Although it is now 20 years since the English edition of my Japan: The Toothless Tiger best seller first appeared, everything that has since happened has confirmed its thesis that East Asia is a powder keg that Japan cannot contain.

Although China’s Belt and Road Initiative is inexorably falling into place, so too is the South China Sea. Although a British convoy, supported by German and American cruisers, recently sailed through the area, they, like the Australians, who are being butt hurt by Chinese sanctions, are not serious players.

South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are the region’s heavy hitters. Though Taiwan would give an excellent account of itself in any future encounter, there is little they could do when faced with overwhelming Chinese firepower. Taiwan could be East Asia’s Arch Duke Ferdinand moment.

South Korea, however, remains the real dagger to Japan’s heart. There are more than five million men under arms on the Korean peninsula – far more armed soldiers than either the United States or Russia maintains. Vladivostock, Russia’s military headquarters in the Far East, is only fifty miles away from North Korea! The resulting geostrategic rivalries make Korea the most militarized piece of real estate on the planet and it is the only place the United States has (repeatedly) declared it has locked and loaded nuclear weapons. As there is no way Seoul can be defended from a determined attack, the USMC is heavily embedded in Okinawa to where they hastily retreated at the height of the Korean War and to where they most likely will have to retreat again. Though Japan needs South Korea as a buffer state against North Korea and its historical Russian and Chinese sponsors, the Belt and Road Initiative would marginalize Japan and make her almost irrelevant to this Chinese minted version of The Great Game.

China views its own naval expansion as vital to protecting her sea routes and, just like Washington, Beijing is deploying her navy to ensure that the black gold continues to arrive to her shores. The fact that this policy poses a threat to Japan is not Beijing’s primary concern. They have the much more daunting task of keeping their vast nation afloat. For that overriding purpose, they need a strong navy to guarantee their oil supplies and a steely determination to defend and promote their national objectives.

Japan’s looming quandary is that, with Taiwan and South Korea, it has been a vassal of America’s East Asian policy, trading economic advancement for American political and military hegemony in contrast to China’s unfettered development. That bill is now due.

China is involved in a great strategic game that she cannot afford to lose. Kazakhstan is China’s natural bridge to the lucrative Iranian and Iraqi fields. Such a link-up would advance China’s standing as a world power. It would also cripple United States’ efforts to secure the Caspian Sea’s oil for the West. China also wants to secure central Asia’s economic cooperation to help mollify Xinjiang, which Erdoğan’s Muslim Uighur fifth columnists are charged with subverting. About 200,000 Uighurs live in Kazakhstan and opposition Islamic terrorist groups have their bases in Almata, its largest city. China hopes to neutralize this U.S. sponsored internal ISIS threat by its oil diplomacy in Kazakhstan, and its arms diplomacy in Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.

NATO’s ongoing belligerence in Eastern Europe has transformed the pipeline poker China has been playing with Russia and the other regional powers, forcing Russia and oil rich Kazakhstan to fully throw their lot in with China. Siberian oil will flow southwards to China and, if Korea and Japan wish it, onwards to them as well.

Iran meanwhile, is helping China wrest the vast oil reserves of the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf from Uncle Sam . If Iran and China control the flow of oil from the region, the United States will lose control not only of the Caspian Sea but also of the Persian Gulf’s vast and vital oil supplies. Japan best urgently take stock.

China’s missiles nullify America’s capacity to militarily dominate Asia’s vast geography with its small, dispersed pockets of marine forces, whose forward deployment policy bases are much too vulnerable. Without forward bases in Asia, there can be no concentration of American military power: weapons cannot even be stored, let alone massed for use.

This vulnerability of their bases to Chinese missiles is America’s singular military weakness in Asia. America’s powerful Seventh Fleet cannot make up for the loss of Asian land bases. The Seventh Fleet cannot generate anything like the military power or psychological effect of fixed bases.

The most important of these forward bases are those in Japan. Guam, like mainland America, is simply too far away to fill this role. Okinawa is the pivotal, preferred spot. And China’s missiles are gradually making those bases redundant to America’s strategic thinkers.

China is devoting vast resources to her missile program. This is a war of nerves where time and, ultimately, technology, is on the side of Mainland China. This psychological aspect explains China’s widespread use of ballistic missiles, which are, in essence, really psychological weapons – paper tigers if you will. Although Taiwan might protect itself from an amphibious assault, protecting Taipei from surgical missile strikes – or the threat of surgical strikes – by Beijing’s ballistic missile units is a more daunting task. Beijing knows this and will continue to tighten and loosen the screws, as she deems appropriate.

Japan has a glass jaw, one that China could easily break if Japan does not act responsibly over the next few years. Japan is the only major nation in the world that has explicitly renounced war as a tool of policy. Article 9.1 of the Japanese constitution renounces war “as a sovereign right of the nation”. Article 9.2 asserts that “land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained”.

That said, Japan maintains very substantial “land, sea and air forces”. Japan’s military expenditures are, in fact, the third highest in the world. Tokyo has stockpiled over 100 tons of plutonium that would be relatively simple to transform into weapons’ grade material. Japan’s fast-breeder reactors (FBRs) have the capacity to squeeze over 60 times more energy from uranium fuel than can the light-water reactors of most other countries. Japan will, in other words, have the capacity to make more nuclear weapons than the combined arsenals of the United States and Russia hold. If nothing else, this arsenal makes an impressive bundle of bargaining chips.

Because its major challenges will come from the air, Japan has developed formidable anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile defense systems. Japan’s radar and its accurate Tomahawk missile technology far excel their American prototypes. Other Japanese strengths in miniaturization, automation, telecommunications and the development of durable, lightweight advanced materials further enhance their military capabilities.

Japan’s plutonium purchases have allowed it develop the necessary nuclear submarine technology to counter China’s blue water navy. Though impressive, a handful of nuclear submarines and a couple of batteries of missile defenses do not make Japan impregnable.

Bizarre as it seems, Japan’s expertise in these niche areas is a cause for concern in Washington. America fears lost market share if Japan exports its expertise – and, to develop the required expertise, Japan would have to copy the examples of Israel, Sweden, South Africa and other small countries and aggressively export. The United States fears that Japan would win export orders at its expense.

Japanese dual-use technological capabilities in commercial fields related to military use threatens the preeminent position American producers currently enjoy in the world’s arms’ markets. This is ironic as, historically, the United States encouraged Japan in its development of dual use capabilities. Spin-offs from the radio industry, for example, helped kick-start the Japanese commercial television industry, which eventually obliterated their American competitors.

Japan’s defense industry is, however, an inconsequential part of Japan’s overall industrial output. It accounts for less than 1 percent of Japanese gross domestic product (GDP) and even those firms, such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI), which are most heavily involved in it, are there mostly because of the spin-off technological benefits it has given them.

Whereas Japan has some particularly strong trees of knowledge, the forest overwhelmingly belongs to America. Japan just does not have the logistical depth of America or the European Union to be a major league player. While Japanese industry has established a global position in a wide range of critical modern technologies, Japan’s defense industry has lagged behind. At the systems level, military technology has simply moved faster than Japan’s ability to catch up.

Japan, in other words, does not have an autonomous arms industry. Today, the defense industry accounts for less than 0.6 percent of total industrial production, an almost insignificant amount in Japan’s overall context. Though Japan produces about 90 percent of its own military requirements, much of that is built under license from American firms and a considerable amount of the technology is black-boxed – sealed so that Japanese engineers cannot study and copy them.

In summary then, East Asia is in a state of chassis. Although Japan has neither the heart nor the materiel for what lies ahead, she, together with South Korea and Taiwan, must develop not only their autonomous defense systems but their own autonomous diplomatic voices as well. Japan’s future, whether she likes it or not, will be with its East Asian neighbors’ Belt and Road Initiative when the U.S. 7^th Fleet, however belatedly, scuttles back to Pearl Harbor.

The Asia Pacific region has come in for much attention in recent years. Most of it a transparent attempt to contain China and its spectacular rise, remember Obama’s pivot to Asia? The dominant narrative is that China poses an imminent threat to its near neighbours. Rarely do we ever hear from the inhabitants of the region regarding their feelings about the threat. For Westerners who are constantly bombarded with the anti-China rhetoric, it is understandable that they think the Asians are terrified of China and are grateful to their Western guardians for protecting them. Let us examine that.

To understand the mindset we must revisit some inconvenient history. With the exception of Thailand, all of the S.E. Asian countries have been the victim of Western colonisation. Vietnam, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia and China all suffered mightily under Western oppression. The Philippines, South Korea and Japan still host American bases and are de-facto client states as a result. Overwhelmingly the citizenry of these countries greatly resent this fact, countless anti-imperial demonstrations have made this plain, all ignored by minority factions in Government. It is the history of Asia that when white men with guns show up professing good intentions, Asians suffer. This has been the case for more than four hundred years and it persists to this day. Western rhetoric falls on deaf ears in Asia, every promise ever made to them by the West has been broken and they know that the west doesn’t regard or treat them as equals. Once again, they can see that they are being expected to suffer to serve Western imperialist interests.

Over the last 40 years the region as enjoyed a period of peace, stability and prosperity unprecedented in its long history. To be clear, there is much historical enmity in the hemisphere, Japan and Korea, Japan and China and others have a tragic history of conflict. There is little love and much residual resentment among them. There are disputes regarding the South China Sea, many of the countries have overlapping claims. The sea treaties that define the current maps are disrupted by all and recognised by none. These treaties were drawn up in the West in the post WWI era and were done without a single Asian present. They represented Western imperial interests, not those of the Asians. In the Asian way, they resolve these differences through diplomacy, no one is prepared to go to war over it. All still enjoy freedom of navigation, it is not the big issue that it is made out to be in the West.

When Trump first took office, he locked in on North Korea, while posing zero threat to America his interference in a long dormant issue was the cause of much uneasiness in the region. South Koreans as expected were particularly alarmed, the consensus view of the majority in this peaceful country was that they wished he would shut up and go home. Likewise, in Taiwan the majority accept that China wants peaceful reunification as it has clearly stated for more than 70 years. Despite constant provocations China has remained calm on the issue, which absent American interference, will likely resolve itself peacefully in time.

Japan has long been the reluctant local point man for America’s aggression against China. While the Japanese people are not friendly to China, China didn’t unnecessarily drop any nuclear bombs on them or occupy them and treat them as second-class citizens for the last 70 years. They have no interest in suffering further on behalf of the hated Americans. Japan and China have recently had productive bi-lateral meetings to dial back the American rhetoric. Left to their own devices the Asians will find resolution to their differences with reporting to hostilities. Obvious to all is that America is prepared to make sacrifices to contain China. It would sacrifice all its so-called “friends” in the region if it would slow China’s rise.

Parallels to the Asian situation can be found now in Europe with the manufactured Ukraine crisis. The Europeans are well aware that America sees the European interest in peace and stability as a threat to American hegemony. While Germany badly needs Russian gas and has heavily invested in the Nord Stream pipeline, America is prepared to see Europeans freeze rather than buy Russian gas. Its naked aggression in Ukraine seeks to provoke Russia into a conflict on European soil. Russia wisely has not taken the bait, much like China over Taiwan. The worst-case scenario for America is that the Europeans accept Russia as a peaceful member of the community of nations and continue to develop mutually beneficial economic ties. Without big bad Russia as the enemy, there is no need for NATO and the call for America to depart from all their European military bases would be resounding.

Any war with Russia or China would have unthinkable consequences for the world, and it seems clear that no one but America wants conflict. The Germans and French have been trying to make their own peace with Russia outside of the NATO clique. The NATO faction are Americas only real allies in Europe, this a Globalist faction, they don’t represent any countries national interest. The failing Empire is on its last legs, crumbling socially and economically at home, a war, any war, would serve as a useful distraction. It appears clear now that the Empire would see the world burn if it can rule over the ashes.

In 1956 Allen Dulles, the then Director of the CIA was addressing a meeting in Asia of the newly formed Non-Aligned Nations. The NAN was comprised almost entirely of countries which had previously been colonies of the Western powers. After what was in many cases centuries of Western oppression, they were intent to achieve independence and national sovereignty. At the time the lines were being drawn in the American-inspired Cold War against Russia, none of the attendant NAN members wanted to involve their countries in Western hostilities anymore, they were, they declared, neutral. Dulles explained the situation clearly, “neutrality is an obsolete concept”. In the American black-and-white view of the world, you had to pick a side. And that choice had better been the right one.

Fast forward to 2001 and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, George Bush told the world, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. The dilemma may have occasioned pause for thought among many nations’ leaders, but many chose to go along with the U.S. It did this to justify the seven planned Middle Eastern wars. This was not a moral decision, it was about the survival of their own nations. Twenty years ago, no nation could resist American pressure.

Since July 4th, 1976, America has invaded 70 countries, it has interfered in the elections of more than 70 countries and launched many more colour revolutions. These are facts well known to all nations. 120 years ago, the then President Teddy Roosevelt explained his approach to foreign policy, “speak softly and carry a big stick”. America still carries a big stick, but has long since stopped speaking softly. Even the imperialist warmonger Teddy would blush today at the face America shows the world. Trump, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton are all extreme stereotypes of the “Ugly American”. These belligerent, bullying liars are the face of America. One must conclude that America doesn’t care what the world thinks of it anymore. Their bellicose rhetoric is intended exclusively for the domestic American audience.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has been the sole superpower. Fortunately for humanity that is no longer the case. China, Russia and Iran all individually stand as powerful opposition to America. All three have been under relentless assault by the Empire for years. This has forced them all to develop strong military capabilities, many more advanced than America can muster. America has gamed out war scenarios against all three nations, it loses all of them, quickly. Absent nuclear conflict, Americas military is no longer the omnipotent threat that it was once considered. China, Russia and Iran are co-operating across many areas, technology and trade in particular. There exists no formal military alliance between them, however, a western attack on one, may well be seen as the start of WWIII. In that unthinkable event, expect the united response to be dramatic.

In a nostalgic throwback to America’s Cowboy past, American representatives have been going around the world rounding up a “posse” to go after the Bad Guy, and the Bad Guy de jour is China. Countries once again are being forced to chose, but this time it is different. Tony Blinken and Kamala Harris have imposed themselves upon several Asian countries seeking allies to gang up on China. It didn’t go well, Vietnam, politely showed Harris the door, and Malaysia and Singapore told Blinken not to bother to come. All of China’s neighbours have benefitted enormously from China’s rise and appreciate its non-interference policy. This is stark contrast to its dealings with the U.S. who expect to be able to dictate everything. The recent RCEP trade deal unites 15 Asian nations in the world’s largest trading bloc. It does not include America, must to their chagrin. This would have been unthinkable a few short years ago.

More than 140 countries have already made the choice and joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The attraction of investment and development with a strict non-interference policy is an attractive alternative to the insidious Western IMF model. Already more than $11 trillion in trade has passed along the BRI as it extends its reach through Asia, Eurasia and Africa. This has caused great consternation in Washington and attempts to disrupt it have been evident in BRI chokepoints in Xinjiang and most recently in Kazakstan. Yet the BRI rolls on and the number of participating countries continues to grow. Each one a slap in the face to Washington.

Of more alarm is China’s growing influence in regions America considered its exclusive domains. At a recent China-Arab summit more than 270 major deals were signed with Arab countries in the Gulf states, many connected with the BRI. Of particular concern is China’s increasingly close relationship with Saudi Arabia. American-Saudi relations have been fractious since MBS took power. It is Saudi’s oil and its dominance of OPEC that underwrites the petrodollar. It is known that MBS is angry at America for its relentless money printing and its resulting devaluation of Saudi’s considerable dollar holdings. The preservation of the petrodollar is America’s No.1 priority, it enables its military adventures and props up the U.S. economy despite it being functionally bankrupt for more than fifty years. Any attempts to challenge or move away from the dollar are met with extreme measures, as Saddam Hussein and Gahdafi discovered to their cost. This situation could get interesting.

Hitting even closer to home, China’s recent involvement in Latin America, an area America has been treating as its own private plantation for more than 150 years. Dominated by western-friendly oligarchs dating back to the Spanish conquest, Latin America has remained relatively underdeveloped and has been periodically plundered by the IMF and World Bank. China now has agreements in place with several countries, among them Venezuela and Nicaragua. Other Latin America countries have expressed serious interest in the BRI, notably Brazil. The idea of “Communist China” being in America’s backyard must be cause for panic in Washington.

America has no allies, and even those it calls friends don’t trust it. The Germans can see the value of that friendship as they are left to freeze this winter because America doesn’t want them to buy much needed Russian gas. Australia was forced to commit economic suicide by doing in the China hate and alienating its largest customer. The UK and Canada were compelled to abandon Huawei’s 5G, putting back their technological development years and waste the considerable investments already made. America still exerts considerable control over the Western neo-liberal world, all evidence suggests that it will drag its friends down with it on its inevitable decline.

China, and to an extent Russia have demonstrated that America can be rebuffed, its example has emboldened other countries to make choices it couldn’t before. They are choosing no strings investment, growth and non-interference. For the first time countries are able to make choices that benefit their people, not the genocidal Western capital class.

The virtual, special address by President Xi Jinping to the World Economic Forum’s 2022 Davos Agenda exhibits all the elements of a riddle inside an enigma.

At first, it certainly could be interpreted as a simultaneous message to the Empire of Chaos and global public opinion.

Much more than prescribing “effective doses against unilateralism, decoupling and ideological antagonism” – not so subtle allusions to the usual suspects – Xi most of all positioned China as the indispensable driver of Globalization 2.0.

The address was simultaneous to the announcement of China’s GDP growth at 8.1% in 2021 and commodity trading reaching new highs: the center of global manufacturing is the world’s biggest exporter for the 8^th consecutive year.

The implementation of the word’s largest free-trade zone, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) across Asia-Pacific, will just solidify the trend.

Trade with the myriad partner nations of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) increased by 23.6% – and that essentially means increased Global South trade. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in China increased by 20.2% in dollar terms: once again, as in 2020, China was the top FDI destination on the planet.

The whole trade/commerce landscape should even improve in 2022 when the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) is fully ratified. France, currently presiding the EU Council, is manifestly in favor.

Compounding the trends, China’s GDP per capita has reached $12,551, crucially above the notorious “middle income trap”; above the global average GDP per capita; and now entering “high-income country” territory, as defined by the World Bank.

Xi’s key message, when it comes to addressing “Davos Man” – the trademark WEF audience – was unmistakable: China is and will continue to remain the safest of havens for global Capital. The Masters of the Universe – from BlackRock down – duly nodded their approval.

But then, there are “countercurrents”. And that ominous, imminent global economy crisis.

Take me to the river

Now we enter the deeper enigma of how interpenetrated Xi’s vision and the Davos agenda may, or may not, be.

Xi’s main theme is multilateralism. And that’s the context in which he introduced his rich “countercurrents” metaphor. Xi de facto held the collective West as “countercurrents” in the river of History – incapable of stopping its inexorable flow to the sea.

Yet these “countercurrents”, as Xi defines them, are not merely trying to stop the flow of economic globalization. He leaves it subtly implied they are trying to stop the flow of Globalization 2.0 as led by China: a very strong economy working in tandem with an arguably successful “zero Covid” policy.

He didn’t even have to refer to the West. He just needed to suggest that China forged its own way to tackle the current challenges. And the Chinese way beats the West’s.

The global economy is being confronted, across the board, by manpower shortages – from harvest workers to truck drivers to supermarket cashiers. Costs for everything from raw materials to container shipping went through the roof. Supply chains are horribly over-extended and in many cases broken.

The hegemonic narrative blames exclusively the proverbial Covid-19 variants for the very real possibility of causing the mother of all supply chain breakdowns that may hit most of the planet in 2022.

In contrast, variants of guerrilla analysis sustain that the global economy is being deliberately being driven over the cliff. The supply chain breakdown is being facilitated by the multi-restriction “war on Covid” – which directly subverts production, trade and services.

Global Capital would never allow a comprehensive public debate about the toxic role of the financial system – which has been kept under artificial respiration since 2008, with central banks unleashing storms of helicopter money, inflating real state markets, stocks, precious metal prices. In real life, what’s nearly inevitable next in the horizon is the bursting of a massive stock and real estate bubble all across the West.

A de facto collapse of the global economy would provide the ultimate “opportunity” (Klaus Schwab’s terminology) for the WEF’s Great Reset – which remains the real Davos Agenda. But according to the hegemonic gospel, that would happen because of Covid – not because of the implosion of the financial casino.

For nearly two years, we have been living through the progressive enshrinement of techno-feudalism – one of the overarching themes of my latest book, Raging Twenties.

In lightning speed, the techno-feudalism virus metastasized into an even more lethal, wilderness of mirrors variant, with cancel culture enforced by Big Tech all across the spectrum and science routinely debased as fake news across social media.

The average citizen remains discombobulated to the point of lobotomy. Giorgio Agamben defined the whole process as a new totalitarianism.

What does Capital really want?

It’s open to debate to what extent Xi actually endorses the ultimate “opportunity” offered by Covid-19: a Great Reset that essentially refers to the replacement of a dwindling manufacturing base by automation, in tandem with a reset of the financial system.

The concomitant wishful thinking envisages a global economy that will “move closer to a cleaner capitalist model”, as embodied, for instance, in the delightfully benign Council for Inclusive Capitalism in partnership with the Catholic Church.

It was up to William Engdahl to ask the crucial question: Will the Federal Reserve Crash Global Financial Markets As a Means to Implementing Their “Great Reset”?

Xi using Davos as a convenient P.R. platform does not necessarily mean China subscribes to the Davos Agenda. Davos, after all, has nothing to do with multilateralism.

Last December, the WEF actually postponed Davos 2022 from January to early summer. It remains to be seen whether this may have something to do with the advent of Cyber Polygon, a cyber pandemic gamed by the WEF in July 2021.

Herr Schwab himself defined it as “a comprehensive cyber-attack [that] could bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The Covid-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyber-attack.”

So our current – global – predicament may be just a “small disturbance” compared to what comes next. And has already been gamed.

No one, from Zeus to Shiva, knows what comes next – apart from NATO expanding to outer space. Yet it’s very telling that the distinct possibility of a global economic crash – while Xi promotes Globalization 2.0 led by China – is happening simultaneously to

NATO provoking Russia into war and the US demonizing China to Kingdom Come.

A collective West “led” by unspeakable mediocrities looks at the Russia-China strategic partnership as if it was something like a double-headed Anti-Christ. Xi, for his part, seems not to be impressed: watching the river flow, like a Taoist Bob Dylan, he has just dismissed these mere “countercurrents” with a wave of his hand.

The short-lived attempt at a colour revolution in Kazakhstan has brought into focus the geo-political game being waged by the West in Central Asia. This clumsy attempt to once again destablise the region was quickly squashed thanks to the response of Kazakhstan’s fellow members of the CTSO, led by Russia. As all colour revolutions do, it tapped into genuine anger among the populace about rising fuel costs and other legitimate grievances. However any pretence that this was an organic, leaderless uprising was soon exposed, the beheadings were the giveaway.

The Central Asian region encompassing all the “Stans” has been largely at the periphery of world affairs until comparatively recently. Remote in the extreme, even during its time as a part on the USSR, it received little attention due to its strategic irrelevance. The emergence of China and Russia has changed that. Kazakhstan, sandwiched between them, along with its Central Asian neighbours, is now a battleground for the “great power politics” being played out. Kazakhstan is an essential component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and as such is a target of the Western powers, who are intent on doing all possible to stop it.

A cursory look at a map will show that China shares borders with 14 countries, seven of which are Islamic nations. It enjoys good relations with all of them. China itself has a large Muslim population, not concentrated in Xinjiang. They are to be found everywhere in China, along with the mosques at which they worship. Not alone as a minority group, China has five different ethnic groups inside its borders. All are free and encouraged to practice and celebrate their individual cultures and languages. In Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, there are at least eight separate Muslim sects with their own mosques. Muslims are not forced to send their children to Chinese schools, and during the almost 40 years of China’s one child policy, the Muslims were the only group who were permitted to have more than one child. The suggestion that China persecutes Muslims is just a Western concoction.

Xinjiang is in the extreme N.W. of China, it borders six of the other central Asian Islamic countries. Once remote and undeveloped, it has in recent years received huge investment from the central government to help it modernise and develop a real economy for the first time. Parents there overwhelmingly want their children to go to Chinese schools, learn the language and have the prospect of a better life than the Islamic schools can offer. The enemy of the majority of the people there, is the same as it is in their neighbouring moderate Islamic countries, radical Islam.

Many Uyghurs have already been radicalised, they comprise a large part of the terrorist factions that have been present in Syria, Iraq, Libya and many more once stable countries that have been reduced to ashes. They are heavily armed and paid a $50 daily stipend, but by whom you may ask? That is not a question that need detain us for long. The Turkic Islamic army is one such faction that sprouted from Central Asia. The U.S. Government took them off the “terrorist” watchlist a year ago. They are just moderate terrorists apparently.

So, does China persecute Muslims? No. But it does have a genuine Western-backed radicalised Islamic faction looking to infect the youth of Xinjiang. It is a problem it shares with all the moderate, peaceful Central Asian countries. If China does indeed have re-education camps as the West claims, most Uyghur parents would prefer their children were there rather than waving an AK47 from the back of a Toyota pickup in a country they don’t belong.

As America continues to bleat on about human rights in China, it supports and promotes the head-choppers to whom it has granted a franchise. Many of the participants of the Kazakhstan violence were killed and many more were captured. In the coming days and weeks we can expect more revelations as to who the “instigators behind it were. It should make for interesting reading.

The current trade war with China began at the very outset of the Trump administration. Apparently alarmed at America’s dependence on Chinese goods, particularly the extent to which its defence industries are reliant on Chinese components and rare earths, Trump had a point but may have better served to speak softly about this vulnerability. He mentioned only two dependencies, there are thousands of products that America relies on China exclusively for.

In moves that were simply anti-competitive practices he then launched in a “tech war” with China. Banning the sale of chips and semi-conductors, along with bans on Chinese 5G and Huawei the global leader in particular. Not content with that the U.S. launched a global push to pressure its “allies’ to also ban Huawei and its state of the art 5G technology. Not to be taken in isolation, the tech war was just part of an overall strategy to damage and restrain China’s economy. “Decoupling” had arrived into the general lexicon.

To an extent the measures worked, the chip shortage caused a slowdown among many tech dependent sectors, but not for long. China has developed its domestic production at a pace not possible anywhere else. It has also convinced China that it needed to greatly accelerate its self-sufficiency across all sectors.

As it stands today, America has nothing that China needs that it can’t make or buy elsewhere. America conversely needs China desperately, without China’s goods the American economy grinds to a halt. The extent of that dependency has been highlighted by Americaэs ongoing supply chain chaos. Manufacturing, retail, construction and countless other industry sectors have stalled without Chinese goods. No country in the world is as dependent on imports as the U.S. Attempts to find alternatives to China are fruitless, no other country can match the efficiency, infrastructure, economies of scale and cost that China can. American manufacturing only accounts for 20% of the American economy, self-sufficiency for Americans is a fantasy, even in the best case scenario, it is generations away.

Long spoken of is “China’s nuclear option”, dumping its dollar holdings and rendering the dollar worthless. China doesn’t want to do that. Firstly the loss of a trillion of its own dollar holdings is not to be taken lightly, and it would also damage the holdings and economies of its other trading partners around the world. Such a move would be an absolute last resort. China’s real nuclear option is the withholding of essential goods to America.

China has all but monopolised the rare earth industries, now accounting for more than 85% of global production. Without rare earths Americas tech and defence sectors would be paralysed. All the seventeen critical rare earths are mined and refined in China in high volume. Some are mined in other countries in smaller volumes: developing alternative sources to China would a very lengthy process. For the foreseeable future, China decides who gets rare earths, and who doesn’t.

Unknown to many Americans the pharmaceutical industry is among the most heavily dependent of China. 80-85% of its products and precursors come from China, and there are currently few alternatives. I leave it to the reader’s imagination to visualise an America without medications, think Zombie apocalypse.

Some recent developments in China have given us a glimpse of the future. China is stockpiling food and other commodities at unprecedented levels. It is believed to hold more than half the world’s grain and maize already, other essential food stuffs are also being stockpiled at similar levels.

Iron ore, steel and other industrial raw materials are also being hoarded in previously unforeseen quantities. In a world of chronic shortages China has realised that commodities hold more value than cash.

More significantly, China just published a Governmental “White Paper.” It emphasises the need to conserve natural, finite resources (again think rare earths.) It also addresses the paradox that Trump was concerned about, why is China supplying parts to the U.S. military contractors? These among many other sectors will now require a “special export licence”. Read between the lines. China can apply these principles across any exported product it chooses. If they don’t like where it is headed, or what it will be used for, it isn’t going. Fertilisers, for which China accounts for about 30% of the world’s production are already banned from export. This is already forcing American many American farmers to switch from wheat to less fertiliser-intensive crops like soybeans.

China didn’t start or want this trade war, to date it is has been a one-sided assault on the Chinese economy by an increasingly desperate American government. China has not retaliated or employed any of the measures it could have in response, until now.

America now truly has its trade war, and more decoupling will follow, but from here on in, it will be on China’s terms.

Coming straight from President Putin, it did sound like a bolt from the sky:

“We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the U.S. frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But it’s something, not just verbal assurances.”

And that’s how Russia-U.S. relations come to the definitive crunch – after an interminable series of polite red alerts coming from Moscow.

Putin once again had to specify that Russia is looking for “indivisible, equitable security” – a principle established since Helsinki in 1975 – even though he no longer sees the U.S. as a dependable “partner”, that diplomatically nicety so debased by the Empire since the end of the USSR.

The “frequently withdrawing from treaties” passage can easily be referred to as Washington in 2002 under Bush Jr. pulling out of the ABM treaty signed between the U.S. and the USSR in 1972. Or it could be referred to as the U.S. under Trump destroying the JCPOA signed with Iran and guaranteed by the UN. Precedents abound.

Putin was once again exercising the Taoist patience so characteristic of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: explaining the obvious not only to a Russian but also a global audience. The Global South may easily understand this reference; “When international law and the UN Charter interfere, they [the U.S.] declare it all obsolete and unnecessary.”

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko had been uncommonly assertive – leaving nothing for the imagination:

“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about switching over from a military or a military-technical scenario to a political process that will strengthen the security of all countries in the area of the OCSE, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. If that doesn’t work out, we signaled to them [NATO] that we will also move over to creating counter threats, but it will then be too late to ask us why we made these decisions and why we deployed these systems.”

So in the end it comes down to Europeans facing “the prospect of turning the continent into a field of military confrontation.” That will be the inevitable consequence of a NATO “decision” actually decided in Washington.

Incidentally: any possible, future “counter threats” will be coordinated between Russia and China.

Mr. Zircon is on the line, Sir

Every sentient being from Atlanticist shores to Eurasian steppes by now knows the content of the Russian draft agreements on security guarantees presented to the Americans, as detailed by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

Key provisions include no further NATO expansion; no Ukraine admission; no NATO shenanigans in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia; Russia and NATO agreeing not to deploy intermediate and short-range missiles in areas from where they can hit each other’s territory; establishment of hotlines; and the NATO-Russia Council actively involved in resolving disputes.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs extensively reiterated that the Americans received “detailed explanations of the logic of the Russian approach”, so the ball is in Washington’s court.

Well, National Security advisor Jake Sullivan at first seemed to kick it, when he admitted, on the record, that Putin may not want to “invade” Ukraine.

Then there were rumblings that the Americans would get back to Moscow this week with their own “concrete security proposals”, after de facto writing the script for their NATO minions, invariably conveyed in spectacularly mediocre fashion by secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg.

The Ukraine narrative didn’t change an inch: “severe measures” – of an economic and financial nature – remain in the pipeline if Russia engages in “further aggression” in Ukraine.

Moscow was not fooled. Ryabkow had to specify, once again, that the Russian proposals were on a bilateral basis. Translation: we talk only to those with deciding power, not to minions. The involvement of other countries, Ryabkov said, “will deprive them of their meaning.”

From the start, NATO’s response had been predictably obvious: Russia is conducting a “substantial, unprovoked, and unjustified” military buildup along its border with Ukraine and is making “false … claims of Ukrainian and NATO provocations”.

That once again proved the point it’s a monumental waste of time to discuss with yapping chihuahuas of the Stoltenberg variety, for whom “NATO expansion will continue, whether Russia likes it or not.”

In fact, whether U.S. and NATO functionaries like it or not, what’s really happening in the realpolitk realm is Russia dictating new terms from a position of power. In a nutshell: you may learn the new game in town in a peaceful manner, civilized dialogue included, or you will learn the hard way via a dialogue with Mr. Iskandr, Mr. Kalibr, Mr. Khinzal and Mr. Zircon.

The inestimable Andrei Martyanov has extensively analysed for years now all the details of Russia’s overwhelming military dominance, hypersonic and otherwise, across the European space – as well as the dire consequences if the U.S. and NATO minions “decide that they want to continue to play dumb.”

Martyanov has also noted that Russia “understands the split with the West and is ready to take any consequences, including, already declining, shrinkage of trade and reduction of the supply of hydrocarbons to the EU.”

That’s where the whole ballet around the security guarantees intersects with the crucial Pipelineistan angle. To sum it all up: exit Nord Stream 2, enter Power of Siberia 2.

So let’s revisit why the looming energy catastrophe in the EU is not forcing anyone in Russia to lose his/her sleep.

Dancing in the Siberian night

One the top takeaways of the strategic Putin-Xi video conference last week was the immediate future of Power of Siberia 2 – which will snake in across Mongolia to deliver up to 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually to China.

So it was hardly an accident that Putin received Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh in the Kremlin, the day after he talked to Xi, to discuss Power of Siberia 2. The key parameters of the pipeline have already been set, a feasibility study will be completed in early 2022, and the deal – minus last-minute pricing tune-ups – is practically clinched.

Power of Siberia 2 follows the 2,200 km long Power of Siberia 1, launched in 2019 from Eastern Siberia to northern China and the focus of a $400 billion deal struck between Gazprom and China’s CNPC. Power of Siberia 1’s full capacity will be reached in 2025, when it will be supplying 38 billion cubic meters of gas annually.

Power of Siberia 2, a much bigger operation, was planned years ago, but it was hard to find consensus on the final route. Gazprom wanted Western Siberia to Xinjiang across the Altai mountains. The Chinese wanted transit via Mongolia straight into central China. The Chinese eventually prevailed. The final route across Mongolia was decided only two months ago. Construction should begin in 2024.

This is a massive geoeconomic game-changer, totally in line with the increasingly sophisticated Russia-China strategic partnership. But it’s also supremely important geopolitically (Remember Xi: China supports Russia’s “core interests”).

The gas for Power of Siberia 2 will come from the same fields currently supplying the EU market. Whatever demented concoctions the European Commission – and the new German government – may apply on stalling the operation of Nord Stream 2, Gazprom’s main focus will be China.

It doesn’t matter for Gazprom that China as a customer in the near future will not fully replace the whole EU market. What matters is the steady business flow and the absence of infantile politicking. For China what matters is an extra, guaranteed overland supply rote boosting its strategy of “escaping from Malacca”: the possibility, in case Cold War 2.0 turns hot, that the U.S. Navy would eventually block maritime shipping of energy sources via Southeast Asia to China.

Beijing of course is all over the place when it comes to buying Russian natural gas. The Chinese have a 30% stake in Novatek’s $27 billion Yamal project and a 20% stake in the $21 billion Arctic project.

So welcome to 2022 and the new, high stakes realpolitik Great Game.

U.S. elites had been terrified of playing Russia against China because they fear this would lead Germany to ally with Russia and China – leaving the Empire of Chaos out in the cold.

And that leads to the “mystery” inside the enigma of the whole Ukrainian face: use it to force the EU away from Russian natural resources.

Russia is turning the whole show upside down. As an energy superpower, instead of an internally corroded EU dictated by NATO, Russia will be mostly focused on its Asian customers.

In parallel, military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement. Lavrov confirmed the first round of Russia-U.S. talks on security guarantees will be held in early 2022.

Are these ultimatums? Not really. Seems like Ryabkov, with notable didacticism, will have to keep explaining it over and over again: “We do not speak in the language of ultimatums with anyone. We have a responsible attitude towards our own security and the security of others. The point is not that we have issued an ultimatum, not at all, but that the seriousness of our warning must not be underestimated.”

The long-term leaders of China and Russia recently had a teleconference in which they gave each other somewhat formal but clear addresses about their pleasure with the way Sino-Russian relations have been going in the past two decades. We shouldn’t be surprised that face-to-face (in the digital sense) two politicians had lovely things to say about each other. In fact, every U.S. President that ever met Putin seemed to have nothing but shining and positive things to say about all these meetings/calls and yet these positive vibes certainly never transferred over to U.S.-Russian relations. So, the fact that Xi and Putin had a mutual admiration and respect session is not very meaningful, but one quote that came from it is really food for thought and something we should take note of. The Russian President said that their relations with Beijing are “the best in history“. At first this sounded hyperbolic and just a mere platitude, but when you stop to think about it, this statement may actually be completely true.

It is also important to take note of another key quote from this praise party, that provides a lot of context as to why Putin is so thrilled with the level of positive interaction with the Chinese.

“a new model of cooperation has been formed between our nations, based, among other things, on foundations such as non-interference in internal affairs and respect for each other’s interests and a determination to turn the common border into a belt of eternal peace and good neighborliness.”

Models of behavior are extremely important on all levels of society, from raising children all the way up to International Relations. I myself have been personally very critical of Russia’s general lack of understanding that models are very important when you want to make change. Russians are proud of and promote the Conservative and Traditional Values of their nation that no one can really define, or present any models of behavior for. This is extremely frustrating but it is a topic best left for another day. But in that context, it cannot be ignored that the idea of a “Multipolar World” has up until this moment really lacked a model.

Some of the critics to Russia’s biggest idea for the 21st century, argued that a Multipolar World would just take us back to the 1800’s where competing empires fought for every far-flung square foot of territory, leading the world naively into WWI. The Russian reaction to this core criticism has been a lot of silence or using the classic schoolyard logic of “no it won’t”. But now, with Russia on the rise and China skyrocketing to rival the United States we can see that the interaction between these two great civilizations, that do border each other and have potential areas for conflicts of interest, is the model by which a Multipolar World will operate. This is even better than a hypothetical model as it is real and can be felt from within the territory of the Russian Federation for sure.

One key factor as to why the Sino-Russian Relations are a great model for the Multipolar World is that both parties have the power to do horrible things to each other and yet they do not. We could say the relations between any vassal and master nations always look amazing. Western Europe can’t wait to kiss Washington’s boots the second it gets the chance. Now that Lukashenko has finally “picked sides” he will be singing the praises of a greater Russian World till his dying day.

“Relations” with vassals are essentially fake as they are a non-actor. Relations can only be “good” when one side dominates the other controlling its reality. The true challenge is when two powerful forces, with the potential to do great harm to each other, that may have areas of potential conflicts of interest, build an overall positive relationship. This is no easy task especially when the historical inertia of Cold War zero-sum gamesmanship is still pretty fresh in our minds.

As we are seeing globally, there is sort of a big-three poles being Washington, Moscow and Beijing. Certainly, from a Russian perspective it is very easy to tell the difference between dealing with these two nuclear-armed and economically massive titans and it is night and day.

• Since China is vastly stronger than Russia economically it very well could afford to seduce and train the next generation of whiny Moscow-based dissidents at any number of Beijing’s universities, much in the same way that Washington does so within the Ivy League. It could very well do this but it doesn’t. All roads lead to Washington when Russia deals with destructive foreign influences within the country.

• Beijing has plenty of ways to threaten Russia economically to get gas, oil and wood super cheap. They could surely prepare all sorts of goofy sanctions packages with loose justifications to try to squeeze all the juice out of their big neighbor, but unlike Washington, they don’t. The deals that the Chinese have struck with the Russians for resources have all been worked out with both sides looking out for #1 in a respectable way.
• For the trolls reading this, there is no Chinese invasion of Russia’s Far East. I have been to the border towns near China, and everyone is Russian. This ever-present myth of a Chinese migrant invasion, is always plastered all over the Russian internet, just like all the videos for top-level dissidents. I wonder who pays for all this advertising?

• The Chinese know that their civilization is “incomplete” without Taiwan, meaning they seem to show a logical amount of “sympathy” towards Moscow’s desire to make their civilization become complete again. Washington sees the world as various regions of its own global domain, some of which are just simply too uppity to be tolerated. Trying to convince Moscow that Ukraine has always been a completely sovereign nation with a separate culture, is never going to work.

• There are no games with making Russians go to Poland for visas. There’s no witch hunt for Russians who are on the territory of China who write positive things about their homeland online. And Xi never mentioned that it would be a human rights violation to not have a Confucian Parade go through Red Square.

Whether Sino-Russian relations are the greatest in history is up for debate, but they are certainly positive and can be like a breath of fresh air compared to the eternal stench from the swamp Washington has been sinking into. But more importantly this Eurasian friendship fest is a model of behavior for how a Multipolar World must work in order to be productive – “non-interference in internal affairs and respect for each other’s interests” as Putin put it.

This is the “proof of concept” that can further drive the Multipolar World forward. So, it is really not so important that Xi and Putin praise each other over conference calls, that is meaningless. The real issue is that they have worked out the model for the near future and it is both proven and fully functional.

For many observers around the world, the cordial and cooperative relations between Russia and China are inspiring, precisely at a time of mounting international tensions and belligerence.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin hailed the bilateral relations between Russia and China as a model for inter-state cooperation in the 21st century.

In a videoconference this week with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, the two leaders expressed warm greetings of friendship. Putin described the border between their countries as representing “a belt of eternal peace and good-neighborliness”.

President Xi said that both nations based their sound relations on principles of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs, in accordance with international law and the UN Charter. Both countries, too, he noted, were committed to advancing people-centered development as a genuine manifestation of democracy and human rights.

Referring to the United States and its Western allies, the Chinese leader adroitly remarked how “international forces” had appointed themselves the right to meddle in the affairs of China and Russia under the duplicitous guise of advocating democracy and human rights. In doing so, these foreign powers were “trampling” all over international law and stoking dangerous tensions.

It is hard to disagree with that assessment. Just in recent weeks, the United States and its allies in the G7, NATO and European Union have been amplifying accusations against Russia and China over alleged malign conduct. It’s all sound and fury signifying little in the way of substance. Step back from the shrill rhetoric and sensational claims and what is actually apparent is an attempt to manipulate public opinion into accepting Western aggression towards Russia and China. The poachers are making themselves the gamekeepers in an audacious inversion of reality.

The Western powers arrogantly assume the right to rebuke over a bewildering array of issues. There is a vast media campaign of public perception management going on. In short, propaganda and psychological gaslighting.

Russia and China are accused of “authoritarianism”; of abusing human rights; of threatening Ukraine on the one hand and Taiwan on the other. China is condemned for alleged “genocide” against its Uighur people and “as a result” the U.S. and its allies are conducting a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing.

The evidence for all these tendentious claims is flimsy if non-existent.

The United States and the European Union are relentless in their accusations of a Russian military build-up and threat to invade Ukraine. Sanctions are drawn up to potentially cripple the Russian economy. But where’s the evidence or even credible logic? The U.S. and European governments and Western media have not reported any substantive evidence to back up their claims against Russia. Moscow has consistently and categorically rejected these claims as “hysterical nonsense”.

Russian troops are on Russian territory. The supposed satellite images depicting military build-up “on Ukraine’s borders” are of Russian troops in established bases such as Yelnya in Smolensk Oblast hundreds of kilometers from the border. Meanwhile, American and NATO warplanes and warships are increasingly menacing Russia’s borders in unscheduled maneuvers thousands of kilometers from their bases.

This is all ludicrous and is hardly worthwhile rebutting every accusation since it is time-consuming to do so. Provocative narratives are distractions from reality.

The germane point is this: the U.S. and its Western allies are self-anointed to throw pejorative claims at Russia and China when the reality is they are hurling bricks in glasshouses. Washington and its European partners have run amok for decades, destroying nations with illegal foreign wars, killing en masse civilians from drone assassinations and indiscriminate bombings. These criminal governments have no shame in smearing others with accusations that resonate a thousand-fold with the appalling reality of their own heinous misconduct.

Just look at some events this week. Russia has called on the United States and its NATO allies to agree on a mutual basis for security in Europe pertaining to its borders. So far, the U.S.-led military bloc has rebuffed Moscow’s reasonable concerns. NATO’s secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg arrogantly dismissed Russia’s appeals for the bloc to cease its eastward expansion. (Somehow it seems fitting that this automaton is reportedly applying to become the next head of Norway’s central bank after he steps down from NATO. It’s all just careerism and payoffs for Stoltenberg, who, as the quip goes, is more secretary than general.)

Then we have the European Union’s unelected wooden president Ursula von Der Leyen announcing that the bloc has prepared sanctions that will have “massive consequences” on Russia’s economy “in the event of further military aggression on Ukraine”. Based on what? What aggression is she talking about? The one that the United States intelligence agencies have told her to mouth like a ventriloquist? She is certainly not referring to the aggression of the U.S. and NATO funneling billions of dollars of weapons into a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev that is waging a war against a civilian population in Southeast Ukraine for the last nearly eight years. (Russian President Putin is correct to describe that siege as resembling genocide.)

Western media report breathlessly on how Russia and China have “seen their relations deteriorate with the West”. But such media don’t explain or investigate why such deterioration is happening.

It is essentially instructive that the United States and its European powers are self-evidently behaving as Neo-colonialists and imperialists. They presume to have the superior right to interfere in other nations based on self-righteous arrogance and self-serving machinations.

It is absurd that the United States is declaring a diplomatic boycott of China’s Olympic Games given its own legion of flagrant violations and crimes against humanity, past and present. Australia and Canada have living legacies of genocide and yet they too have the brass-necks to pontificate to China about unsubstantiated claims of human rights abuses.

Going down this cynical, hypocritical path is par for the course for Western states. It is their inherent modus operandi. But ultimately it is futile. It inevitably leads to conflict and war.

Western relations towards Russia and China are becoming crystal clear in their incorrigible belligerence. The United States and its capitalist-imperialist partners-in-crime simply cannot coexist with other nations in peace and cooperation. The principles of peace and lawful respect for others are anathemas.

The toxic, destructive behavior of Western powers is more and more a transparent disgrace in today’s world. By contrast, Russia and China are proof that an alternative basis of international relations is possible. And fortunately, both are strong enough to prevail for the sake of peace.

Realpolitik minds struggle to find a point in this gratuitous provocation, intervening less than two months before the start of the show, on February 4, 2022 at the Bird’s Nest in Beijing.

According to White House reasoning, “the Biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games, given the PRC’s ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and other human rights abuses.”

To start with, no one among the Joe Biden handlers in the administration or any other officials were invited in the first place. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, remarked the US was “hyping a ‘diplomatic boycott’ without even being invited to the Games”.

Zhao also stressed the Games are not “a stage for political posturing”, and added the “blatant political provocation” constitutes “a serious affront to the 1.4 billion Chinese people.” He left hanging in the air the possibility of “resolute countermeasures”.

What that implies is the recent Xi-Biden virtual summit also melt in the air when it comes to promoting a more diplomatic entente cordiale. Predictably, Washington politicians who prevailed are the ones obsessed on demonizing Beijing using the perennial human rights pretext.

Top billing goes to Polish-American Democrat Senator Tom Malinowski from New Jersey, the vice-chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Malinowski is not strange to dodgy dealings. On October 21, 2021, the House Committee on Ethics issued a report confirming he had failed to properly disclose his stock trades since early 2020, as he

bought or sold as much as $1 million of stock in medical and tech companies that had a stake in the response to Covid-19. The trades were actually just one aspect of a stock buying and selling spree worth as much as $3.2 million.

All throughout 2021, with multiple ethics complaints and an ethics investigation piling up, Malinowski was forced to direct his financial advisor to cease with stock market shenanigans, and announced he set up a blind trust for his assets.

Yet Malinowski’s main line of business is actually China demonization.

In June, Malinowski, alongside Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Michael McCaul (R-TX) was the key articulator of a resolution  urging the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to move the 2022 Games “away from Beijing” unless the PRC government ended “ongoing crimes against the Uyghur people”. The Americans were supported by legislators in nine European nations, plus the European Parliament.

At the time, Malinowski said, “there’s no such thing as non-political games – dictatorships like China host the Olympics to validate their standing…even as they continue to commit crimes against their people.”

Malinowski is very close to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – who is fervently pro-boycott. So this directive comes from the top of the Democrat leadership: the White House imprimatur was just a formality.

The “genocide” perpetrator

Considering the rolling color revolution in Hong Kong ended up as a total failure, human rights in Xinjiang remains a predictable pretext/target – on a par with the imminent “invasion” of Taiwan.

Arguably the best contextualized exposition of the real situation in Xinjiang is here. The “genocide” fallacy has been completely debunked by thorough independent analysis, as in here and here. The White House essentially regurgitates the “analysis” of a far-right religious nut first endorsed by Mike “we cheat, we lie, we steal” Pompeo. Talk about a continuity of government.

During the Cold War, the Olympics did become hostage to diplomatic boycotts. In 1980, the US under then president Jimmy Carter snubbed the Moscow Olympics along with other 64 nations in protest for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The USSR for its part, alongside the Iron Curtain, boycotted the 1984 games in Los Angeles.

What happens now falls under the seal of Cold War 2.0 and the demonization of China across the spectrum, mostly via Hybrid War tactics.

Xinjiang is a prime target not because of the Uyghurs, but because it is the strategic connector between western China and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) corridors across Central Asia, South Asia and West Asia all the way to Europe. BRI – which is the centerpiece Chinese foreign policy concept for the foreseeable future – is an absolute anathema in Washington.

The fact that the US has been staging countless, costly, devastating declinations of humanitarian imperialism in Muslim lands, directly and indirectly, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and beyond, but now, suddenly, is in tears about the fate of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, speaks for itself.

“Rights” groups barely disguised as CIA propaganda fronts have predictably been shrieking non-stop, urging the “international community” – an euphemism for NATOstan – to boycott the Beijing Olympics. These are irrelevant. Governments are a more serious matter.

Twenty nations refused to sign the Olympic Truce with China. This tradition, originating in Ancient Greece, makes sure that political upheaval does not interfere with sport. The – Western – justification for yet another provocation: we’re “sending a message” to Beijing.

In the UK, Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg remarked recently that “no tickets have been booked” for the Olympics. The Foreign Office said earlier this week, “no decisions have yet been made” about sending officials to Beijing.

France will “coordinate” with other EU members, although the Elysée made a point that ‘when we are worried about human rights, we tell the Chinese…We adopted sanctions on Xinjiang last March.” That was a reference to the US, UK, EU, Canada and a few other allies sanctioning some Chinese officials for the glaring fake news the White House officially describes as “genocide”.

So any adherence to the White House directive this coming February will come essentially from NATOstan members and of course AUKUS. In contrast, across Asia and the Global South, no one could be bothered. South Korean foreign ministry spokesman Choi Yong-sam, for instance, stressed that South Korea supports the Olympics.

President Putin for his part accepted a personal invitation from Xi Jinping, and he will be at the inauguration.

Extremely strict Covid-19 control measures will be enforced during the Olympics, so for the organizers a smaller number of Western official guests flying in, in terms of cost, is actually a benefit.

So in the end what’s left of this fit of hysteria? Elon Musk may have nailed it this week at a CEO Council Summit, when he remarked that China’s economy could soon be two or three times the size of the US economy. That hurts. And there’s no way any boycott will solve it.