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.

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)

The Wang Yi - Jake Sullivan Talks in Full

Sullivan - laughing stock of the world - wasn't even invited by Beijing. So why did he show up?

Reference:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (August 28, 2024) - Wang Yi and U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan Hold Strategic Communication.
The White House (August 28, 2024) - Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s meeting with Chinese Communist Party Politburo Member, Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Shen Yi (August 28, 2024) - On US Foreign Policy, US-China Relations and Economy. (video)

 » For the United States, the big cycles look mostly unfavorable. «

Ray Dalio “Power Index” for great powers and empires over time.

About Our Great Victory | Yuliana Titaeva

Every year on the eve of May 9th, a battle for historical memory of our great victory begins in the media space. Do those who repeat the clichés about "this day of mourning," "why the parades ?" or "is this victory necessary ?" realize that these are not their own judgments, but narratives cynically imposed on them by the very propaganda from which they avidly hide in "alternative sources of information" like YouTube and Meduza? And that the memory of the fact of our victory has long been, systematically, and deliberately destroyed? "By whom ? " the liberal will ask, and I will answer "by those who paid for this war."

Raising the Russian Soviet flag over the Reichstag during the Battle of Berlin - May 2, 1945.

And it was paid for by the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. Having profited from the First World War and boosting their industrial sector and economy, the US needed continuation. A new war promised to solve problems according to the principle of "everything everywhere at once": rivers of oil in the form of fuel and lubricants would bring dividends to Standard Oil, industrialists like Ford would sell military equipment, American banks would lend money to all warring sides, and the unfinished business of Europe in the First World War and the burgeoning USSR would be "chopped down to the last" soldier. The planned action was phased and stretched in implementation for almost 20 years.

First, the US intentionally attacked the economy of Germany, which had sunk into an economic crisis due to reparations payments after losing the First World War, then offered its own help to it - in the form of loans and active penetration of American capital into the German industry, which in a few years rose to second place in the world, but with a small nuance: it all belonged to American owners. The German Farbenindustrie was under the control of Standard Oil, General Electric controlled the electrical industry through AEG and Siemens, Opel belonged to General Motors, Henry Ford owned 100% of Volkswagen's shares, and by 1933, under the wing of American capital, large banks such as Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank were also.

 

 Western tanks and military hardware captured by Russian forces in Ukraine on display in Moscow at an exhibition

entitled "Trophies of the Russian Army". It is being held outside a museum celebrating the victory over Nazi Germany in 1945. 

The Russian military said it showed "Western help would not stop us winning this war".  - May 9, 2024.

At the same time, with American capital money, the Nazi party and personally Hitler were prepared and sponsored. To bring a new political figure onto the big stage, the United States first intentionally withdrew its loans from the German economy, causing a sharp crisis there, then let all the dogs loose on the current government and offered the electorate a familiar solution: "you need a new leader, like a comedian or an artist, and we have him! ". History always repeats itself twice.

What was done in 20 years completely prepared Germany for war. Apparently, it was promised that "we will take the Soviet Union quickly, and you, Dolphi, will receive the Nobel, the cover of Time, a house in Nice, a place in history, and a bucket of cocaine" (or was this promised to another president?) But of course, no one was going to take the Soviet Union quickly. The US needed a long, drawn-out, exhausting war, in which they would feed, finance, and ruthlessly exterminate every one of its participants. The winner didn't matter, but we ended up paying the huge price.

 

US White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre re-vealing world history - May 7, 2024.

They pay for the war today, implementing the same plan right before our eyes. They also pay for the revision of history, erasing any information about their interests in the Second World War and gradually shifting the blame for its outbreak onto the winner, while appropriating the fact of victory for themselves. They instill in immature minds something about the futility of holding parades, suggesting "quietly mourn at home," and hit the target with it precisely because they know that every historical symbol must be loud and noticeable, and what is not repeated en masse, as truth, from generation to generation, is simply forgotten forever. 

 

They made hundreds of films about the Jewish people, but not a single film about our 28 million victims, who fell so that Standard Oil would have something to fuel its oil. We did not ask our ancestors for this sacrifice, nor did they ask for it: the historical moment came to give it away, and they did. But now it's our turn to sacrifice and fight for our memory and victory with parades, conversations about the important viewings of "The Dawns Here Are Quiet" and festive posts on May 9th. And we give this sacrifice, it's necessary.

Happy Victory Day.

Yuliana Titaeva

 

 May 9, 2024

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin addressing attendees

of the annual Moscow Victory Day military parade - May 9, 2024.

How the US Destroyed the German Economy | Cyrus Janssen

"To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." This famous quote from Henry Kissinger is now unfolding in real time: Germany, Europe's largest economy and its industrial powerhouse, is now collapsing. Last year, Germany posted the worst performance among all major global economies, with its economy being the only one to actually shrink by 0.3%. Just last month, Germany's economic minister, Robert Habeck, stated that the German economy is performing "dramatically badly." Yet, the Western media has concealed the true cause.

 

» NATO's purpose is: Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. «
Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO's first Secretary General, 1952.

 » Fuck the European Union! «
Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, 2014. 

 

Even worse, this bleak situation shows no signs of improving. There were high hopes that 2024 would turn things around and be a comeback year for Germany. Until recently, the German government projected a growth rate of 1.3%. However, shockingly, they have now been forced to slash this forecast to a mere 0.2%. The scariest part is that most economists and business leaders agree: this isn't just a temporary recession, but a deeper structural problem with the German economic model. If you think this is an exaggeration, consider that, by now, an astonishing two in three German companies have left Germany or at least partially relocated abroad, with most citing sky-high energy prices, inflation, over-regulation, and endless political debates as their reasons for leaving. What or who is causing this catastrophic collapse of Germany's long-standing economic and industrial prowess?

 

   » Halting Russian supplies can well create a systemic crisis that would be devastating

for the German economy and, indirectly, for the entire European Union. «

 RAND Corporation, 2022.

 

Germany has been played by the United States and continues to score own goals in tackling this economic crisis. The country's dire situation is caused by three main factors: first, the sky-high energy prices; second, reduced exports to Russia and China; and third, increased military expenditure.

 

   » China called the Nord Stream pipeline blast an act of international terrorism,
and an act of war against Germany and Russia. «

Hans-Benjamin Braun, 2023.

[...] As much as the US is to blame here, astonishingly, almost all of Germany's political elite, mainstream media, and general population have eagerly obeyed America's wishes to demonize and decouple from Russia and China. This is absolutely bizarre and frankly foolish, as numerous experts and German business leaders have repeatedly warned that decoupling would destroy the German economy. The sad truth is that much of Germany's political and media establishment has a long history of blindly accepting US-formed policy narratives at face value—even when they themselves are the ones getting harmed. The best recent example of this is the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline, whose sole purpose was to transport natural gas from Russia to Germany and the rest of Western Europe.
 

 » Germany's establishment has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for severing its energy ties with Russia.

You seriously can't make this stuff up. «

Cyrus Janssen - March 12, 2024.

[...] After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Germany and the EU introduced sanctions against Russia, while Russia responded by sharply decreasing its delivery of natural gas to Europe. This caused Germany's energy prices to skyrocket and severely damaged its economy. Before the invasion, Germany imported a staggering 55% of its gas from Russia, and it was precisely this cheap Russian gas that enabled Germany to become an economic and industrial powerhouse. Of course, sanctioning your main energy supplier was never the smartest choice to begin with. The fallout cannot be understated: in the same year the war started, the market price for natural gas increased more than tenfold.

 Biden vows that the US will 'bring an end' to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine, and German vassal Chancellor Scholz simply agrees. - February 7, 2022.

 

But it's not just ordinary Germans who have suffered. An astonishing 70% of Germany's mechanical engineering, industrial goods, and automotive sectors have relocated abroad, making it clear why Germany's economic and industrial power has collapsed so rapidly. The US role in Germany's energy crisis is much larger than merely taking advantage of the Germans. Not only did the US openly wish to eliminate Germany's energy relationship with Russia, but it also shares significant blame for causing the war in Ukraine, which led to Germany's crisis in the first place. However, once again, Germany shares the blame: the country's establishment is in virtual lockstep with the United States and has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for severing its energy ties with Russia. You seriously can't make this stuff up.

 

Quoted from:
Cyrus Janssen ( March 12, 2024) - How America Destroyed the German Economy. (video)

 » Ukraine's victory: whatever it takes, as long as it takes. «

German vassal chancellor Scholz - May 7, 2024.

See also:

Martin Armstrong (May 1, 2024) - Will Russia Push the Button?

Martin Armstrong (May 1, 2024) - It Is Unlikely That We Can Avoid A Third World War.
Timofey Bordachev (February 19, 2024) - Western Europe could become the new Ukraine.
Hans-Benjamin Braun (August 6, 2023) - Nord Stream Pipeline Blast By US-Nuke.

RAND Corporation (January 25, 2022) - Crush Europe and Strengthen the US.

The Baltimore Bridge Moment

Priceless. A gem for historians.

500 Years of Western Dominance - What Comes Next | Glenn Diesen

Felix Abt: A great European religious war and the first pan-European conflict over superpower status came to an end in 1648. After 30 years of devastating wars and chaos, especially on German soil, with millions of deaths and shattered economies, the Peace of Westphalia brought a new, rules-based order to Europe, as the Western political class would call it today. This included the inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign and equal states; it is regarded as a milestone in the development toward tolerance and secularization. How did this affect the new powers that emerged afterward and their quest for hegemony?

Glenn Diesen: The lesson from the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was that no one power could restore order based on hegemony and universal values, as the other states in Europe would preserve their own sovereignty and distinctiveness by collectively balancing the most powerful state. This was evident when Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden to prevent the dominance of the Catholic Habsburgs. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave birth to the modern world order, in which peace and order depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. The Westphalian system prevents hegemony as other states collectively balance the effort of an aspiring hegemon to establish economic and military dominance, and universal values are rejected to the extent they are used to reduce the sovereignty of other states.

» The Westphalian system prevents hegemony. « 

The 1648 peace treaty between the parties in the Thirty Years' War established the Westphalian system.

 

The principle, known as the Westphalian principle of sovereignty, prohibits interference in the internal affairs of another state, and every state is equal before international law, regardless of its size. Thus, every state has sovereignty over its territory and its internal affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. But when the European colonial powers used violence to impose their will on other continents, they violated this ideal. Was this the beginning of this principle’s demise?

 

The Westphalian system should in principle be based on sovereign equality for all states. However, it originated as a European security order that later laid the foundation for a world order. Under the original Westphalian system, the Europeans claimed special privileges and the principle of equal sovereignty for states did not apply to everyone. Sovereignty was deemed to be a right and a responsibility assigned to “civilized peoples”, a reference to the Europeans as white Christians. The international system was divided between the civilized and the barbarians. There was one set of rules for the Europeans in the civilized “garden”, and another set of rules when the Europeans engaged with the so-called despotic barbarians in the “jungle”. The interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and the development of vast empires was framed as the right and the responsibility of civilized states to guide the barbaric peoples towards universal values of civilization. This responsibility to govern other peoples was termed the “white man’s burden” and the “civilizing mission”.

 » The gardeners have to go to the jungle. «

Josep Borrell's universal mission.

In our current era, we have abandoned the civilized-barbarian divide, but we have replaced it with a liberal democracy-authoritarian divide to legitimize sovereign inequality. The West can interfere in the domestic affairs of other states to promote democracy, invade countries to defend human rights, or even change the borders of countries in support of self-determination. This is the exclusive right and a responsibility of the West as the champions of the universal values of liberal democracy. As the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell explained: “The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us”.

International law in accordance with the UN Charter defends the principle of sovereign equality for all states. The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. For example, the West’s recognition of independence for Kosovo was a breach of international law as it violated the territorial integrity of Serbia, although it was legitimized by the liberal principle of respecting the self-determination of Kosovo Albanians. In Crimea the West decided that self-determination should not be the leading principle, but territorial integrity. The US refers to liberal democratic values to exercise its exclusive right to invade and occupy countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, although this right is not extended to countries in the jungle.  

» The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, 

which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. «

In 1945 fifty countries established the United Nations System. With the help of this supra-national governance

system the Anglo-Frankish-Zionist-Dönmeh-Wahhabi-Takfiri elites of the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US and

some others, expected to secure their hegemonies beyond the foreseeable demise of traditional colonialism. 

The Bretton Woods conference, World Bank, IMF, nuclear bombing of Japan, dividing Korea 

and creating the State of Israel in Palestine are early show cases of what Pax Americana and UN are all about.

[...] The Ukrainian conflict is essentially an extension of American geopolitics, which aims to carry out Mackinder’s aforementioned stanza, “He who rules Eastern Europe rules the world.” What are your thoughts about it?

Preventing Germany and Russia from controlling Eastern Europe means that much of the Eurasian continent becomes landlocked. US control over Eastern Europe implies that Russia can not bridge Europe and Asia, but rather becomes an isolated land-locked region at the dual periphery of Europe and Asia.

Brzezinski outlined the strategy for developing and preserving US global primacy, which relies on the age-old wisdom of divide-and-rule. Brzezinski wrote that the US must “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”. Historically, the British and the Americans have worked to prevent Germany and Russia from coming together as it would form an independent pole of power. Hegemony requires conflict between Germany and Russia, as Germany becomes a dependent ally and Russia is weakened. This logic is also applied to why it is beneficial to perpetuate tensions between the Arabs and Iran, or between China and its neighbors. The US has been very concerned about the economic integration between the Germans and Russians, which is why the US was so hostile to the Nord Stream pipelines and most likely was behind the attack on these pipelines. 

 

 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century.

March 22, 2023.

 

 Wehrmacht 2.0 south of Kiev. 

There will be hell to pay.

March 22, 2024.

The problem is that the world is no longer Western-centric and by pushing Russia away from Germany, the US has pushed Russia towards China – a technological and industrial power much greater than Germany. In the mid-19th century, the British fought against Russia in the Crimean War with the explicit purpose of pushing Russia back into Asia, where it would remain technologically and economically backward and stagnant. NATO’s war in Ukraine is a repeat of the efforts to push Russia back into Asia, although this time Asia is much more dynamic than the West. The failure of the West to adjust our grand strategy to this new reality has been a mistake of immeasurable proportions. We have not subordinated Russia, rather we ended Russia’s 300-year-long Western-centric policies in which Moscow looked to the West for modernization.

What is driving this stunning anti-Chinese obsession in the United States against a country that upholds the principle of non-interference in other countries, that used its mighty navy only for trade and not for gunboat politics when it was a superpower in the past, and that follows the millennia-old concept of “Tianxia” (天下), which literally means “everything under heaven”, that is, an inclusive world full of harmony for all?

China does not threaten the US, but it threatens US dominance as the foundation for the unipolar world order established after the Cold War. The US is currently attempting to weaken China through economic warfare, convincing its allies to decouple from the Chinese economy, and knocking out Russia in Ukraine as a vital partner of China. If the US fails to achieve its objectives, then it will likely stoke conflicts between China and its neighbors to make the neighbors more dependent and obedient, and also create instability for the Chinese that will bleed it of resources. The ideal would be greater tensions between India and China, as India would have to make itself more reliant on the US and it would be an important ally to weaken China. If all fails, then the US could also fight an indirect war through a proxy similar to the way they are using Ukrainians to fight Russia – by for example pushing for Taiwan’s secession. Besides securing its supply chains and building a military for deterrence, China should prioritize resolving its disputes with India as any friction with China can be exploited.

» This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics. « 

Since 2009 BRICS is establishing a Multipolar World Order based on Westphalian principles and controlled by the 

Eurasian great powers China, India and Russia. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined BRICS

on January 1, 2024. To date 15 more countries have formally applied to join.

Finally, in your new book you say that a new Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, albeit with Eurasian characteristics. Can you explain this in more detail?

We are returning to a Westphalian system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. However, the former Westphalian system was based on sovereign equality among the Western powers while the “barbarians” or “despots” outside the West were not deemed to be qualified for the responsibility of sovereignty. It was a dual system of collective hegemony of the West, with sovereign equality between the Western states. In the new Westphalian system, there are several powerful states that are not Western, with China as the leading economy in the world. The Eurasian powers such as China, Russia, India and others are developing the economic foundations for this system with new technologies, transportation corridors and financial instruments. The Eurasian powers are more prepared to include the Global South as sovereign equals. The Eurasian powers reject the so-called “rules-based international order” based on sovereign inequality, as Western dominance should not be legitimized by a civilized-barbarian or liberal democracy-authoritarian divide.

The Western powers over the past centuries have had an inclination for dominance and empire by controlling limited maritime corridors. Russia’s Eurasianism in the 19th century was a hegemonic strategy by dominating the Eurasian landmass through land corridors, although under the multipolar distribution of power the Russians do not have the capability or intentions to pursue hegemony. Instead, Eurasian integration entails moving from the dual periphery of Europe and Asia, to the center of a new Eurasian construct. Even China as the leading power does not have the capability or intention to pursue hegemony. Countries like Russia are content with China being the leading power, although they would not support China if it demanded dominance and hegemony. The Chinese demonstrate that they are not attempting to limit Russia’s economic connectivity with other states to make itself the only center of power. In the Global Civilization Initiative, the Chinese are also advocating for respecting civilizational differences and that all states have their own path to modernity, which implies that China is not claiming to represent universal values that legitimizes interference into the domestic affairs of other states. The West assumed that the Russia-China partnership was a “marriage of convenience” and that they would clash over influence in Central Asia, but this never happened because neither side demanded hegemony. Instead of sabotaging each other’s relations with the region, China and Russia harmonized their interests in Central Asia. China, Russia, India and other Eurasian powers have different visions and interests in terms of Eurasian integration, but they all need each other to realize their goals and pursue prosperity. Hegemony is not an option. This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics.

Quoted from:

500 Years of Western Dominance: Is it Coming to an End and What Comes Next?

Felix Abt talks with Glenn Diesen. In: Eastern Angle - March 22, 2024.

 

See also:

Glenn Diesen (2024) - The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order. 

Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997) - The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.

On Realism and War with China | John Mearsheimer

Lex Fridman: The communication gap between China and the United States seems to be much greater than that of what was the former Soviet Union and the United States.

 

Mearchiavelli, Machiavelli's revenant.

 

John Mearsheimer: It’s an interesting question. A lot of people describe the Cold War as an ideological competition above all else.

Communism versus liberal democracy or communism versus liberal capitalism, whatever. I actually don’t believe that. The Soviets were realists to the core. Stalin was a realist par excellence, and ideology did not matter much in Stalin’s foreign policy. And if you look at Soviet foreign policy after World War II, throughout the Cold War, they were realists to the core. And in those days the Americans were realists. Sure, a lot of liberal ideology floating around out there, but the Americans were realists. One of the reasons we avoided a shooting match between the United States and the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1989 was because both sides understood the basic balance of power logic.

 

The US-China competition is somewhat different. But first of all, the Chinese are realists to the core. I’ve spent a lot of time in China. I am basically a rock star in China. The Chinese are my kind of people. They are realists. They speak my language. It’s the United States that is no longer very realist. American leaders have a very powerful liberal bent and tend not to see the world in realist terms.

 

That’s fascinating. So the Chinese are pragmatic realists and think of the world as a competition of military powers?

 

Yeah, you are actually right. And I think we will avoid war. The problem with the Americans is, it’s not just their liberalism. It’s the possibility that we will pursue a rollback policy. During the Cold War the American grand strategy towards the Soviet Union was: containment, containment, containment. We now know from the historical record that the United States was not only pursuing containment. We were trying to rollback Soviet power to put it bluntly. We were trying to wreck the Soviet Union. And I would not be surprised moving forward with regard to China if the United States pursues a serious rollback policy.

 

So you’re saying throughout history the United States was always pursuing rollback policies? 

Look, you don’t respect the power of other nations. You fear the power of other nations.

 

Will there be a war with China in the 21st century?

 

I don’t know. But my argument is yes, there will be war with China. 

 

Quoted from:
Lex Fridman interviews John Mearsheimer - Nov 17, 2023. (transcript) (video)

 

 See also:
John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 

Crush Europe and Strengthen the US | RAND Corporation

January 25, 2022 

Confidential

Distribution: WHCS, ANSA, Dept. of State, CIA, NSA, DNC 

 

Executive Summary

[...] The current German economic model is based on two pillars. These are unlimited access to cheap Russian energy resources and to cheap French electric power, thanks to the operation of nuclear power plants. The importance of the first factor is considerably higher. Halting Russian supplies can well create a systemic crisis that would be devastating for the German economy and, indirectly, for the entire European Union. The French energy sector could also soon begin to experience heavy problems. The predictable stop of Russian-controlled nuclear fuel supplies, combined with the unstable situation in the Sahel region, would make French energy sector critically dependent on Australian and Canadian fuel.

 

"A reduction in Russian energy supplies - ideally, a complete halt of such supplies -
would lead to disastrous outcomes for German industry." - RAND Corporation, Jan 25, 2022.

 

[...] The only feasible way to guarantee Germany's rejection of Russian energy supplies is to involve both sides in the military conflict in Ukraine. Our further actions in this country will inevitably lead to a military response from Russia. Russians will obviously not be able to leave unanswered the massive Ukrainian army pressure on the unrecognized Donbas republics. That would make possible to declare Russia an aggressor and apply to it the entire package of sanctions prepared beforehand. Putin may in turn decide to impose limited counter-sanctions - primarily on Russian energy supplies to Europe. Thus, the damage to the EU countries will be quite comparable to the one to the Russians, and in some countries - primarily in Germany - it will be higher.

 

The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the leading role of green parties and ideology in Europe. The German Greens are a strongly dogmatic, if not zealous, movement, which makes it quite easy to make them ignore economic arguments. In this respect, the German Greens somewhat exceed their counterparts in the rest of Europe. Personal features and the lack of professionalism of their leaders - primarily Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck - permit to presume that it is next to impossible for them to admit their own mistakes in a timely manner.

 

Thus, it will be enough to quickly form the media image of Putin’s aggressive war to turn the Greens into ardent and hardline supporters of sanctions, a ‘party of war’. It will enable the sanctions regime to be introduced without any obstacles. The lack of professionalism of the current leaders will not allow a setback in the future, even when the negative impact of the chosen policy becomes obvious enough [...] This will ensure a sufficiently long gap in cooperation between Germany and Russia, which will make large German economic operators uncompetitive.

"The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the leading role of the German Greens."

[...] A reduction in Russian energy supplies - ideally, a complete halt of such supplies - would lead to disastrous outcomes for German industry. The need to divert significant amounts of Russian gas for winter heating of residential and public facilities will further exacerbate the shortages [...] A complete standstill at the largest in the chemical, metallurgical, and machine-building, plants is likely, while they have virtually no spare capacity to reduce energy consumption. It could lead to the shutting down of continuous-cycle enterprises, which would mean their destruction.

The cumulative losses of the German economy can be estimated only approximately. Even if the restriction of Russian supplies is limited to 2022, its consequences will last for several years, and the total losses could reach 200-300 billion euros. Not only will it deliver a devastating blow to the German economy, but the entire EU economy will inevitably collapse. We are talking not about a decline in economy growth pace, but about a sustained recession and a decline in GDP only in material production by 3-4% per year for the next 5-6 years. Such a fall will inevitably cause panic in the financial markets and may bring them to a collapse.

The euro will inevitably, and most likely irreversibly, fall below the dollar. A sharp fall of the euro will consequently cause its global sale. It will become a toxic currency, and all countries in the world will rapidly reduce its share in their forex reserves. This gap will be primarily filled with dollar and yuan.

 

NATO's purpose is "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down",
as Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO's first Secretary General, put it.

Another inevitable consequence of a prolonged economic recession will be a sharp drop in living standards and rising unemployment (up to 200,000-400,000 in Germany alone), which will entail the exodus of skilled labour and well-educated young people. There are literally no other destinations for such migration other than the United States today. A somewhat smaller, but also quite significant flow of migrants can be expected from other EU countries.

 

Since 1871 the prime U.S. geopolitical foreign policy doctrine for Europe is:
"Keep Germany and Russia separate and in conflict."
Or as Victoria Nuland put it in 2014: "Fuck the EU!"

The scenario under consideration will thus serve to strengthen the national financial condition both indirectly and most directly. In the short term, it will reverse the trend of the looming, economic recession and, in addition, consolidate American society by distracting it from immediate economic concerns. This, in turn, will reduce electoral risks.

In the medium term (4-5 years), the cumulative benefits of capital flight, re-oriented logistical flows and reduced competition in major industries may amount to USD 7-9 trillion. Unfortunately, China is also expected to benefit over the medium term from this emerging scenario. At the same time, Europe's deep political dependence on the U.S. allows us to effectively neutralise possible attempts by individual European states to draw closer to China [...]

Quoted from:
RAND Corporation (Jan 25, 2022) - Executive Summary: Weakening Germany, Strengthening the U.S.

See also:

Hans-Benjamin Braun (Apr 07, 2023) - Nord Stream Pipeline Blast by US-Nuke. 

Michel Chossudovsky (Aug 30, 2023) - Niger’s Military Junta is Supported by the Pentagon.

Washington’s Unspoken Objective: “Remove France from Africa”.

Max Blumenthal & Aaron Maté (2023) - German Greens, the world's most hypocritical party? (video)

 Bruno Maçães (2018) - Greater Eurasia: Russia’s New Energy Gamble.