidly industrialize it, and use it to complete a North American internal economic circulation. This would be the only way the US could successfully reindustrialize. Essentially, the US would turn Mexico into an economic vassal, replacing China in its supply chain. In fact, the most direct and simplest way for the US to reindustrialize would be to militarily occupy Mexico and use it as a substitute for China in its economic system.

Reference:
Awakening Richard (December 6, 2024) - Top Chinese Economist Exposes US Secret Plan. (video)

 

See also:

Pepe Escobar (November 28, 2024) - Trump’s Coming War on BRICS and the Global South.

Dmitry Skvortsov (November 25, 2024) - Trump's Plan to Ruin China.

 Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera (October 30, 2024) - Global MAGA-nomics.

 Serge Bernard (2015) - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.

Trump's Plan to Ruin China │ Dmitry Skvortsov

Losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars may await China in the coming months – and it’s all because of a document that has just been adopted in the United States. Now, everything depends on the decision of the next White House administration and Donald Trump personally. What is at stake, and how does Trump want to squeeze China out of the American market?

Global MAGA-nomics ahead.

The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) recommended stripping China of its Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status. This move is intended to facilitate the introduction of the trade tariffs promised by Trump on Chinese goods. This is the first time that the USCC, in its annual report to Congress, has openly called for an end to a policy that has been a cornerstone of China’s economic rise over recent decades. In 2022, the Commission had proposed to Congress to temporarily suspend China's PNTR status if the U.S. Trade Representative determined that Beijing had failed to meet its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations regarding market access.

The PNTR status was approved by Congress for China in 2000 in exchange for Beijing’s agreement to open its markets and liberalize trade practices before joining the WTO. This status obligates Washington to apply the same basic tariffs and privileges to Chinese goods as it does to most of its trade partners, in accordance with U.S. commitments under the WTO. It was also in October 2000 that Congress created the independent USCC, composed of 12 commissioners appointed by Congress. Its role was to monitor U.S.-China relations in trade and security and to provide annual reports to U.S. lawmakers on these issues.

 

  » In China, Tom Cotton wouldn’t even be a village chief. «

According to WTO rules, the U.S. can strip a country of trade advantages under exceptions for national security reasons. The Biden administration used this rationale when imposing sanctions on Russia after the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022 (without specifying what exactly constituted a national security threat to the U.S.). In relation to China, American lawmakers want to free their hands in advance, creating the possibility of imposing tariffs or sanctions without any conditions or timelines.

Last week, Representative John Moolenaar, a Republican from Michigan and chairman of the House China Committee, introduced a bill to revoke China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations status. He cited U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s assessment that China still adheres to a "state-managed, non-market approach to its economy and trade," which contradicts WTO norms and principles. The bill is likely to gain support from Republicans, including Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Marco Rubio of Florida (Trump’s current nominee for Secretary of State), who were strong advocates for revoking PNTR for China during Trump’s first term. Democrats during Biden’s presidency also pressured China by limiting chip supplies and increasing military tensions between the two countries. However, Biden’s administration’s ultimate goal was to force Beijing to retreat and engage in what is called "decoupling."

 

 » The U.S. has been overriding truth with its power
and trampling justice to serve self-interest. «

In Washington’s interpretation, this would mean preserving a global economy where the U.S. would hinder the development of China's high-tech sectors while allowing it to continue earning revenue from supplying mass consumer goods to America. Chinese oligarchs were subtly hinted that they could return to a "business as usual" scenario if they could deal with Xi Jinping and avoid interfering in high-tech areas.

The Trumpist position is different. They want to strengthen America’s industrial power, even if it requires sacrificing the interests of global financial conglomerates and the very existence of a unified global economy. In this scenario, Chinese products would be forcefully squeezed out of the U.S. and several countries crucial to American economic interests. Whether China will find alternative markets to replace the U.S. is of little concern.

In a report published Tuesday, November 19, the Commission justified its recommendation to Congress to revoke PNTR status by stating that it "allows China to benefit from the same trade terms as U.S. allies despite its practices of intellectual property theft and market manipulation." Among the Commission's findings is also a recommendation for Congress to revoke the de minimis exception for e-commerce goods. This provision, enshrined in U.S. trade law, allows goods worth less than $800 to enter the U.S. duty-free and with less oversight from regulatory agencies. USCC experts refer to statements by U.S. officials that the "de minimis loophole" used by Chinese e-commerce companies like Shein and Temu harms U.S. jobs and could allow Chinese companies to deliver illegal products, including materials related to fentanyl.

China's Four Red Lines: Xi's warning to Biden and Trump.

— November 17, 2024.

 

The recommended revocation of PNTR status would enable a Trump administration to increase tariffs on a wide range of Chinese products. Additionally, without this status, China could face annual reviews of its trade practices, as was the case before PNTR was granted. As USCC commissioner Jacob Helberg stated, "Increasing tariffs on Chinese industrial goods will accelerate the return of supply chains to the U.S., which aligns with President-elect Donald Trump's argument for imposing universal tariffs on imports."

The Chinese Embassy in Washington immediately responded to the recommendations in the USCC report. "Attempts to return U.S.-China trade and economic relations to the Cold War era violate WTO rules and will only harm the mutual interests of both countries and undermine the global economy," said embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu.

In 2023, China's exports to the U.S. amounted to $448 billion (compared to $505.6 billion in 2017). China has already been surpassed by Mexico ($480 billion) and is only slightly ahead of Canada ($429 billion). U.S. imports from China totaled $147 billion. In this regard, China ranks third, behind NAFTA  (USMCA) countries Canada ($352 billion) and Mexico ($323 billion). The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2023 was an unprecedented $301 billion, and it could increase by 4.4% this year.

If Trump imposes the 60% tariff he has promised (which would be easy to do if the USCC's proposal is adopted), the volume of Chinese goods entering the U.S. will drop sharply. China’s trade surplus with America will also shrink drastically. Even for Chinese companies that don’t leave the U.S. market, profitability will plummet. For those for whom the U.S. market is effectively closed, things will be much harder. Bankruptcy of a number of companies, mass layoffs, and decreased budget revenues are possible.

Quoted from:

Dmitry Skvortsov (November 24, 2024) - Trump's Plan to Ruin China. 

See also:
Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera (October 30, 2024) - Global MAGA-nomics.

MFA of PRC (February 20, 2023) - The US' Economic Hegemony: Looting and Exploitation.

BRICS Will Not Kill the Dollar—War Will | Martin Armstrong

The BRICS currency was created for geopolitical reasons when the neocons transformed the SWIFT system into an economic weapon and even threatened China with the same fate if they supported Russia. Once this occurred, the neocons turned the entire world’s monetary system into a weapon of war. This is why we have BRICS; it had nothing to do with killing the dollar or backing their currency with gold.

 » All currency is fiat, even when it is gold. Just because a currency is

backed by gold does not eliminate inflation or deflation. «

Many hoped for an official announcement regarding a gold-backed currency, which failed to materialize. A gold-backed currency would be massively deflationary. The money supply could not expand with the population or in times of need without new discoveries. Just because a currency is backed by gold does not eliminate inflation or deflation. The gold discoveries of the 19th century in California, Alaska, and Australia caused significant economic upheaval, followed by wars. The fact that gold was the currency did not prevent inflation.

Spain defaulted seven times. The gold and silver they brought back from the New World led to massive inflation in Europe. Those who preach that a gold standard is the solution lack an understanding of history. They blame “fiat currency,” as if eliminating it will solve all problems. There were booms and busts throughout ancient times long before paper money existed. All currency is fiat, even when it is gold. I have shown that Southern India routinely imitated Roman gold coins because they held a premium over gold—this is fiat. Northern India and the Kushan Empire issued their own coinage primarily because they traded more with China. Southern India used imitation Roman gold coins for about 250 years, confirming that the Roman coinage was worth more than its metal content.

 

 » The purchasing power of gold fluctuated at all times. The value of a currency is determined 

by the productive capacity of its people, not by its gold reserves. «

Similar claims were made about the Euro, which also did not work out well. Why? The value of a currency is determined by the productive capacity of its people, not by its gold reserves. Japan and Germany lost the war yet rose to the top of the economic hierarchy because their populations were productive. The United States has the largest consumer-based economy, which means that everyone needs to sell their products here, requiring transactions in dollars. The US is also strong militarily, which further supports the currency's foundation.

It is time to abandon these outdated economic theories, remnants from the 18th and 19th centuries. The economy has evolved since then. The neocons are destroying the dollar and undermining the future of the United States. When we lose another one of their endless wars, financial capital will shift from New York to Beijing. Just as war diminished Britain, so will it diminish the dollar and the United States.

Quoted from:
Martin Armstrong (October 29, 2024) -  BRICS Will Not Kill the Dollar—War Will.

Global MAGA-nomics | Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera

The re-election of Donald Trump will lead to significant shifts in US economic and foreign policy, emphasizing unilateral protectionism and high tariffs aimed at boosting domestic production and safeguarding American interests. This 'MAGA-nomics' approach may impose tariffs of 10% to 20% on all imports and up to 60% on Chinese products, intending to reverse US deindustrialization and create jobs in key sectors.

 

MAGA-nomics: The war Trump will wage in 2025.

Trump's trade rhetoric portrays free trade as detrimental to the US economy, claiming trade deficits indicate weakness and job losses. His strategy seeks not only to protect the domestic market but also to pressure other nations to enhance market access for US goods. However, such mercantilism poses risks, including potential retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which could escalate costs and inflation both in the US and globally.

 Chronicles of Western Collapse — October 30, 2024.

A drastic tariff increase could harm American consumers by raising prices and potentially increasing inflation. The confrontation with China is particularly complex, as high tariffs may prompt China to devalue its currency, exacerbating internal economic issues while potentially triggering further trade conflicts.

The European Union, a major US trading partner, would likely suffer from these tariffs, which could significantly impact its economy amidst already existing challenges. Projections indicate that a 10% tariff on EU imports could reduce the Eurozone's annual GDP growth, further straining economic recovery.

 High tariffs, radical unilateralism, and the end of globalization as we know it.

Emerging markets like Vietnam, India, and Mexico may benefit as companies relocate production away from China, realigning global supply chains and potentially harming economies in Africa. The International Monetary Fund estimates that escalating trade disputes could reduce global economic growth, affecting millions worldwide.

Trump's approach extends beyond economics to form a coalition against China's influence, integrating defense strategies within economic policies (“Free and Open Indo-Pacific”). This could deepen geopolitical tensions and potentially lead to a new pro-China bloc. The historical precedent of protectionism, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, illustrates the risks of such policies, emphasizing the interconnectedness of global economies and the potential for widespread negative repercussions.

Reference:
Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera (October 28, 2024) - MAGA-nomics: La guerra que hará Trump en 2025. (video)

Europe’s Catastrophic Russian Problem | Wang Xiangsui

Europe is becoming the biggest loser in the Ukraine conflict, despite having fostered closer ties with Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Europe is now actively cutting these ties in an effort to align with the US policies aimed at punishing Russia. 

 

But the price is dear. The largest economy prior to the Ukraine war, Europe is now facing the prospect of political divisions and security threats. Its insensible actions are not only compromising Europe's autonomy and increasing its military reliance on the US, but also disrupting its energy supply chains, in which Russia played an important part. So what does the US stand to gain from this situation? 

 

 China called the Nord Stream pipeline blast of September 26, 2022 an 

'act of international terrorism' and an 'act of war against Germany and Russia'.

Quite a lot. In a scenario where Europe is on friendly terms with Russia and economically, militarily, and politically strengthened, Europe poses too significant a challenge for the US to handle. Hence, the estrangement between Europe and Russia is one of the US's most crucial strategic goals. As anticipated, Europe is now gripped by fear of Russian expansion and Russia fears NATO's eastward movement. And this prisoner's dilemma is further exacerbated by US intervention. 

 

It is evident that the European leaders struggle to discern who their allies and rivals truly are. It is their crucial mistake to view Russia, a potential provider of economic strength and security assurances, as a threat, and the US, a saboteur of the Euro and Europe's regional stability, as a friend. The rationale behind Europe's alignment with the US stems from their belief that Europe holds a prominent position within the US-led uni-polar world.

But time and again, the US disregarded and even intentionally harmed European interests. Europe's political stage is now occupied by liberal leftists whose obstinacy to ideology and blind loyalty to the US have deprived them of strategic foresight. If Europe fails to awaken to the reality, more losses will inevitably befall the European people. Acting as a suicide bomber in the Ukraine conflict will achieve nothing but harm Europe itself. Europe's tragedy is rooted in its failure to recognize the significance of the Ukraine conflict. What we are witnessing is merely the precursor to a brand new world order, an order of multi-polarity which neither the US nor Europe can prevent.  

 

If the current situation continues, Ukraine's status as an independent country will be called into question. At first glance, the US appears to be the biggest winner. To avoid instability, numerous European financial assets and capital are now being redirected to the US, bolstering its pandemic-stricken economy and positioning it as the best-performing developed country. Additionally, Europe is once again brought under the American security umbrella, abandoning its pursuit of strategic independence. Furthermore, the US has profited during the war by selling its own energy at high prices to Europe through sanctions on Russia's energy exports. However, when considering the bigger picture in the long run, the Russia-Ukraine conflict significantly weakens the US-dominated world order and damages the credibility of the US. To many countries, the war exposed the unreliability of the US and the precariousness of the uni-polar world order it perpetuates. 

 

Russia, on the other hand, is making leaps and bounces despite its losses. It has already achieved the initial goals outlined at the beginning of the special military operation. By deepening cooperation with China, India, and the global south, Russia's economy was able to withstand the blow after decoupling from the West. Two years into the war and nearly 20,000 sanctions from 48 countries, Russia maintains relative political and social stability, even experiencing a 3.6% GDP growth in 2023. And most importantly, through this war, Russia is reshaping its image and status as a formidable major power in the emerging multi-polar order. Therefore, in the long run, Russia may emerge as the real long-term winner of this conflict; a conflict that draws the curtains on the hegemonic uni-polar world order dictated by the US.

Quoted from:
Wang Xiangsui (February 29, 2024) - Europe’s Catastrophic Russian Problem.

 

Military strategist Professor Wang Xiangsui is a retired senior colonel in the People's Liberation Army. Wang's 1999 book 

'Unrestricted Warfare' reportedly shifted the views of former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon regarding China.

The US-China Competition in Southeast Asia | Jin Canrong

The US-China competition is going to be a long-term rivalry, and one shouldn't expect immediate outcomes. It consists of domestic competition, in which both countries will try to improve the competitiveness of their economies and the efficiency of their governance. It also consists of relationship-informed competition, where both countries will try to win favor with other nations during this process.

 Jin Canrong, Professor and Associate Dean of School of 

International Studies at Renmin University of China.

To me, the highlight of this competition will occur in Southeast Asia. The American strategy tends to create conflict and tension around China, fostering unrest and stirring up trouble, motivating countries like the Philippines and India to escalate tensions with China. Additionally, the US will use many NGOs to incite color revolutions in the area, including Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia. Even if these NGOs do not succeed in overthrowing governments, they can still create disturbances and interrupt China's rise. This is a favored geopolitical strategy of the US. In addition, the new $1.6 billion congressional bill passed to support the media demonization of China—what I would call "dog food for social media"—is a well-known tactic that the US has been continuously using against its geopolitical rivals.

 » Southeast Asian countries need industry to boost their growth, and China will be their biggest investor. 

These countries also require infrastructure development, which China can provide. China's financial capabilities 

are well above those of its Western counterparts when it comes to foreign investments. «

It's all part of the grand competition, and we are accustomed to it. The Chinese government cares greatly about Southeast Asia. We often express our desire to establish a community of shared future with Southeast Asian countries. The economic relationship with Southeast Asia has been quite positive in recent years, and the political relationship is also generally healthy, aside from the situation with the Philippines. Almost all Southeast Asian countries were originally colonies of the West, so the cultural and historical influence of Western powers over the region still exists today. There was an organization called the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), founded back in 1954. Its primary goal was to prevent the spread of communism during the Cold War. This can also be seen as part of a broader coalition against China led by the United States. Thus, the US has some advantages over Southeast Asian countries, at least due to recent history, particularly because China was too weak to project any significant power in the past.

Of course, I believe China's influence is catching up to that of the US in the region. To begin with, we are their neighbors, while the United States is far away. Secondly, our economic ties with the region are much stronger than those of the US. Finally, I think the majority of Southeast Asian countries agree with the Chinese style of non-interventionist foreign policy. In recent months, research and polls conducted by organizations in Singapore and Australia have shown that China's influence over the region is improving and has surpassed that of the United States in some countries. The magazine "Foreign Affairs" has also expressed concern that the US is losing its influence in the region. 

» The US economy is not prepared for global war. We are broke. «  

— Peter Schiff, October 2, 2024.

From my point of view, I believe the current situation is a deadlock—50-50. It's hard to say who is really leading in the region: China or the US. Again, the polls can sometimes be deceiving; they might not provide an accurate picture of what's really going on and can change quickly due to ongoing events. Nonetheless, I believe China is going to overtake the US in terms of influence over Southeast Asian countries in the near future. I believe this is a trend that is difficult to reverse. China has a large and expanding industrial sector, which often carries a spillover effect. Many Southeast Asian countries need industry to boost their growth, and China will be their biggest investor. These countries also require infrastructure development, which China can provide. Additionally, China's financial capabilities are well above those of its Western counterparts when it comes to foreign investments. 

I still see the US as the sole superpower on this planet, but what we are witnessing is that many regional powers are on the rise. In fact, I find it amusing that the majority of Chinese scholars today still consider the US to be the sole superpower. However, many of my foreign colleagues disagree with me. When I traveled to Africa recently, many people there told me that there are currently two superpowers in the world: China and the US. Within the Chinese intellectual community, we do not yet see China as a superpower. That being said, I believe we are entering a bipolar world, particularly in Asia and Southeast Asia, although it is important to note that there are also other strong regional powers. If I refer to it as merely bipolar, our friends in India might take issue with that description.

Quoted from:

Jin Canrong (October 1, 2024) - US-China Competition in Southeast Asia. (video) 

Who Is Fighting With Whom and Why | Alexander Dugin

Israel, having dealt with Gaza, that is, having organized a mass genocide of the civilian population in front of the whole world, began a full-fledged war with Lebanon. Just as in Gaza the Israelis preferred to claim that they were fighting Hamas, and not the Palestinians as a whole (as was actually the case), so now Netanyahu is talking about countering Hezbollah, having started massive rocket attacks and carpet bombing of the civilian population of a sovereign country - Lebanon. This is a war in the fullest sense of the word. And the West fully supports Israel's aggression.

  » He demands victory over the civilizational enemy. He demands that Carthage be destroyed. «

 

At the same time, the West wants to secure the full loyalty of its allies in the Islamic world and is now trying to create a Middle Eastern analogue of NATO with the UAE. Türkiye is already in NATO, but Ankara is outraged by Israel and traditionally supports Hamas, so the ally is not very reliable. Hence the globalists came up with the idea of ​​​​attracting Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to a tough military alliance. Iran is still on the sidelines, but the start of a massive aggressive military campaign against Hezbollah is a direct attack on Iran and the Shiite world as a whole. The second front after the Ukrainian one between unipolar hegemony and strengthening multipolarity can be considered open. The West is fighting Russia with the hands of Ukrainian Nazis, and the Shiites with the hands of Israeli Nazis. And it is ready to start a war with China with the hands of Taiwanese Nazis. Simultaneously, NATO is going to throw additional European armies at Russia, Sunni armies at Iran and Lebanon, and insure Taiwan with an alliance with India, Japan, and South Korea. If all this is not the third world war, then what is it?

 

The situation in world politics is increasingly converging with the classic maps of geopolitics. Now the confrontation between the Civilization of the Sea and the Civilization of Land is so clear and contrasting that underestimating geopolitical science is fraught with direct catastrophe. Only geopolitics explains everything clearly and intelligibly. Who is fighting with whom and why. And where is the intermediate frontier separating civilizations and camps. It was geopolitics that could have prevented the collapse of the USSR, while the ideological approach led to the collapse of a great power, did not work at a critical moment. In the 1990s, the agents of Western influence, which almost established external control over Russia, were hiding behind the economy and reforms. They were the ones who made efforts to discredit geopolitics. And this was fatal, and NATO expanded to the East unhindered. In the USA, geopolitics was studied and acted strictly according to its patterns, but we were forbidden. Instead of geopolitical thought, moral decay, predatory enrichment, poisonous humor and mass feeble mindedness were implanted in Russia.

 

  Carl Schmitt (1942) - Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation.

 

Putin was the first to pay attention to geopolitics. And Russia began to see the light. That is, to understand more soberly what was really happening in international relations. But it was not easy to get out from under the hypnosis of liberals, economists and Westerners. It took time. The Russian authorities only really began to understand the laws and rules of geopolitics with the start of the New World Order. And not all of them. Putin, of course. But even in the education system of the Ministry of Defense, geopolitics is not given its due place. Yes, some idea of ​​it is given now, but very approximate. But it should not be like that: all military personnel, especially the officer corps, should definitely be familiar with the basics of geopolitics and pass the geopolitical minimum. The same applies to the entire managerial elite of the country. Yes, geopolitics is taught in many universities. But it should be taught in all of them and with an emphasis on it. It compactly and simply explains the world in which we live and the meaning of the war we are waging.
 

Putin once answered a question at the Valdai Club from Chinese professor Feng Shaolei about the basis on which he makes his main decisions: on the basis of geopolitics. The Chinese have heard this answer, the Russians have not. But they should. I am convinced that what is needed now, along with historical education, is mass geopolitical education. Following the military, the employees of the Presidential Administration and the Government must pass the geopolitical minimum, and then from top to bottom, right down to the governors and their staff, and all strategically important departments and ministries through and through. It will not take much time. A couple of textbooks and a short test of 10-12 questions. Only then will it become truly clear what the Supreme Ruler demands of them. And he demands victory over the civilizational enemy - outside and inside, or at least the creation of prerequisites for it. Victory of the Civilization of the Land (Third Rome) over the Civilization of the Sea (New Carthage). He demands that Carthage be destroyed, and geopolitics clearly explains why.

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin via Telegram — September 23, 2024.

See also:
Alexander Dugin (2019) - Geopolitics: Theories, Concepts, Schools, and Debates.

Alexander Dugin (1997) - The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia.

Israel’s Reckless Pager Operation: Who Can We Trust And Rely On? | Shen Yi

I've been studying international relations and politics for decades, and I'm shocked by this pager attack in Lebanon. This is not something a normal country would do; it's way past the moral red line of international norms. What we're looking at is a commercial electronic device, the pager, being modified into a military-style mini-grenade. Even though the operation targets Hezbollah members, the action is equivalent to igniting several cluster bombs in a market populated with Hezbollah members, their families, and other innocent civilians.

 » This is truly evil and shocking ... they've proven themselves willing to do outrageous, immoral things. «

Shen Yi, Director at Research Center for the Governance of Global Cyberspace, Fudan University.

 

The psychological effect of this operation is similar to the earliest Batman movie, where the Joker randomly poisoned hygiene products to create chaos in Gotham City. This isn't even using the pager to collect intel and destroy evidence. This can be considered a mass terrorist operation. It's like putting poison in bottled water and exporting it to your enemy city, expecting enemy soldiers to drink it, and disregarding innocent victims, oh well, sucks to be them.

 » Children lost their eyes while playing in the street. Mothers lost their limbs while shopping in a mall.
Doctors suffered severe injuries while driving to a hospital. This is horror and cruelty beyond imagination. «
China representative to the UN.

Assuming Israel's involvement, considering their current strike against Lebanon, there are two possibilities for this mass bombing. Either the bomb was installed during manufacturing in Taiwan, possibly through a joint operation between Taiwan and Israel, or the middleman modified the device. In China, Jewish people are considered the smartest and most cunning of all the peoples on this planet. Modifying this device into a bomb and activating it in mass volume is truly evil and shocking. However, I also consider this operation stupid and reckless, ignoring consequences and hiding behind the United States. The operation against Iran's nuclear enrichment facility might be within the rules of engagement, but this pager bombing is unacceptable. The United States swapped out hospital devices before the operation, showing awareness. The United States, Israel, and Taiwan governments remain quiet. 

 

How can we trust products from these regions in the future? This has impacted global supply chain trust. China now understands why the US considers Huawei cell phones and network devices national security issues - because they think China is as evil and immoral as they are. The problem isn't technical feasibility; today's technology makes it easy. The problem is who crosses the moral red line. Israel, backed by the United States, has shown willingness to cross it. This is a dangerous psychological barrier. 

 

How will China assure consumers of safety when buying US and Israel products? Shouldn't these products be inspected for tampering, with the US and Israel paying additional costs? This isn't unfair competition; they've proven themselves willing to do outrageous, immoral things. China can't wait until 5,000 Apple cell phones blow up to set up security. Considering the US views China as its biggest rival, China needs its own products, supply chain, communication, and banking systems. It's no longer about Chinese or US-made CPU preferences; it's about foreign entities willing to weaponize devices against you. It's not about faster cell phones; it's about safety. Maybe the quality of some Chinese products still lag behind, but we can tell the world we won't make products that explode intentionally. That should be a new standard. 

 

This chain of events shows that peace, safety, stability, and prosperity - elements of a great society - are rare globally. Many Chinese took these for granted. I believe China should lead promoting peace, growth, and stability around the world.

Quoted from:
Shen Yi (September 21, 2024) - Chinese response to Lebanon Pager Attack. (video)

Failed U.S. Regime Change Attempt in Mexico

The adoption of a constitutional reform in Mexico ended in riots. Demonstrators seized the Mexican Senate building and tried to disperse lawmakers. But unsuccessfully, two thirds of the senators managed to vote in favor. The reform will affect the Supreme Court of Mexico - its members will now be directly elected. This has become a priority for Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. After all, the judges blocked many of his initiatives in every possible way. López Obrador's successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, won the recent elections, and his Morena party won two-thirds of the seats. Now they are going to change the judges.

 

 USAID demonstrators storm the upper house and enter the chamber.

 —  September 11, 2024.

At the moment, the courts are increasingly involved in politics, and all over the world - from the USA and Brazil to Poland and Israel. Therefore, the struggle for control over the judicial system is intensifying everywhere. In Mexico, López Obrador's reforms are causing acute dissatisfaction with Washington. The American ambassador even called them "the erosion of democracy." Well, through USAID and funds from the United States, the activities of opposition NGOs are sponsored, whose participants just stormed the Senate building on September 11. And, unlike the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 this did not cause any criticism from Democrats in the United States. 

 

Mexico has already curtailed military cooperation with Washington and refuses GMO grain from the United States. During the López Obrador era, Mexico began to drift towards China. The pro-American candidates in the recent elections have flown by. So López Obrador has to rock the boat through the riots - and at the same time the U.S. writes Mexico off the "list of democracies." López Obrador in response refuses to help with the migration crisis, which is already destabilizing the United States itself.

 U.S. Coup d'État in Chile —  September 11, 1973.

 

Reference:

Aljazeera (September 11, 2024) - Mexico’s Senate passes judicial reform after protesters break into chamber.

The New York Times (August 27, 2024) - Mexico Pauses Relations With U.S. Embassy Amid Clash Over Judicial Overhaul.
Mexico Pivoting Away From Washington’s Grip —  August 18, 2024.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (May 8, 2024) - The US is in Decline and Desperate Need to Modernize.