6 US “Allies” That Are Russia’s Newest Partners

Written by Adam Garrie } eurasiafuture.com

[dropcap]R[/dropcap]ussia has mastered the art of making new partnerships among nations that in the 20th and much of the 21st century were and in some cases still are traditional American allies. As the long dead realities of the Cold War era become dramatically re-shaped by the age of multipolarity and increased interconnectivity between global regions, it is helpful to look at some of the countries with whom Russia is a close partner or healthy friend in spite of their past or even presently close relations with Washington.

Putin and Erdogan (right). Russian diplomacy requires strong stomachs.

1. Turkey

For centuries, Russo-Turkish wars dominated the landscape of multiple global regions including Black Sea coasts and hinterlands as well as the Balkan region. But in the 1920s, the arrival of Ataturk and his Grand National Assembly of Turkey looked to establish healthy ties with the equally fledgling Soviet state.

Turkey was still in the midst of its own civil crisis when USSR founder Lenin and Republic of Turkey founder Ataturk signed an historic Friendship Treaty in Moscow which put to rest centuries of Russo-Turkish antagonism. Indeed, so friendly was Ataturk’s relationship with the USSR that when former World War era triumvir Enver Pasha attempted to lead a Turkic revolt against the USSR in central Asia, the so-called Basmachi movement, Ataturk continued to renounce Enver Pasha and maintained good ties with Moscow.

Yet however strong the friendship between Lenin’s USSR and Ataturk’s Turkey was in the 1920s, by the end of the 1930s relations showed signs of frost and by 1952, Turkey had joined NATO and become a close ally of the United States.

Against this background, it seems almost surreal that the shooting down of a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 in 2015 by “Turkish forces” would perversely be the gateway to a historic rapprochement. Indeed at the time, the downing of the Russian jet became the catalyst for a severe downgrading of relations. But by 2016, facts had begun to emerge that the order to shot at the plane came not from legitimate Turkish forces. Furthermore, it was found that those responsible for the downing were not legitimate Turkish soldiers. Instead, the Fethullah Terror Organisation (FETO) had ordered the attack in an attempt to destroy any possibility for future Russo-Turkish cooperation.

When in 2016, FETO agents in the armed forces set their sights not on Russia but on the legitimate government of Turkey, it was Russian intelligence that warned President Erdogan of the attempted coup which allowed him to re-group patriotic Turks who eventually saw off the FETO provocation.

Since then, Russia and Turkey have not only re-established healthy ties but have embarked on a uniquely meaningful partnership given the long history of hostility between the two nations which dates back to before the founding of the USA. This has been the case in spite of the brutal assassination of Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov by a FETO agent in late 2016.

Today, Russia is a major supplier of energy to Turkey while both countries work on the Turk Stream pipeline which will bring Russian gas into southern Europe. Likewise, Russia has begun construction on Turkey’s first ever nuclear power plant which will be on line in approximately two years.

In Syria, Turkey and Russia along with Iran work in the Astana format to bring a negotiated settlement to the conflict while both countries have resolved many of their initial differences over each side’s penultimate aim in the conflict. With Turkey insistent that it will complete its purchase of the Russian made S-400 missile defence system in spite of the threat of US sanctions as a consequence, officials in Ankara have suggested that if this means the US will renege on the deal to physically deliver F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, Russia’s Su-57 fifth generation fighters could be an attractive alternative.

As the US continues to needlessly antagonise Turkey on multiple fronts, Russia’s already healthy partnership with Turkey is set only to expand as Erdogan and Putin have developed a relationship based on trust, transparency and pragmatism which is more than can be said of Ankara’s current state of relations with Washington.

2. Israel

While Israel is often correctly described as America’s closest ally, the fact of the matter is that Russian relations with Tel Aviv are incredibly strong and growing stronger. In an age where Tel Aviv and its lobbyists abroad accuse multiple European societies of being antisemitic whilst even some political factions in the US are accused of the same, Russia is uniquely immune to this accusation. The fact of the matter is that while social cohesion in the US and Europe appears to be undermined due to a combination of radical liberalism, mass migration and economic decline, Russia’s historically multi-ethnic and multi-religious state continues to function without major incident. Russian and Israeli information conduits have not allowed this to go unnoticed.

But beyond this soft power victory for Russia in the eyes of Tel Aviv’s leaders, Russia has actively courted Israel on the basis of the fact that many Russian Jews now live there and also on the basis of Russia’s strategy of anti-ideological/anti-sectarian balancing of Middle Eastern interests.

While Russia remains partners with Syria, Palestine and Iran, Russia is equally a partner of Israel. Today, Moscow and Tel Aviv are on the same page regarding a withdrawal of Iranian and Hezbollah troops from Syria. While both sides reached this point of agreement in different ways and for different reasons, President Putin’s government has shown a willingness to work with any partner in the region on a case-by-case basis and Israel is no exception, not least because Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu share a good personal relationship.

Furthermore, it must be noted that at a time when Russia and Israel continue to cooperate ever more economically and in terms of regional security dialogue – in spite of the fact that Israel is often more western in its mentality than most geographically western regimes, Tel Aviv has never joined the US, EU, Canada and Australia in anti-Russian sanctions nor in accusing Russia of playing a negative role in the world. Instead, Tel Aviv has officially adopted the 9th of May as a celebration of the Soviet and allied victory over fascism in 1945 at a time when western leaders shamefully boycott events commemorating the victory against Hitler’s fascist empire.

Before one thinks that this partnership has come at the expense of Russia’s older Syrian ally, one must forgo such zero-sum dogmas and look objectively at what the Russo-Israeli partnership has accomplished for Syria. Russian diplomats have persuaded Tel Aviv to agree to tacitly accept the legitimacy of the Arab Nationalist Syrian President Bashar al-Assad so long as Russia helps to facilitate an orderly Iranian and Hezbollah withdrawal from the Arab Republic. While this agreement is a compromise on both sides (as one could expect), one must realise that after decades of trying to undermine Ba’athist Syria, because of Russia and only because of Russia, Israel is now in a position to agree to cease attacking its Syrian foe for the fist time in decades. Such an agreement could scarcely have been struck by any other mediator. In the fraught context of the Middle East, this is as close to a win-win as one could hope for and moreover, it is one that could preserve Syria’s government which after all was the primary objective of Damascus in defending against a multilateral hybrid war against its sovereignty that has raged since 2011.

3. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia remains America’s closest ally in the Arab world but under the de-facto leadership of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, Riyadh is rapidly engaging in attempts to expand the petro-Kingdom’s geo-economic portfolio. This has resulted in excellent relations with both China and Russia.

Rather than working against Saudi Arabia in a race to the bottom in respect of energy prices, in 2016 Moscow decided to begin working with Saudi Arabia to stabilise oil prices in a highly competitive global market. The result has been the formation of the OPEC+ format where Russia and Saudi Arabia are now the de-facto trendsetters in the global price of oil. As Russia’s economy is more diverse than that of Saudi Arabia, Russia is in effect the king-maker in the OPEC+ format that Riyadh is keen to formalise in a would-be “Super-OPEC” cartel.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia has courted Russian expertise in the services of developing the new mega-city NEOM, while Riyadh is simultaneously working with Russia on deals that would see Russian companies build Saudi Arabia’s first nuclear power station. Additionally, Riyadh continues to express interest in the purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile systems.

In the 1970s, OPEC’s ability to manipulate the price of oil could bring down major economies and likewise, OPEC’s cooperation could ease economic tensions. Today, a similar power is jointly in the hands of Saudi Arabia and its Russian superpower partner. In spite of Washington’s close ties with multiple Saudi officials – the era of Muhammad bin Salman is also the dawning of a golden era in Russo-Saudi relations.

4. Pakistan

Pakistan’s close relationship with the United States has never been an easy one. In 1977, the US backed General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq led a coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, thus ushering in a 1980s decade that Pakistanis remain divided about in terms of Zia’s legacy to the country. In 1999, a similar anti-democratic coup took place when General Pervez Musharraf took power.

The recent Musharraf era remains a major talking point in this year’s Pakistani General Election as the surging PTI opposition party in particular has highlighted the grave suffering that Pakistanis have endured due to Musharraf’s unwavering support for George W. Bush’s so-called “war on terror”.

While Pakistan exposed itself to multiple terrorist attacks during the course of America’s ongoing struggle to subdue Afghanistan, today under Donald Trump, rather than thanking Pakistan for doing everything Washington said during the “war on terror”, Trump has instead cut over $200 billion worth of funds to Pakistan and has worked to “greylist” Islamabad through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Throughout this process, Pakistan has intensified its always strong relationship with China. The Sino-Pakistan partnership looks to elevate the material condition of the Pakistani people while helping to provide sustainable models for internal development that the US never bothered to offer even during the Bush-Musharraf years.

But while Pakistan’s very visible partnership with China continues to dominate headlines, Pakistan is simultaneously engaged in a new positive relationship with Russia. Below is a lengthy discussion from geopolitical expert Andrew Korybko charting the evolution of Russo-Pakistan relations in the modern era.

As a strategically located south Asia power that now increasingly shares similar goals to Moscow in respect of Afghanistan, it was inevitable that an impetus for more intensified positive relations would develop. With Moscow’s seemingly ‘long gone’ Soviet era partner India rapidly becoming America’s key partner in a wider anti-China campaign in the region, Russia now has all the more incentive to expand its relations with Pakistan.

5. South Korea

Unlike Turkey and Pakistan but very much like Saudi Arabia and Israel, South Korea retains very healthy relations with the United States. However, the economic realities of the 21st century have seen the Trump administration accuse South Korea of “dumping” goods on US shores while Washington’s tariff barrage has not been any friendlier to South Korea than it has to traditional Asian rivals of the United States. With Seoul making a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation regarding Trump’s protectionist onslaught, the north east Asian industrial powerhouse is looking for and rapidly attaining new export markets including both China and Russia.

South Korea was the first country to embrace Russian President Putin’s proposals for tripartite economic cooperation between the two Korean states and Russia. This proposal was made in the autumn of 2017 during the nadir of the US-DPRK nuclear war of words. Nevertheless, South Korean President Moon Jae-in remained fully supportive of Putin’s proposals.

Less than a year later and Russia is already in talks with South Korea to help construct modern road, rail and gas pipeline links between Russian territory and South Korea via the DPRK. Russia’s role in the Korean peace process has been vital and President Moon’s recent endorsement of the future Russia-Korean Economic Corridor during his recent trip to Moscow confirms that so far as Seoul is concerned, a new era of peace through prosperity on the Korean peninsula requires vital Russian participation which President Putin has been happy to offer. For Moscow and Seoul peace and prosperity are indelibly linked, while Russia’s historically good relations with Pyongyang are seen as beneficial to a new reality wherein Moscow’s relations with Seoul are likewise exceptionally strong.

6. The Philippines

The election of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016 was a watershed in Manila’s relations with the wider world. Upon winning the election, Duterte forsook what he called “the colonial mentality” and warmly embraced new partnerships with China and Russia. Duterte has praised Russia’s forthright dealings with The Philippines over security issues. Indeed, Duterte was meeting with President Putin in 2017 when the Daesh aligned Maute group laid siege to the Mindanao city of Marawi.

Understanding Duterte’s sense of urgency, Russia offered The Philippines free arms shipments to help the country to better fight terrorism and maintain social order. Duterte’s 2017 trip to Moscow was crucial for helping to establish a new era of Russo-Philippine relations that can and should lead to a free trade agreement between ASEAN member The Philippines and the de-facto Russian led Eurasian Economic Union.

While the two countries do not have a long history of relations, Russia has proved it is a reliable multipolar partner for Duterte’s manifold war on Takfiri terrorism, political extremist terrorism and narco-terrorism.

Conclusion

Russia’s ability to build new partnerships is objectively an impressive diplomatic feat. Crucially though, it must be remembered that during this same period, Russia has remained close to traditional Cold War allies while mending fences with partnerships that were lost in the midst of or just after the Cold War. Russia is a country that is a partner with both Vietnam and China, Egypt and Turkey, Syria, Israel and Palestine, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and to a more limited degree than in the Cold War, with India, The Philippines and Cambodia, Mozambique and South Africa and many others.

In short, Russia’s new partnerships have not come at the expense of traditional ones unless such a partner has already sought to re-align itself in the 21st century (India for example). In this sense, Russia has not actively pushed any partner away but has worked intensely on building new win-win partnerships across unlikely corridors of an ever more interconnected world.

[/su_spoiler]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Adam Garrie is Director at Eurasia future. He is a geo-political expert who can be frequently seen on RT’s flagship debate show CrossTalk as well as Press-TV’s flagship programme ‘The Debate’. Garrie has also commented on geopolitical events on international television and radio in the United States, Lebanon, Russia, Pakistan, Germany, Britain and Ecuador. A global specialist with an emphasis on Eurasian integration, Garrie’s articles have been published in the Oriental Review, Asia Times, Geopolitica Russia, the Tasnim News Agency, Global Research, RT’s Op-Edge, Global Village Space and others.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

VIEWPOINTS: Three Cheers for Trump’s Peace Trifecta

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

by John V. Walsh ••/ Antiwar.com

Wherein the author probes and sorts out the possible logical reasons for the seemingly perverse Trumpian wrecking ball approach to international affairs.

The Singapore Summit.

The Singapore Summit comes first, because it rocked the world. In this bold and unprecedented meeting President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un, of the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK), started down a path to Détente, leading to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, an intractable problem or so the pundits informed us. But as Melania warned us with a bemused smile sometime back, "Donald always shakes things up."

The historic meeting produced more than words; concrete steps were taken: The DPRK went first, terminating the testing of nuclear warheads, IRBMs and ICBMs and even closing its nuclear test site – all done before the summit. Leading up to the summit, Trump cut back on the extent of annual joint South Korea-US military exercises. These have been roiling the East Pacific since the 1970s, frightening the North Koreans since these "war games" could abruptly turn into a real invasion as in the Korean War. At summit’s conclusion Trump went further and terminated those exercises altogether, labeling them "provocative," as the North Koreans have long described them, and "expensive," cost always being a big item in the Trumpian mind. These exercises are also costly for the DPRK since they come at a time of year when agricultural labor is needed and hundreds of thousands of men must be diverted from the fields to join the armed forces in case the war games turn into a real invasion. This hurts the agricultural output of the DPRK, and one suspects it is designed to do so.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Singapore Summit is the biggest step toward peace on the Korean Peninsula since President Dwight Eisenhower lived up to his 1952 campaign promise to "go to Korea" and end Truman’s deeply unpopular war, which had claimed millions of Korean lives, 1 million Chinese lives and tens of thousands of American ones. Ike ended that genocidal war, which had slaughtered 20% of the population of North Korea primarily due to bombing and chemical weapons. An armistice was negotiated quickly and so the killing stopped, but a formal treaty of peace proved politically impossible. (Ike, the peacemaker, was criticized by the media for being inarticulate and stupid and for spending too much time on the golf course. And he had a mistress. Sound familiar? But he brought peace.)

Quite rightly the world greeted the Kim-Trump breakthrough with jubilation – save for the US elite and its press, including the interventionist Democratic Party leadership all of which were quite glum or downright enraged. The admirable and effective President Moon of the Republic of Korea (ROK) who himself was a key figure in making the summit possible gave Trump much credit, and the South Korean people gave Moon’s Party overwhelming victories in the municipal elections on the day after the summit, putting the very political existence of the hawkish leadership of the rival party in question. There was great celebration in North Korea and even the Japanese PM Shinzo Abe hailed the agreement since it removed a perceived threat. Needless to say, China and Russia who have long pushed for denuclearization of the peninsula were very pleased; the cessation of US war games in exchange for ending DPRK testing of nukes and rockets was just the sort of first step they had advocated for some time. And the majority (71%) of the American people approved of the summit. The Monmouth poll taken just after the summit and before the media had time to spin its demented take on events reported: "Most Americans (71%) say that the recent meeting between Trump and Kim was a good idea, including 93% of Republicans, 74% of independents, and 49% of Democrats. Only 20% say it was a bad idea. This positive feeling is somewhat higher than in late April, when 63% said the prospect of having such a meeting was a good idea."

Would it not be correct to say that the Singapore Summit is a move toward a world of peace by Trump and Kim? If so, should not all peace-loving forces support and praise it as a way to protect it from attacks of domestic hawks and to encourage similar steps in foreign policy? Have we?

This is not an academic question. The opposition to this and the policies listed below is large and building as can be seen from the reaction of the press. When Jimmy Carter tried to reach an accommodation with the DPRK and remove US troops and 700 nuclear weapons from the ROK, he was ultimately stopped by the forces we would now call Deep State, as chronicled here. And similar forces are already organizing to stop Trump. If the peace movement does not do all in its power to back these and the initiatives outlined below, then we will bear part of the blame if those initiatives fail. What side is the peace movement on here? To this writer the answer is unclear and the clock is ticking.

Let Russia Join the G7, says Trump.

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]et’s turn to achievement number two over those five days in June. It came leading up to the G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Quebec. Trump announced beforehand that Russia should be invited back into the G7, a move opposed by all the other members but for Italy’s new government. The U.S. press went berserk of course, with many declaring as they do many times daily that Trump’s strings were being pulled by – who else? – Putin.

Putin himself responded to the disagreement at the G7, thus:

"As for Russia’s return to ‘the seven,’ ‘the eight’ [G7, G8] – we have not left it. Our colleagues once refused to come to Russia due to well-known reasons. Please, we will be happy to see everyone in Moscow."

Putin made that statement at a press conference in Qingdao, China, at the conclusion of the meeting of the SCO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organizationwith its present 8 member states: China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyryzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – with Iran, currently an observer, backed by China to become a full member. Putin went farther in this press conference as reported by RT.com:

The SCO gathering concluded just shortly after the G7 summit, and Russia enjoys the format of the now-eight-member organization after India and Pakistan joined. Putin believes the SCO trumps the G7 in certain aspects. For example, the member states have already overtaken the G7 in purchasing-power parity, the Russian leader said, citing IMF data.

“If we calculate… per capita, the seven countries are wealthier, but the size of the SCO economies [combined] is larger. And the population is of course much bigger – half of the planet,” Putin told reporters.

"The G7 are really nothing more than the ex-colonial and now neocolonial countries whose time may be running out with the rise of the economies of the once colonized nations of East and South Asia..."

That is, the combined gross GDPs of the SCO 8 are larger than the combined economies of the G7 by the PPP-GDP metric used by the IMF and World Bank (and CIA) as can be seen here. It is noteworthy that Russia’s GDP is about equal to Germany’s, and not the basket case that it is made out to be in the Western press. In fact, the G7 has only 3 of the world’s 7 largest economies the same number as the SCO-8. The G7 are really nothing more than the ex-colonial and now neocolonial countries whose time may be running out with the rise of the economies of the once colonized nations of East and South Asia.

In calling for Russia’s readmission to the G7, Trump was turning his back on the old Cold War alliances and looking to the economic realities of the 21^stCentury exemplified by the SCO. He was opting to create an atmosphere of dialogue which would include Russia. As he later said, the G7 spends 25% of its time discussing Russia- so why not have Russia present and try to work out problems together.

Trump’s appeal to readmit Russia to the G7 is simply a repeat of his call to "get along with Russia" a promise made in the campaign of 2016. Is this not a good idea? Is the recognition of new realities not part of creating a peaceful world?

Would it not be correct to say that this move of Trump’s is a move toward a world of peace? If so, should not all peace loving forces support and praise it as a way to protect it from attacks of domestic hawks and to encourage similar steps in foreign policy? Have we? Again this is not an academic question because the outcome depends in part on our support or lack thereof.

Mercantilism over imperialism and hegemony.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he third move in Trump’s weekend trifecta is not so much an action of his in and of itself but the revelation of a mindset behind that action. Trump has set in motion the imposition of tariffs on countries that he views as unfair in trade with the US. My point is not to argue whether such tariffs are good or bad or even whether the US has been treated unfairly. (One might think, however, that the need to impose them is the sign of a trading power in its infancy which needs to protect its key enterprises – or of one in decline which can no longer prevail by virtue of the quality of what it produces. But that is not of significance for this discussion.)

What is unusual is that Trump did not limit his economic attacks to an official adversary like China. No, he is also directing them at our "allies," from NATO all the way to Japan on the other side of the world. In so doing he shows that commerce is more important to him than alliances that facilitate military actions aimed at domination and hegemony. It might fairly be said that Trump is putting mercantilism over imperialism – if by mercantilism we mean economic nationalism. Most of those at the G7 meeting who were aghast at the tariffs are NATO allies. This action taken without regard to "the alliance" reminds us of Trump’s assertion during the campaign of 2016 that "NATO is obsolete."

Trump’s stance was criticized by Canada’s PM Trudeau on this very basis, saying: "Canadians did not take it lightly that the United States has moved forward with significant tariffs on our steel and aluminum industry…. For Canadians who…stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in far-off lands and conflicts from the First World War onward…it’s kind of insulting." (Emphasis, jw). Is fighting in the useless and criminal WWI, something to be proud of? Let’s pass over the many other murderess conflicts that have engaged the US and the G7 in the last 25 years, let alone the past 70 plus years. Trudeau encompasses all this criminal behavior in the single word "onward." The alliances that have made this possible are indeed "obsolete," in fact retrograde and dangerous. Trudeau is simply saying that the G7 have been willing allies in the imperial crimes of the US. So they expect due economic consideration in return. Trump is saying no more; now the business of America is business first and foremost.

This does not mean that economic nationalism is the answer to the world’s problems. But Trump’s action does represent a move away from the "entangling alliances" that have been employed to further the hegemonistic policies of the US.

Would it not be correct to say that favoring competition in trade over cultivating alliances for military hegemony is a positive development? Should not all peace loving forces praise the move away from our "alliances," away from NATO which has been the agent of so many criminal wars of the last quarter century?

The flies in the Trumpian Ointment.

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]t this point in the conventional treatment of matters Trumpian, it is compulsory to launch into psychobabble about the man, with cries of indignation about his narcissism or vulgarity or some other imagined personality disorder. This writer is not a mind reader, nor do I have much faith in the "science" of psychology. Such anti-Trump disclaimers are more often than not simply inoculation to protect the writer from the wrath of the legions of Trump-haters and Respectables. Such disclaimers also represent a cheezy substitution of pop psych for political analysis.

In reality none of Trump’s actions outlined above should have been a surprise. They are fully consistent with what he promised in 2016. Likewise the war of words between Trump and Kim earlier in the year was simply a way to protect them both from charges of being weak on their adversary by their own hardliners. Trump himself has admitted they were a charade, and there may have been more to the charade than he admitted. Kim too had his hardliners although not so numerous or powerful as Trump’s.

That said, the beginnings of Trump foreign policy has not taken us from a quarter century drive toward US unipolar hegemony, which began with the Clintons, to a nirvana of peace in the space of 18 months. Since the US Empire is the last of the 500 years of European Empires, successor to them all, it would be absurd to even expect such an outcome. Likewise, it would be easy to google all the things that are wrong with US foreign policy and even growing worse – and there is a cottage industry devoted to just that.

But one of the current problems, US policy toward Iran, looms large and deserves special mention. Because Iran has support from Russia and because it lies so close to Russia, conflict with Iran is likely to destroy Trump’s desire for Détente with Russia and could therefore drag the US into military conflict with a great nuclear power, even a World War. Such a thing would be catastrophic for humanity – so it is a very big deal. Fundamentally Trump’s position on Iran is dictated by Israel which maintains its stranglehold on US foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). By necessity, given Israel’s power in US politics, and by his conviction as well, one suspects, Trump’s brain is Israeli occupied territory. And the same malign influence contributes to the criminal US support of the Saudi atrocities in Yemen. Perhaps discussions with Putin can help Trump on this matter. But right now Israel poses one of the greatest obstacles to a new and enlightened foreign policy in a key area for all of humanity.

Finally let’s return again to the Singapore Summit. Please, dear reader, immerse yourself in the jubilation it generated worldwide. It jumps out of the screen right here Gangnam Style. Be sure the sound is on at the lower right of the screen – and join the dance for joy.

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John V. Walsh can be reached a john.endwar@gmail.com

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

Sabre-Rattling With Russia

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

Gen. Dunford: Is everybody bluffing on the US side, to pad the insatiable coffers of the military contractors, or are they for real? If the latter, the world is in deep trouble.

“My assessment today, Senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security.” —General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“I would consider the principle threats to start with Russia.”—General James Mattis, US Defense Secretary.

“The United States continues to have the highest military expenditure in the world. In 2017 the USA spent more on its military [$610 billion] than the next seven highest-spending countries combined. . . . at $66.3 billion, Russia’s military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than in 2016.”— Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, World Report May 2018.

The Trump Administration is ramping up confrontation and rattling sabers all over the globe, from the South China Sea to the Baltic via the Persian Gulf. The countries of the US-NATO military alliance have vastly increased their military spending and are boosting deployment of their forces in Europe in accordance with the policy of Enhanced Forward Presence — the positioning of strike aircraft, missile-armed ships and armored formations along the frontiers of Russia.

In March 2018 NATO’s Deputy Secretary General, the former US Under Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, spoke at Warsaw’s military airport and was effusive about the forward movement of US-NATO troops. She “wanted to say what an honor it was to visit the battlegroup that is deployed here in Poland today . . .”

It is hugely expensive to move and maintain military forces in foreign countries, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) records that in 2016 “NATO’s collective military expenditure rose to $881 billion” while “European NATO members spent $254 billion in 2016 — over 3 times more than Russia.”

In January 2018 the US Department of Defence published its National Defence Strategy which stated that “the central challenge to US prosperity and security is re-emergence of long-term strategic competition” from Russia and China who are “revisionist powers” and a “growing threat” requiring a vast surge in US military expenditure. The Pentagon’s Mission involves “restoring America’s competitive military advantage to deter Russia and China from challenging the United States, its allies or seeking to overturn the international order that has served so well since the end of World War II.”

That is the US-enforced “international order” that since 1945 has included its disastrous war in Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq that propelled the Middle East to its current state of chaos, a continuing, sixteen-year catastrophe in Afghanistan, and a savage blitz that reduced Libya to ungovernable chaos. In all these ferocious forays by the self-appointed global gendarme there was colossal destruction and the deaths of uncountable numbers of innocent citizens.

And now the US has some 1.3 million people in its army, navy, air force and Marine Corps, with about 200,000 of them stationed in about 800 overseas military bases, in order to continue enforcement of “international order.”

The Nuclear Posture Review published on February 2, 2018, two weeks after the defense strategy paper, also makes it clear who the Pentagon considers to be its enemies, mentioning China 47 times, Iran 39 times and Russia 127 times, which makes nonsense of the claim by the State Department that “we do not want to consider Russia an adversary . . . This not a Russia-centric NPR.” Then on February 12 the Pentagon announced that “today President Donald Trump sent Congress a proposed Fiscal Year 2019 budget request of $716 billion for national security, $686 billion of which is for the Department of Defense.” That’s about 70 billion dollars more than the previous year.

Trump’s “America First” policy has alienated longtime US allies and increased distrust by the many countries being confronted militarily (and economically — ask the Europeans). The irony about this drum-thumping slogan is the US claim that “It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model, gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions,” because this is precisely what “America First” is all about : military domination and total ascendancy over the economies of the world.

The Western media’s reporting of President Putin’s speech to Russia’s Federal Assembly on March 1 was intriguing. It concentrated almost entirely on Russian weapons’ developments, with the New York Times, for example, reporting that the President “used the speech to reassure Russians that the military buildup was taking place.” The 1500 words of the NYT report were almost entirely devoted to Putin’s description of Russian weapons designed to deter US-NATO adventurism, and a mere 65 words covered the social improvement programs he described.

In outlining his priorities the President declared that “the main, key development factor is the well-being of the people and the prosperity of Russian families. Let me remind you that in 2000, 42 million people lived below the poverty line, which amounted to nearly 30 percent – 29 percent of the population. In 2012, this indicator fell to 10 percent. Poverty has increased slightly against the backdrop of the economic crisis. Today, 20 million Russian nationals live in poverty. Of course, this is much fewer than the 42 million people in 2000, but it is still way too many.”

Russia wants to improve the lives of its citizens, and intends to do this, no matter the size of the US-NATO military buildup round its borders. But it isn’t going to stand back and do nothing while the US-NATO military bloc expands and accelerates towards conflict. There has been a massive reduction in Russia’s defense budget, while the US and the rest of NATO are vastly increasing military expenditure, but it remains necessary for Russia to maintain its defense capabilities to counter the saber-rattling of the US-NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence.

As noted by the US Veterans Today, President Putin stated that “American submarines are on permanent alert off the Norwegian coast; they are equipped with missiles that can reach Moscow in 17 minutes. But we dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long time ago, even the non-strategic ones. And you would call us aggressive?”

Yes, they do, in spite of all the belligerence being displayed by US-NATO military deployments and maneuvers in eastern Europe.

For example, Exercise Siil 2018 was held in Estonia from May 2-13, 2018, involving over 15,000 troops from 10 NATO countries — the UK, US, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland — and from the five supposedly neutral countries of Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Sweden and Ukraine.

Then on June 4 CNN reported that “A massive US-led military exercise involving 18,000 soldiers from 19 nations, primarily NATO members, kicked off Sunday [June 3] along the alliance’s eastern border. Saber Strike 18 will take place until June 15 in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The exercise will be conducted amid heightened tensions with Moscow, which views any NATO military activities along its border negatively, maintaining that it increases ‘mutual distrust’.”

That exercise couldn’t have been more fittingly named, because there is no doubt that all these US-NATO saber-rattling fandangos increase Russia’s “distrust” of the nations that move thousands of troops so close to its borders. While Russia reduces its defense spending and tries to engage in trade with the world in order to better the living conditions of its citizens, 18,000 US-NATO troops have gathered to rattle sabers on its borders.

There could not be plainer signals that the Pentagon and its sub-branch in Brussels are escalating to conflict.

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

U.S.-Saudi Pressure On Jordan Opens The Way For Iran

DISPATCHES FROM MOON OF ALABAMA, BY “B”

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has traditionally been in the 'western' camp. It is politically attached to the United Kingdom and the United States as well as to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni majority Gulf states. The Jordanian King Abdullah II has in the past been hostile to Iran. He was to first to publicly stoke fear of a 'Shia crescent'. But the new Saudi and U.S. plans for 'peace' with Israel are a threat to Jordan and to King Abdullah's personal legitimacy. He needs to change his position. Provided with the right incentives Jordan could, eventually, join the 'resistance' side with Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.

The country ruled by King Abdullah has nearly ten million inhabitants but is relatively poor. It has few natural resources. The generally well educated population attracted some foreign investment in its industry. Many Jordanians work abroad and send remittances. But all that is not enough. The country needs foreign subsidies to keep its standard of living.

The King of Saudi Arabia derives legitimacy from his title as "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" in Mecca and Medina. The King of Jordan springs from the thousand year old great Hashemite dynasty. He heads the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf (Foundation) and is the custodian of the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. This responsibility is the only prominent function left for the Hashemite family. It is the source of King Abdullah's legitimacy.

The changes in Saudi Arabia's policy towards Israel and the Zionist 'peace plan' the Trump administration develops create a new situation for Jordan. It is put under immense economic pressure to agree to these plans.

Jordan took part in the war on Syria. While Turkey provided support for the "rebels" attacking Syria from the north Jordan played a similar role in the south. Weapon and ammunition supplies from Saudi Arabia and Qatar were shipped through Jordan and smuggled into Syria. The country welcomed the families of the 'rebels' as refugees and provided medical support. The "southern operation room" of the 'rebels', run by the CIA, was hosted in Jordan's capital Amman.

The war interrupted the important and lucrative transportation line from Turkey through Syria and Jordan to the Gulf countries. The refugees were a burden. The once flourishing tourist business fell back. Like most other countries Jordan had expected a short war leading to 'regime change' in Syria within a few months. But now, seven years later, the war on Syria is a major problem for Jordan. The one million refugees from Syria led to an increase in rents while wages went down. About 20% of the working population is without a job. The war needs to end.

Jordan receives some $1.2 billion per year in military and economic aid from the United States. In earlier years it additionally received $1 to 2 billions from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. That still was not enough to compensate for the burden of the war. Since 2011 Jordan's public debt increased from 70% to 95% of its GDP. Its budget deficit this year will likely top $1 billion.

This year Saudi Arabia held back. It gave no money for Jordan. With Trump ruling in Washington the U.S. payments are in doubt. Jordan took out a $723 million IMF loan but it came with strings attached. The IMF demands austerity from the Jordan state. Since the beginning of this year taxes on basic food staples increased by 50 to 100 percent. There were five increases of fuel prices. Electricity and water prices were also hiked. All that was not enough. Since last year the Prime Minister of Jordan worked on a new income tax law which would double the number of people who have to pay income tax. It would also introduce harsh measures against tax evaders.

Since May 30 Jordan has seen daily protests, seemingly over rising costs of living and the new income tax law. The protests were led by 33 trade unions who called for a general strike. The call for a strike was followed by many and the protests attracted quite large crowds. They demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister and an end of the income tax plans. Such protests are not especially extraordinary. The usual solution for such a situation is known.

After a few days of protests King Abdullah fired Prime Minister Hani Mulki who had insisted on the tax law. Usually that would have been enough. The people would go home, the law in question would be tweaked or abolished and the government would muddle through.

But not this time. The demonstrations continue. They now include chants against the monarchy. This is unusual. Very unusual.

The economic situation and the income tax law may not be the only explanation for this civil strife. There are rumors that the Saudis, or the CIA, are behind them.

On May 18 the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held an extraordinary summit in Turkey to protest against Israel's atrocities in Palestine and Trump's plans for Jerusalem. Many heads of states took part including the President of Iran and the Emir of Qatar. Saudi Arabia and its Emirate ally sent only lower level delegations. The Jordan King had been asked(machine transl.) not to attend the summit. He went anyway:

King Abdullah of Jordan told the Istanbul summit that he rejected any attempt to change the status quo of Jerusalem and its holy sites.

That comment went against the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem. It went against the Saudi-U.S. 'peace plan' which will hand Jerusalem to the Zionists. But even more important from a Saudi point of view was this picture.

King Abdullah not only shook hands with Iran's President Rohani but the two also held the first top level talks between Jordan and Iran in 15 years:

The Iranian and Jordanian heads of state have reportedly held a brief meeting on the sidelines of an special summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Turkey.
...
King Abdullah II is a pro-Western monarch but Amman’s ties with the US and Saudi Arabia have recently been shaken over the issue of Palestine.

Riyadh’s reported coziness to Israel has worried Jordan which is in charge of the major Muslim shrine complex on the Temple Mount, the al-Aqsa Mosque.

The Trump administration and the Saudi Clown Prince Muhammad bin Salman want Jordan to agree to their 'peace plan' with Israel. The Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem would come under Israeli control and would be endangered. Jewish fanatics plan to build a 'third Jewish temple' over the Al-Aqsa mosque. (There is no proof that a first or second temple was ever there.) Any such agreement thus threatens the legitimacy of the Hashemite King.

The lack of financial support from Saudi Arabia and the unusual demonstrations in Jordan are supposed to put pressure on King Abdullah. The Saudis and the U.S. want him to submit under the dirty deal they made with the Zionists. If Abdullah does not go along with the Saudi/U.S. plans he will have to leave. If he goes along he will lose his legitimacy.

There is one alternative. King Abdullah could change sides. He can ask Iran (or Qatar? Or maybe even Russia?) for financial support. A few billions will do. They could come in the form of industrial investments. In exchange for such economic support he would have to commit to the 'resistance' side. He would have to stop his support for the war on Syria. He would have to lower his relations with Saudi Arabia and take a stronger position against Israel.

But Saudi Arabia is still a neighbor of Jordan and rich. Many Jordanians work there. The U.S. protects Jordan from Israel. It is thus unlikely that Abdullah would openly take such a big step towards Iran. But there are probably ways and means to slowly move into a more neutral position.

Wherever the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have started conflicts and wars - in Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen and Syria - Iran has won. The Saudi pressure on Jordan might have a similar effect.

Posted by b on June 7, 2018 at 02:15 PM | Permalink .

About the Author

"b" is a funding editor of the Moon of Alabama website.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

America’s Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Editor says: Indisputably, as virulent carriers of the capitalist disease, the Anglo-American axis is one of the most toxic and insidious entities in history. And "neoliberal economics", as used by the author in this piece, is nothing but savage, unfettered capitalism, allowed to do and roam as it pleases, encouraged to follow its destructive inner dynamic till it consumes the host, like a lethal parasite, which is exactly what it is.

This is the lecture I would have given if I had been able to accept the invitation to address the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia this weekend.— Paul Craig Roberts

Executive Summary: From the standpoint of Russia’s dilemma, this is an important column. Putin’s partial impotence via-a-vis Washington is due to the grip that neoliberal economics exercises over the Russian government. Putin cannot break with the West, because he believes that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia’s integration within the Western economy. That is what neoliberal economics tells the Russian economic and financial establishment.

Good statesman as Putin may be, we are beginning to believe he really doesn't "get it" when it comes to the threat represented by the treacherous, arch-capitalist West. Since March, all we see is one misstep after another.

Everyone should understand that I am not a pro-Russian anti-American. I am anti-war, especially nuclear war. My concern is that the inability of the Russian government to put its foot down is due to its belief that Russian development, despite all the talk about the Eurasian partnership and the Silk Road, is dependent on being integrated with the West. This totally erroneous belief prevents the Russian government from any decisive break with the West. Consequently, Putin continues to accept provocations in order to avoid a decisive break that would cut Russia off from the West. In Washington and the UK this is interpreted as a lack of resolve on Putin’s part and encourages an escalation in provocations that will intensify until Russia’s only option is surrender or war.

If the Russian government did not believe that it needed the West, the government could give stronger responses to provocations that would make clear that there are limits to what Russia will tolerate. It would also make Europe aware that its existence hangs in the balance. The combination of Trump abusing Europe and Europe’s recognition of the threat to its own existence of its alignment with an aggressive Washington would break the Western alliance and NATO. But Putin cannot bring this about because he erroneously believes that Russia needs the West.

America’s Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia

If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America’s Fifth Column—Neoliberal Economics—finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country’s economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a [seeming] helping hand.

In reality the helping hand was a grasping hand. The hand grasped Russian resources through privatization and gave control to American-friendly oligarchs. Russian economists had no clue about how financial capitalism in its neoliberal guise strips economies of their assets while loading them up with debt.

Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors’ pay and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education.

But worse happened. Russia’s economists were brainwashed into an economic way of thinking that serves Western imperialism.

For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia’s currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble’s value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments.

Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West.

As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia’s foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/28/can-russia-learn-from-brazils-fate-paul-craig-roberts-and-michael-hudson/

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/10/russias-weakness-is-its-economic-policy-paul-craig-roberts-and-michael-hudson/

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/02/08/privatization-is-the-atlanticist-strategy-to-attack-russia-paul-craig-roberts-and-michael-hudson/

Indeed, it is the Russian government’s mistaken belief that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia being included as part of the West that has caused Putin to accept the provocations and humiliations that the West has heaped upon Russia. The lack of response to these provocations will eventually cause the Russian government to lose the support of the nationalist elements in Russia.

Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia’s sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia’s economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia’s economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development.

Russian economists are so indoctrinated with neoliberal economics that they cannot even look to America to see how a once great economy has been completely destroyed by neoliberal economics.

The US has the largest public debt of any country in history. The US has the largest trade and budget deficits of any country in history. The US has 22 percent unemployment, which it hides by not counting among the unemployed millions of discouraged workers who, unable to find jobs, ceased looking for jobs and are arbitrarily excluded from the measure of unemployment. The US has a retired class that has been stripped of any interest payment on their savings for a decade, because it was more important to the Federal Reserve to bail out the bad loans of a handful of “banks too big to fail,” banks that became too big to fail because of the deregulation fostered by neoliberal economics. By misrepresenting “free trade” and “globalism,” neoliberal economics sent America’s manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs abroad where wages were lower, thus boosting the incomes of owners at the expense of the incomes of US wage-earners, leaving Americans with the lowly paid domestic service jobs of a Third World country. Real median family income in the US has been stagnant for decades. The Federal Reserve recently reported that Americans are so poor that 41 percent of the population cannot raise $400 without selling personal possessions.

Young Americans, if they have university educations, begin life as debt slaves. Currently there are 44,200,000 Americans with student loan debt totalling $1,048,000,000,000 — $1.48 trillion!https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/

In the US all 50 states have publicly supported universities where tuition is supposed to be nominal in order to encourage education. When I went to Georgia Tech, a premier engineering school, my annual tuition was less than $500. Loans were not needed and did not exist.

What happened? Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors’ pay and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education. With so many of the well-paying jobs moved offshore by neoliberal economics, the jobs available cannot service the student loan debts. A large percentage of Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents, because their jobs do not pay enough to service their student loan debt and pay an apartment rent. Debt prevents them from living an independent existence.

In America the indebtedness of the population produced by neoliberal economics—privatize, privatize, deregulate, deregulate, indebt, indebt—prevents any economic growth as the American public has no discretionary income after debt service to drive the economy. In America the way cars, trucks, and SUVs are sold is via zero downpayment and seven years of loans. From the minute a vehicle is purchased, the loan obligation exceeds the value of the vehicle.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Meru, a dentist earning $225,000 annually, has $1,060,945.42 in student loan debt. He pays $1,589.97 monthly, which is not enough to cover the interest, much less reduce the principal. Consequently, his debt from seven years at the University of Southern California grows by $130 per day. In two decades, his loan balance will be $2 million. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975

If neoliberal economics does not work for America, why will it work for Russia? Neoliberal economics only works for oligarchs and their institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, who are bankrolled by the central bank to keep the economy partially afloat. Washington will agree to Russia being integrated into the Western system when Putin agrees to resurrect the Yeltsin-era practice of permitting Western financial institutions to strip Russia of her assets while loading her up with debt.

I could continue at length about the junk economics, to use Michael Hudson’s term, that is neoliberal economics. The United States is failing because of it, and so will Russia.

John Bolton and the neocons should just relax. Neoliberal economics, which has the Russian financial interests, the Russian government and apparently Putin himself in its grip, will destroy Russia without war.

PCR with feline children.

About the Author

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]