It behooves the Pentagon chief and his aides to scrutinize the alleged U.S. intel and to weigh up the political games of who is playing who.

The two most senior military commanders of the United States and Russia engaged in phone talks this week as dangerous tensions between the nuclear superpowers escalate.

A shaky ceasefire in Ukraine between U.S.-backed Kiev regime forces and Russia-backed separatists is parlously close to outright collapse while NATO warships and warplanes increase aggressive maneuvers in the Black Sea on Russia’s southern flank.

For the top-level talks on the American side was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley while the Russian side was represented by its top military officer General Valery Gerasimov. By mutual agreement the conversation was private with no public disclosure of what was discussed. But it’s a safe assumption that the explosive Ukraine conflict was given priority.

The phone meeting comes as elements within the U.S. government, amplified by news media outlets, are recklessly accusing Russia of planning a military invasion of Ukraine. For weeks now, the U.S. State Department has been briefing media outlets and European NATO allies with claims that Russia is amassing troops and artillery near its border with Ukraine. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has taken a personal role in leading the allegations. An interesting facet is that the claims ostensibly rely on commercial satellite data. Media outlets like the New York Times and CNN have given prominence to the warnings.

Another U.S. outlet, Bloomberg, ran a report on November 21 with the sensational headline: “U.S. intel shows Russia plan for potential Ukraine invasion”. The report does not specify who the “U.S. intel” sources are exactly but they are cited as claiming that Russia may invade Ukraine by the end of January. The “intel” was again based on commercial satellite data attributed to a private U.S.-based company called Maxar which works closely with Washington on national security, according to the company’s website.

The suspicion is that the Central Intelligence Agency is driving the narrative alleging Russian military buildup and threat of invasion. The State Department and the CIA are long-time bedfellows going back to the early years of the Cold War.

The intel reported by the U.S. media is not objective data, but rather is politicized information. The CIA’s stock-in-trade is political warfare and, to be blunt, fabrication, lies and propaganda.

Russia has dismissed the claims of its military buildup near Ukraine’s border and threatening to invade its western neighbor. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov referred to the purported satellite data as “poor quality” and the accompanying claims against Russia as “hysterical”. Peskov also pointed out that the United States and its NATO partners are the ones who are increasing military forces and infrastructure near Russia’s borders yet the U.S. absurdly accuses Russia of having troops on its own territory within the country’s sovereign borders.

Another telltale sign of narrative management – as opposed to actually existing circumstances – is that the State Department’s well-publicized alarmism about alleged Russian invasion chimes neatly with claims from the Ukrainian military under the control of the U.S.-backed Kiev regime. The Bloomberg report above coincided with dramatic claims from the head of Ukrainian military intelligence, Brigadier General Kyrylo Budanov, who told Military Times in an interview that Russia was preparing “to invade by the end of January” – the same timeframe which “U.S. intel” had also contended. That indicates story coordination.

Last week, too, the Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov was visiting Washington DC where he was also telling prominent news media of fears over a Russian invasion. He said the alleged threat to Ukraine necessitated a boost in the already substantial U.S. military supplies to the Kiev regime. The Ukrainian side has been tediously harping on such claims for years now. But it seems there is a renewed impetus in Washington to amplify the war drums.

The Kremlin has cautioned that the real danger stems from the Kiev regime stepping up its offensive on the ethnic Russian population of the Donbas. Western governments and media are ignoring this provocation, choosing instead to focus on alleged Russian threats. The southeastern region never recognized the reactionary Russophobic political administration that seized power in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup d’état in Kiev. This is what the nearly eight-year war in Ukraine has been all about even though Washington and its European allies have the audacity to accuse Russia of destabilizing Ukraine.

Moscow is warning that the Kiev regime is determined to finally repudiate the Minsk peace accords negotiated in 2015 which mandate it to afford political autonomy to the Donbas self-declared republics. Instead, Kiev wants to go for a “military solution” by launching a full-on offensive against the Donbas, according to the Russian foreign ministry.

Thus, all the lurid accusations against Russia are a cynical cover for the flagrant and systematic violation of an internationally binding peace settlement. The Biden administration is aiding and abetting the Kiev regime to ramp up the war, from supplying it with lethal weaponry and emboldening belligerence, to concocting the media narrative of an alleged Russian invasion.

When General Gerasimov spoke with General Milley we can be sure that it was explained to the American side that the U.S. intel promoted by the State Department and Ukrainian military does not match reality. We may be sure that the Russian information provided to Milley can be verified as objectively accurate. Where is the Pentagon’s own intelligence on this matter as opposed to a private company source?

Here though is the amusing irony of the grim situation. Milley is probably better informed about the alleged Ukrainian developments thanks to his Russian counterpart in contrast to the dubious briefings from shadowy elements within the U.S. government. Elements, moreover, which have a vested nefarious interest in stoking a conflict with Russia.

Milley has himself expressed earlier doubts about the conjecture of a Russian invasion. On November 3, he was quoted as saying he did not see any threat of Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Milley is right to trust his military gut instincts.

Ukrainian military chiefs were also earlier downplaying reports of Russian buildup. So, what has changed in the last few weeks? Not the facts on the ground, but rather, it is argued here, the propaganda effort by elements within the U.S. establishment to create “facts” to suit policy. This has echoes of the WMD fiasco and cooked intel that presaged the disastrous U.S. war on Iraq in 2003.

It should be noted that the top Pentagon officer served in the same position during the Donald Trump administration. He famously had a falling out with then-President Trump when he maintained that military officers should not allow their profession to be politicized. Now would be an opportune time for General Mark Milley to confirm that principle.

The conflict in Ukraine is being blatantly politicized with false U.S. intel claims that when scrutinized are patently absurd. However, those claims are leading to ever-more dangerous tensions and a risk of an all-out war that could drag the United States and Russia into a direct military confrontation.

It behooves the Pentagon chief and his aides to scrutinize the alleged U.S. intel and to weigh up the political games of who is playing who. Making the correct call is a matter of war and peace.

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum two weeks ago, General Milley conceded that ‘America’s century’ is over – a long overdue acknowledgement, most might venture. Yet, belated or not, his saying it nonetheless seemed to signal an important strategic shift: “We’re entering into a tri-polar – world with the U.S., Russia and China being all great powers. [And] just by introducing three versus two you get increased complexity”, Milley said.

More recently, in a CNN interview Jake Sullivan, Biden’s Security Adviser, said that it had been a mistake to try to change China: “America is not seeking to ‘contain’ China: it’s not a new Cold War”. Mr. Sullivan’s remarks come a week after President Biden said the U.S. was not seeking “physical conflict” with China, despite rising tensions – “this is competition”, Biden said.

This indeed seemed to signal something important. But is it, though? This use of the word ‘competition’ is a tad curious as terminology, and requires a little unpacking.

CNN interviewer, Fareed Zakaria, asked Sullivan: So what is it, after all your ‘tough talk’, that you have been able to agree with China; what has been negotiated? One might imagine a response outlining how best Biden thinks to manage these competing interests in a complex tri-polar world. Well, that wasn’t Sullivan’s retort. “Wrong metric”, he said flatly: Don’t ask about bilateral agreements – ask about what else we have secured.

The right way to think about this, Sullivan said, is: “Have we set the terms of an effective competition where the U.S. is in a position to defend its values and advance its interests, not just in the Indo-Pacific, but around the world. In terms of our allies around the world, the U.S. and Europe are aligned around trade and technology issues to ensure that China cannot ‘abuse our markets’; and then on the Indo-Pacific front, we have advanced so that we can hold China accountable for its actions.”

“We want to create the circumstance in which two major powers will operate in an international system for the foreseeable future – and we want the terms of that system to be favourable to American interests and values: It is rather, a favourable disposition in which the U.S. and its allies can shape the international rules of the road on the sorts of issues that are fundamentally going to matter to the people of our country [America] and to the people everywhere”, he added.

The objective of the Biden administration was not to seek any political transformation in China, Sullivan pointed out, but to shape the international order to favour its interests, and of other like-minded democracies: “We want the terms of that coexistence in the international system to be favourable to American interests and values. To be set up so that the rules of the road reflect an open, fair, free Indo-Pacific region; an open, fair, free international economic system and where basic values and norms that are enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights are respected in international institutions”, he said. “This will be a competition as we go forward”.

Sullivan is proposing very starkly a rules based global order – “international rules of the road” – that would be crafted around one central strategic interest (that of America), with little regard to consequences that may result for others. That ‘open, fair, free international system’ is simply code for the western financialised neo-liberal system to go global. Josh Rogin wrote as much this week: “American-led internationalism, despite its flaws and missteps, remains the last, best hope for humanity.”

And just to be clear, when we hear of an open, free economic system favourable to American interests, it is not the ‘interests of the 99%’ that are being enshrined in the system, it is those of the 1% financial class, demanding the right to move their cash and credit anywhere, any time, without restriction.

Sullivan’s reference to Human Rights mirrors the ‘art’ of the EU, where the doctrine of the primacy of European Law has served as a convenient device to extend the Union’s central authority without rewriting the Treaties – or in this analogous case, for the U.S. extending its authority, and to proceed, without having to make bi-lateral agreements with China (or Russia), or anybody else. Sullivan was very clear on this point: Negotiated agreements with China were the wrong ‘metric’ by which to judge America’s policy success.

Initially, nobody in Europe bothered much when a general supremacy of EU values and law was ‘discovered’ by the European Court to be hiding within the EU treaties, (though to the naked eye, they were not so discernible). The muted reaction however, owed much to the fact that the jurisdiction of the EU at that time, was still rather narrow.

Later, the gentle, incremental upward transfer of national sovereignty to a centralised strategic interest (Brussels), became the principal engine for what came to be called ‘integration by law’. Over time, a deep reading of the Treaties (for Euro-treaties, read Sullivan’s ‘enshrinement’ of Universal Declaration of Human Rights) offered ever new reasons for subjecting democratic, national polities to a supra-national reading of a ‘higher interest’.

So too, the universal declaration of Human Rights will likely offer Sullivan new reasons and opportunities to weaponise the text in order to bend allies and ‘adversaries’ alike to the discipline of the central strategic interest (otherwise known as Washington).

So, what had seemed to signal a significant shift of U.S. thinking – after a little unpacking – turns out to be nothing of the kind. Great Power competition it turns out, is nothing other than the globalist, U.S.-centred, rules based world order. The U.S. abstains from ‘transforming’ (i.e. colour revolutionising) the CCP, because it can’t; that tool still applies to lesser fish (i.e. Nicaragua).

On the one hand, we have seen the consequences to this centralised ‘rules’ approach – whether practiced from Brussels or Washington: a sort of soporific torpor ensues. All energy is directed to keeping the creaking system aloft (whether the EU’s, or the American ‘rules of the road’), rather than finding real solutions. Cleavages open, that cannot be politically contained; resentments bubble away; crises are managed, not resolved; time is played for; reform is incremental and then, suddenly, unilateral; and, in the end, stasis reigns. It is called Merkelism in Europe (after the German Chancellor).

After the uneventful G20 summit in Rome, and COP26 in Glasgow, it looks like we are beginning to see the Merkelization of the world, as well. The sense that remains is one of a mechanism (two really if we include the EU), that makes convincing whirring and grinding sounds of fly-wheels spinning, and raises expectations of some result to pop down the final shute, yet little or nothing does – bar an ever deepening democratic deficit, as decisions formerly the realm of parliaments are transferred to a supra-national technocracy.

On the other hand, bad as this is (given the economic crises facing us), its greater ‘sin’ (as articulated by Sullivan) is his demand for global ‘rules’, whose scaffold is simply “the interests and values of the U.S. and its allies and partners”. Sullivan says that the U.S. no longer seeks to transform China’s system (that is good), but insists that China operate within an ‘order’ built around U.S. interests and values – tout court. And, as Sullivan indicated, U.S. diplomatic effort is to be directed at coercing Chinese compliance to this system. Nowhere are the costs to allies mentioned, who would have to forego their relations with China or Russia, in order to please Biden.

The bigger ‘sin’, quite simply, is that the time for such haughty ambitions has passed. The world balance has changed qualitatively, and not just quantitatively. Both China and Russia – the other two components to General Milley’s tri-partite world – have said it plainly enough: They refuse lectures by the West.

We live in times of media madness in which it is ever so easy to become cynical or desensitized to even the most heinous or theoretically shocking news. So it may be hard to even get excited about a quote that has nothing to do with gender issues on Twitter, but I implore you to consider the resonance of a recent statement made at the Aspen Security Forum by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of the United States of America…

“We’re entering into a tri-polar world with the U.S., Russia and China being all great powers. Just by introducing three vs two you get increased complexity.”

Now this isn’t a statement by some outsider, closet Eurasianist or Trump leftover lackie. General Mark Milley is absolutely a Statist (from a Biden-era perspective) who is more than happy to tow the party line on any trendy issue. As evidence of this position, for some reason it was he who really brought up “Climate Change” as an aspect of defense. He even commissioned a major report by the Army War College detailing a scenario of “defeat” for America’s “mission” within 20 years of publication due to Climate Change. Although Trump gave him his current job, he later called on Milley to resign because he failed “to defend (the American military) from the Leftist Radicals who hate (the USA) and (its flag).” This was in connection to Milley’s support for “Critical Race Theory” being put into place within America’s Armed Forces.

Image: The decline of America is a joy for some but sorrow for others.

The above is not some sort of Right Wing attack on General Milley the person, but a brief layout of his character as someone who at least publicly has shown great support for the heights of that good ole Liberal Agenda that everyone talks about. Meaning, that with his position and views he acts very much like “the system” in uniform. And this man of the system, who is at the top of the top of the military (excluding the President of course) just said that the Monopolar, the Post Cold War period of Pax Americana is over.

The other values that Milley is famous (or infamous) for like Critical Race Theory and Climate Change in a Defense Context were not invented by him, but nonetheless pushed by him. It is a reflection of the level of their “mainstreamness”, which shows that if he now is parroting “Multipolarity” then the concept may have gone mainstream within the halls of power in Washington, although not out of passionary excitement for the idea, but instead out of a sorrowful acceptance of the reality of it.

“They’ve been very clear about that. They have a China dream, and they want to challenge the so-called liberal, rules-based order that went into effect in 1945 at the end of World War II. They want to revise it. So, we have a … country that is becoming extraordinarily powerful that wants to revise the international order to their advantage. That’s going to be a real challenge over the coming 10 to 20 years, [and it’s] going to be really significant.”

This less popular quote from the speech yet again underlines Milley’s belief that Pax Americana is dead.

Today, he said, the United States, Russia, China, allies and partners are going to have to be very careful and conscious about how they deal with each other going forward and coordinated communication between the great powers will be a necessity, he added.

Perhaps we should all breathe a sigh of relief as the Post Cold War order has, or should I say “had”, a great potential for an apocalyptic scenario as the protocols and rules of engagement between Moscow and Washington broke down, while the threat of war (halfway through the Putin period to present) did not. If the U.S. is really willing to work out how this new Cold War is going to function, it will only help to keep the world safe from a nuclear winter due to a misunderstanding gone horribly wrong.

Image: Having to cooperate and discuss issues with yesterday’s great enemy is becoming a reality for Washington.

That is a cause for optimism, however the fact that General Milley only sees the rise of a Multipolar World as an excuse for a new Cold War is a bit depressing. Then again a new Cold War is an excuse to keep that military budget sky high when it could otherwise be downsized. As they say “follow the money”.

One of the selling points of a Multipolar World Order is that it eliminates the “zero-sum game” logic of the Cold War wherein every nation on Earth is either on team A or team B meaning they all must be fought over or else the other side gets the square. The Multipolar way of doing things also eliminates the inherent tyranny of Globalism with one group dominating the entire world crushing any competitor that may try to break the monopoly. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sees this as some sort of ugly reality that has to be fought against, although he did not mention anything about reestablishing a Monopolar World Order, well at least he did not say anything yet.

For the reasons described above, General Milley’s address at the Aspen Security Forum is a major piece of news and food for thought. It could be the massive signal that the world has been waiting for that even Washington and the U.S. military especially see a Multipolar future as inevitable and already coming into being.

Most Americans do not know that in the United States currently there are approximately 900 Active-duty generals and flag officers to lead 1.3 million troops in the combined armed forces. This is a ratio of one senior officer per every 1,400 men and women. During World War II, an admittedly different era, there were roughly twice as many flag and general officers for a little more than 12 million active duty troops a ratio of one to 6,000. In the Navy there are 32 flag officers for each ship currently in commission. In 1944, there was one flag officer for every 24 ships.

This development is referred to as “rank creep” which does not improve performance and instead clutters the chain of command by adding multiple bureaucratic layers to decision-making while also costing more due to funding the higher paygrades. And lest one be confused about why there continue to be so many flag officers, possibly concluding that they are needed to provide the leadership to fight wars, it could be pointed out that most of them will never get anywhere near combat even if the U.S. continues its belligerency on a global scale in an effort to establish and enforce its leadership of a fictional “rules based international order.”

It turns out that current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley was, during the latter days of the Donald Trump Administration, talking to his counterparts in China as well as to some folks in Congress who had no love for Trump. Some of the conversations were routine, but others were apparently driven by the notion that Donald Trump just might do something stupid like starting a war unless some restraints were placed on his ability to do mischief. Inevitably, there have emerged major differences of opinion regarding the propriety of what Milley was engaged in, with Democrats in general and Trump haters in particular finding no problem with the intrusion into policy-making while many Republicans have been calling for a thorough investigation to include possible consequences up to and including court-martial.

The various conversations were reported in a just released book “Peril” written by Bob Woodward and, Robert Costa and, based on a claimed 200 interviews, are generally conceded to be accurate by both sides to include the Milley camp plus the journalists involved. Some of the calls at least were made with other officials in the room and on separate phone lines, though there were also conversations with politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, that were clearly considered off-the-record as they dealt with keeping nuclear weapons out of the president’s hands.

Milley, according to the book, reportedly told the Chinese General Li Zuocheng in a back-channel phone call that had as a subject the possibility that the president might order an attack directed against China, something in the nature of a “surprise attack.” He reportedly said “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.” Milley apparently justified the action by stating that he disapproves of surprise attacks in principal and his defenders cite the example of “Pearl Harbor,” which was viewed so repugnantly by the American public that something like a war of extermination became inevitable. Unstated by the Milley supporters, though implicit in their argument, is the assumption that Donald Trump was both ignorant and a loose cannon on deck who would do something stupid like initiating a conflict with China.

Milley also shared his view that Trump had experienced a “mental decline” after the election with Nancy Pelosi in a phone call to her on January 8^th, two days after the alleged insurrection at the Capitol. Pelosi reportedly demanded that Milley take the nuclear launch codes away from Trump, which admittedly he did not seek to do. On the same day Milley also reviewed procedures with the senior officers at the National Military Command Center for launching nuclear weapons, insisting that he also had to be involved. To be completely clear, Milley had no legal authority or power to insert himself into the chain of command, though “Peril” reports that he did just that and at a minimum he was acting “extra-constitutionally” in his interpretation of his government role.

But it is the outreach to China is most disturbing. It is indeed possible to regard Donald Trump negatively while at the same time responding rationally with one’s international nuclear armed adversaries. One does not know what Milley intended to do by his phone call, but “Peril” makes the case, without providing any evidence, that “American intelligence showed that the Chinese believed that Mr. Trump planned to launch a military strike to create an international crisis that he could claim to solve as a last-ditch effort to beat Joseph R. Biden Jr.” In any event, it is unlikely that the Milley phone call reassured Li of anything. Indeed, Li and the Chinese government would have only two possible responses to the threat. First would be to shut up shop, batten down the hatches, and sit still for punishment. The other option would be to preemptively strike U.S. forces in and around China which presumably would be used for the attack. Either option could easily lead to a nuclear exchange once things cease to go according to plan, presuming that the surprise attack itself was not intended to include nuclear weapons in the first place.

Colonel Richard Black observes sagely that “If the report of Milley’s intentions is accurate, he should be relieved for cause, for though he did not consummate a criminal act by making that promise, the promise was so fraught with impropriety that an officer who betrayed his government in such fashion should ever be trusted to serve. Indeed, it is likely that had his Chinese counterpart made such a promise to General Milley, he’d have been executed for doing so.”

Beyond the disruption of the chain of command and ignoring the Constitution, there are, of course, some other problems with Milley’s line of thinking. Trump has, to be sure, demonstrated enough irrational behavior to make one suspect that he is not in full possession of all his marbles, but that is not the point. He was elected president of the United States and the U.S. Constitution was set up to ensure civilian control of the military, not vice versa.

And there is no solid evidence, only innuendo, that Trump ever seriously contemplated war with China. Indeed, he ran for office pledging to end the pointless wars that Washington was engaged in in Asia and towards the end of his administration he negotiated an exit from Afghanistan, which Joe Biden then postponed before bungling the evacuation. Trump did indeed assassinate a senior Iranian General and also launched cruise missiles against Syria based on bad intelligence, but otherwise his record is significantly better than that of his predecessor Barack Obama who both initiated and broadened the policy of assassinating American and Afghan citizens overseas by drone and also was party to the overthrow of the Libyan government while also conniving to replace the government of Ukraine.

In any event, in America war is clearly playing politics by other means. President Joe Biden has already declared that he has full confidence in Milley. Several Republican Senators, including Marco Rubio, have instead demanded that he be fired. Given the fact that at least one of the general’s phone calls to his Chinese counterpart could have started a war that might have gone nuclear, he should at least have the integrity to resign and take up his expected board appointment with a defense contractor.

Former President Trump and his political allies are frantically calling for the United States’ top general to be arrested and court-martialed for treason after reports of alleged secret calls to China.

Hold on a minute these are the same right-wing crazies who want a war with China, as well as spreading lies about stolen elections, useless vaccines and a hoax pandemic that is otherwise causing millions of deaths.

Trump and his unhinged Republicans claim that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley went behind Trump’s back when he was president in order to assure China that he would not allow the president to order a military strike.

According to a new book co-authored by veteran Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, General Milley made phone calls to his Chinese military counterpart, General Li Zoucheng, to let China know there was no danger of Trump launching a war.

That speaks of how dangerous and deranged U.S. power is. It took a general to intervene to ensure that a president did not start a war that would have escalated into a nuclear conflagration.

On the surface, Milley’s conduct may appear to be treasonous. In the United States’ constitution, the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s military forces. So, for a general to circumvent the president and reach out to a foreign power that the U.S. has designated as a national security threat, that appears to be traitorous.

But let’s put this in proper context. When Trump repeatedly refused to concede defeat in the November presidential election against Democrat Joe Biden, it did look as if Trump was going rogue. Spurious claims by Trump and his far-right Republican boosters of “stolen election” – they continue to peddle the same nonsense without any evidence – looked as if the United States was facing a coup.

When the Capitol building was attacked by a violent mob on January 6 instigated by Trump in order to abort the certification of the November election, it was not at all implausible that Trump was attempting to make a power grab against the constitution.

That is when General Milley reportedly phoned his Chinese counterpart to assure Beijing that the United States would not launch a military strike. Given that Trump was going off the rails in a bid to stay in the White House and given that, as a sitting president, he had access to nuclear codes it is not unreasonable that the Pentagon chief took a decision to neutralize an erratic Trump.

Trump is now saying that he had no intention of going to war with China. And he accuses Milley of exaggerating wild fears to justify his unlawful usurping of presidential authority.

Milley had good reason though. Remember that Trump during his presidency had on several occasions intimated he would use nuclear weapons against North Korea and Iran if he was pushed too far. He had warned of “fire and fury like never seen before”.

Also, Trump’s megalomaniac rage and delusional mind about being cheated over the November election was such that all bets were off. Would he start a war with China as a foil to hang onto the White House? Anything was possible with such a crazed egotist. And given the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, it was reasonable to cut off this maverick president’s power, including the power to launch a nuclear war.

It also needs to be borne in mind that Trump’s aides and advisors who were all on for the January 6 assault on the U.S. electoral process were also stridently anti-China hawks.

People like Steven Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, and the then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, were gung-ho with anti-China rhetoric.

Bannon had even predicted that the United States would go to war with China within a few years. Bannon teamed up with fugitive Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui to declare in June 2020 a “New Federal State of China” which would overthrow the ruling Communist Party government in Beijing. Although Bannon had left the Trump White House in 2017, he was still seen as being a close advisor to the president.

Guo Wengui, the Chinese renegade businessman, has set up in the United States as a de facto government-in-exile. He fled to the U.S. in 2014 to escape an anti-corruption crackdown under President Xi Jinping. He is wanted by Chinese authorities over multiple charges of bribery and fraud. Several of Guo’s associates have been sentenced to prison in China for corruption.

Guo has launched GTV and other media companies in the U.S. that have become prominent outlets for pro-Trump campaigns and anti-China warmongering. These media outlets promote claims about stolen elections as well as spreading falsehoods about the effectiveness of vaccines for mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic.

In June this year – to mark the anniversary of Bannon’s regime change declaration towards China – a rally in New York sponsored by Guo’s media empire featured Trump acolytes like Bannon, Michael Flynn, Rudy Giuliani, and businessman Mike Lindell who all spoke about war with China.

At that rally, Bannon accused China of carrying out cyberattacks on the November 2020 elections to defeat Trump. In Trump’s toxic milieu, there is a delusional conviction that the Communist Party of China subverted American democracy.

Recall, too, that the former Trump administration had embarked on an unprecedented trade war against China as well as winding up tensions over Hong Kong and the South China Sea. It is plausible that Beijing feared the unhinged Trump regime was prepared to start a war.

Given the febrile and reckless situation in the waning days of the Trump administration, General Milley was taking reasonable precautions to avert any miscalculation for war with China. Accusations of treason from Trump and his band of warmongering anti-China nutters like Bannon are absurd. If anyone is guilty of treason it is Trump and his fascist ilk who are domestic enemies of the U.S. constitution.