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 biggest economy and its industrial powerhouse by far, is now collapsing. Last year, Germany posted the worst performance across all major global economies, with its economy being the only one to actually shrink by 0.3%. And just last month, Germany's economic minister, Robert Habeck, said that the German economy is performing "dramatically bad". And yet the Western media has hidden 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.

» Our goal in Europe is: Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. «
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 2008. 

» Fuck the European Union ! «
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, 2014 - 2024. 

 

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. And until recently, the German government projected a growth rate of 1.3%. However, shockingly, they've 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 some temporary recession, but a deeper structural problem of the German economic model. If you think this is an exaggeration, understand that by now, an astonishing two in three German companies have left Germany, or at least partially relocated abroad, with most citing the 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 was played by the United States and continues to score own goals in tackling this economic crisis. Germany's dire situation is being caused by three main reasons: Number one, the country's sky high energy prices. Number two, its reduced exports to Russia and China. And number three, its increases in 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, because 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 taking US-formed policy narratives at face value - even when they themselves are the ones getting screwed. 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 skyrocketed Germany's energy prices and severely damaged its economy. This is because before the invasion, Germany imported a whopping 55% of their gas from Russia. And it's precisely this cheap Russian gas that has been so important in enabling 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 has increased more than 10 fold. 

 Biden vows US will 'bring an end ' to 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 suffered. An astonishing 70% of Germany's mechanical engineering, industrial goods, and automotive sectors have relocated abroad, and it's not hard to see why Germany's economic and industrial power has collapsed so rapidly. [...] The US role in Germany's energy crisis is much bigger than just ripping off the Germans. Not only did the US openly wish to wipe out Germany's energy relationship with Russia, but the US shares significant blame for causing this war in Ukraine, which led to Germany's crisis in the first place. [...] However, once again, Germany shares the blame here: Germany'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 US is in Decline and Desperate Need to Modernize | President of Mexico

After a report from the US State Department about the allegedly “poor” human rights situation in Mexico, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) launched a counterattack. He warned Washington that there was no government in the world that had the right to interfere in the politics of another nation. Only the USA has repeatedly claimed such special rights in the past. AMLO pronounced: "Mexico will not tolerate such interference. Mexico will never be a protectorate or a colony of another country. Mexico is a free, independent and sovereign country."

  » That's just how they are. They are stagnant and ossified in decadence.

They are in decline and desperately need to modernize. 

The US must change their arrogant interventionist foreign policy.  «

 Andrés Manuel López Obrador, President of Mexico - April 24, 2024.

AMLO condemned US funding of so-called NGOs - such as terrorist groups and drug cartels - that attack Mexico's legitimate government and its courts. It is above all the USA that should not lean too far out of the window when it comes to human rights: "Imagine if we would announce that the USA are violating human rights, political rights and freedoms, that the Statue of Liberty would be an empty symbol just because they have a presidential candidate who is constantly being dragged into court. How they want to talk about human rights when they are pouring billions of dollars into wars that result in the deaths of innocent people around the world? Why don't they release Assange? Where is the freedom? "

"United States governments are meddling in the internal politics of other countries for at least two centuries. And it is not only giving opinions of good conduct as if they were the judge of the world. They are also intervening militarily in countries with governments not subject to the interests of the United States. That's the story. They used to appoint and remove presidents as they pleased. That is the history of the people of Latin America. Well, in our history they invaded us twice. The first time they forced the Mexican government to sign the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, that is: nine of  the fifty US federal states belonged to Mexico. We have not forgotten US Invasions. We have insisted a lot and we will continue to do so: The US must change their arrogant interventionist foreign policy."

 

» Cancel NAFTA. Ditch the dollar. Re-issue the Mexican gold peso. Join the BRICs. « For now these topics are official diplomatic taboos still. But chained to a sinking ship, the US' biggest trading partner becomes increasingly fed up with the inflation-dollar fraud, the drug-war-pandemic-genocide economy and the insane migration industry of its northern neighbor.

"How come they allocate so much money to war? Why they do not allocate funds to care for their young people who are suffering from drug use; unfortunately, 100,000 young people die every year from fentanyl use. But that's just how they are. And we shouldn't be surprised. That is how it has been historically. That indicates that they are stagnant, and ossified in decadence. They are in decline and desperately need to modernize."

Quoted from: 

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (April 24, 2024) - Mexico will never be a colony - We have not forgotten US Invasions. (video)

It Is Unlikely That We Can Avoid A Third World War | Martin Armstrong

Piero Messina: Fukuyama advocated the end of history. Huntington spoke of a clash of civilizations. Is it possible to imagine a third way?

Martin Armstrong: Our greatest threat is centralized control; that is what doomed communism. I agree with Huntington that the clash of civilizations will be based upon cultures and religion mainly because of centralized attempt to impose a unified culture.

 

 » It is unlikely that we can avoid world war. 

Governments need war because their debts are no longer sustainable. 

They will use the war as the excuse for defaults – as was the case for WWII. 

They will create Bretton Woods II with the IMF digital currency as the reserve.

I believe we have a third world war that will begin piecemeal with the Middle East, Iran vs Israel, 

Europe vs Russia, North Korea vs Japan and South Korea, China vs Taiwan. 

But they will eventually merge together. «

At the end of the 1980s, the reference geopolitical model was the unipolar world, based on Western primacy. What cultural, military, and economic pillars is the Washington Consensus based on? Is it true freedom?

The military in economic pillars that dominate Washington today have nothing to do with freedom. They have to do with people who were unwilling to accept the collapse of communism. Whereby the enemy was transformed by communism to ethnic racism.

With the birth of the BRICS, is it possible to talk about a multipolar option? What are the limits that you see in this geopolitical dimension?

The birth of the BRICS was caused by these people we call the Neocons who engaged in ethnic racism and targeted Russia by removing them from the world economy under SWIFT. This woke up many in the world, realizing that the dollar was now being weaponized and was no longer a monetary instrument exclusively. Nations began to realize if they did not conform to the commands of Washington, then they to could be removed from SWIFT. Thus they have divided the world economy bringing to an end globalization.

Your analysis and studies seems to reveal several critical issues regarding the stability of the so-called Western system. There is a profound crisis of democratic systems, there is a lot of mistrust towards mainstream information and above all there are “agents” external to the institutions (an example above all is the activity of George Soros) who seem to influence the choices of governments in the United States and Western Europe. What could happen in the immediate future and in the coming years?

It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy. We live under republics in which case the people are represented and have no right to vote on critical issues. Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government compared to a monarchy or dictatorship which cannot be bribed. In a republic, all representatives lacking term limits are up for sale to the highest bidder. This has resulted in the collapse of confidence in government both in Europe and the US which have fallen below 30% – the lowest since WWII. External agents such as George Soros, Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, push personal agendas which has further undermined the confidence in our systems. It is the government that decides if we go to war or not. The people are never asked.

 » It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy. 

We live under republics in which case the people are represented and have no right to vote on critical issues. 

Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government. «

We invite you to make some reflections on the geoeconomic dimension. The global capitalist system is based on the indebtedness of sovereign states. Is this a sustainable situation? Who will pay the bill in the end?

The sovereign debt crisis that we face has appeared often throughout history. It is unsustainable because governments act in their own self-interest and will always expand debt to retain power. Historically, these systems collapse when they issue new debt to pay off the old, and no one is there to buy the new debt. Once they can no longer continue to borrow new money, then inevitably, they collapse.

Your predictive model is based on precise calculations. The cycles of history and the economy thus seem to chase each other along the time span of history. If I’m not mistaken, you compared the current context to the crisis and dissolution of the Roman Empire. Is it correct?

History repeats because human nature never changes. The Roman Empire is but one example from history of its success and failures. It lasted longer than anyone because it did not impose cultural regulations. The Christians called them pagans because they had so many Gods. That was the product of their policy of freedom of religion. Athens had Athena, Northern Europe had Thor, so they did not try to change the culture of the lands they conquered. They created a common market where someone in Britain could sell products to someone in Rome. So the freedom of religion, low taxation, freedom of movement, and a common market combined to create the Pax Romana.

Is it still possible to avoid a large-scale world conflict?

It is unlikely that we can avoid world war. Governments need war because their debts are no longer sustainable. They will use the war as the excuse for defaults – as was the case for WWII. They will create Bretton Woods II with the IMF digital currency as the reserve.

Pope Francis has been talking about a piecemeal Third World War for years. From your point of view, is what the Holy Father claims can be shared? What are the main weapons of this possible Third World War?

I believe we have a third world war that will begin piecemeal with the Middle East, Iran vs Israel, Europe vs Russia, north Korea vs Japan and South Korea, China vs Taiwan. But they will eventually merge together.

Have you argued that the true wealth of a state is its people? Why did we forget about all this? Above all, who is it convenient for?

The wealth of every nation is its people. That has been proven with the rise of Germany and Japan after WWII. This is the essence of Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand.” But those in government prefer Marx, for he advocates that the state has the power to manipulate the people. So, Governments have forgotten it and reject Smith because Marx provides them with more power.

Is it correct to claim that your analysis succeed in covering the intersection of geopolitics, global markets and economic confidence? Can you explain to us in a simple way how your Socrates predictive model works? By the way, why did you name it just like the Greek philosopher?

I named my computer model after Socrates because the oracle of Delphi had said that he was the smartest man in Greece. He tried to prove the oracle wrong and the process proved it to be correct. He was put on trial and sentenced to death because he knew too much. My computer has taught me a lot in geopolitics, we had a major bank in Lebanon in the 1980’s and they asked if I could create a model on the Lebanese pound. I put the data in the computer and it came out and said their country would fall apart in 8 days. I thought something was wrong with the data. When I told the client, they asked me what currency would be best, and I said the Swiss Franc. Eight days later the civil war began. Obviously they saw the movement of money themselves and came to me for the timing. The same thing happened with a client in Saudi Arabia who was a big shipper. He called me asking me what gold would do tomorrow because Iran was going to begin attacking shipping in the gulf. So once again, there was advanced information about war. By 1998, I understood how the computer was forecasting such events. I warned in June at our London conference that Russia was about to collapse. The London financial Times had snuck into the back of the room and reported that forecast on the front of their newspaper on June 27th 1998. Russia collapsed about 6 weeks later.

Are unpredictable events, such as the terrorist attack in Moscow, also considered among the parameters of your predictive model? A “black swan” type event can change the course of history and geopolitical relations?

Yes, we saw the capital flows shift a day in advance, up to a week in advance in the case of the attack in Israel. The defense stocks began to rise even with 9/11 the government used our model to look at who bought puts on airlines in the days before. Someone always knows when they’re going to do these types of events. And they move their money either to profit or to avoid a loss. The computer is tracking everything. It cannot tell me which person has done it. Just that the move is about to take place.

Quoted from:
Piero Messina (May 1, 2024) - Interview with Martin Armstrong.

 

 » America is a Golden Calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece. «

 

See also:

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

The Kremlin's Last Warning | Martin Armstrong

Dmitry Konstantinovich Kiselyov (born 1954) is a major TV host, and his latest warning to the West is to issue an ultimatum to the UK and the US. On Russian TV, Kiselyov warned [on April 29, 2024] that if a Western power deploys soldiers on the ground in Ukraine to ‘inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,’ it will result in Armageddon. Of course, what I find stunning is how the Western press characterizes him as “Vladimir Putin’s propagandist,” and the implication of those words is that they are not a real threat. 

 

» Then the very moment would come. ‌«

RS-28 Sarmat [dubbed 'Satan II' by NATO] is Russia's most capable hypersonic thermonuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). With a range of 18,000 km and traveling 27 times the speed of sound, Sarmat can extinguish any target/country/enemy anywhere on the planet within minutes with one single strike. Including the US - May 1, 2024.

The press takes NOTHING said from Russia seriously – it’s all a joke, just propaganda. [...] Kiselyov is not going to say this on national TV without the Kremlin actually delivering this warning. He said:  “If NATO countries send their troops into Ukraine in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, then the very moment about which Putin once said, “Why do we need the world, if there is no Russia in it?” would come.‌”

» Russia can turn the US into radioactive ash. This is not propaganda. ‌«

Dmitry Kiselyov, delivering the Kremlin's last warning - April 29, 2024. 

Russia has indeed threatened to ‘turn the US into radioactive ash’ and ‘sink Britain’ below the waves. While some NATO leaders have been more circumspect, this need for war to justify the defaulting on debt that is the real factor behind the West’s desire for war will have far greater consequences than these fake world leaders who are all hand puppets of the Neocons. Kiselyov added: “This is not propaganda.” Yet in the West, the Neocons are saying this is a bluff, and Putin will never use nukes so the West can completely destroy Russia – their hated enemy for decades, without a shot fired.

Quoted from:

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

 

» There seems to be a conspiracy in the British Isles. Why threaten boundless Russia with nuclear weapons while sitting on a small island? The island is so small that one Sarmat missile is enough to sink it once and for all. This is just one launch, and there is no England, once and for all! Another option to plunge Britain into the abyss is the Russian Poseidon. There is no way to stop this underwater drone. It has a warhead with a capacity of up to 100 megatons. The explosion of this thermonuclear torpedo off the coast of Britain will raise a giant wave up to 500 meters high. Such a squall of water is also a carrier of extreme doses of radiation. Passing over the British Isles, it will turn what may be left of them into a radioactive desert. ‌«

Dmitry Kiselyov - May 2, 2022.

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.

Israeli Army Celebrates

Israeli Army celebrates the destruction of Gaza’s nonprofit Society for Deaf Children. 

These specimens do not even qualify to the sub-zoology realm.

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.