The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPepe Escobar Archive
Can China and Russia Squeeze Washington Out of Eurasia?
The Future of a Beijing-Moscow-Berlin Alliance
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A specter haunts the fast-aging “New American Century”: the possibility of a future Beijing-Moscow-Berlin strategic trade and commercial alliance. Let’s call it the BMB.

Its likelihood is being seriously discussed at the highest levels in Beijing and Moscow, and viewed with interest in Berlin, New Delhi, and Tehran. But don’t mention it inside Washington’s Beltway or at NATO headquarters in Brussels. There, the star of the show today and tomorrow is the new Osama bin Laden: Caliph Ibrahim, aka Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the elusive, self-appointed beheading prophet of a new mini-state and movement that has provided an acronym feast — ISIS/ISIL/IS — for hysterics in Washington and elsewhere.

No matter how often Washington remixes its Global War on Terror, however, the tectonic plates of Eurasian geopolitics continue to shift, and they’re not going to stop just because American elites refuse to accept that their historically brief “unipolar moment” is on the wane. For them, the closing of the era of “full spectrum dominance,” as the Pentagon likes to call it, is inconceivable. After all, the necessity for the indispensable nation to control all space — military, economic, cultural, cyber, and outer — is little short of a religious doctrine. Exceptionalist missionaries don’t do equality. At best, they do “coalitions of the willing” like the one crammed with “over 40 countries” assembled to fight ISIS/ISIL/IS and either applauding (and plotting) from the sidelines or sending the odd plane or two toward Iraq or Syria.

NATO, which unlike some of its members won’t officially fight Jihadistan, remains a top-down outfit controlled by Washington. It’s never fully bothered to take in the European Union (EU) or considered allowing Russia to “feel” European. As for the Caliph, he’s just a minor diversion. A postmodern cynic might even contend that he was an emissary sent onto the global playing field by China and Russia to take the eye of the planet’s hyperpower off the ball.

Divide and Isolate

So how does full spectrum dominance apply when two actual competitor powers, Russia and China, begin to make their presences felt? Washington’s approach to each — in Ukraine and in Asian waters — might be thought of as divide and isolate.

In order to keep the Pacific Ocean as a classic “American lake,” the Obama administration has been “pivoting” back to Asia for several years now. This has involved only modest military moves, but an immodest attempt to pit Chinese nationalism against the Japanese variety, while strengthening alliances and relations across Southeast Asia with a focus on South China Sea energy disputes. At the same time, it has moved to lock a future trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), in place.

In Russia’s western borderlands, the Obama administration has stoked the embers of regime change in Kiev into flames (fanned by local cheerleaders Poland and the Baltic nations) and into what clearly looked, to Vladimir Putin and Russia’s leadership, like an existential threat to Moscow. Unlike the U.S., whose sphere of influence (and military bases) are global, Russia was not to retain any significant influence in its former near abroad, which, when it comes to Kiev, is not for most Russians, “abroad” at all.

For Moscow, it seemed as if Washington and its NATO allies were increasingly interested in imposing a new Iron Curtain on their country from the Baltic to the Black Sea, with Ukraine simply as the tip of the spear. In BMB terms, think of it as an attempt to isolate Russia and impose a new barrier to relations with Germany. The ultimate aim would be to split Eurasia, preventing future moves toward trade and commercial integration via a process not controlled through Washington.

From Beijing’s point of view, the Ukraine crisis was a case of Washington crossing every imaginable red line to harass and isolate Russia. To its leaders, this looks like a concerted attempt to destabilize the region in ways favorable to American interests, supported by a full range of Washington’s elite from neocons and Cold War “liberals” to humanitarian interventionists in the Susan Rice and Samantha Power mold. Of course, if you’ve been following the Ukraine crisis from Washington, such perspectives seem as alien as any those of any Martian. But the world looks different from the heart of Eurasia than it does from Washington — especially from a rising China with its newly minted “Chinese dream” (Zhongguo meng).

As laid out by President Xi Jinping, that dream would include a future network of Chinese-organized new Silk Roads that would create the equivalent of a Trans-Asian Express for Eurasian commerce. So if Beijing, for instance, feels pressure from Washington and Tokyo on the naval front, part of its response is a two-pronged, trade-based advance across the Eurasian landmass, one prong via Siberia and the other through the Central Asian “stans.”

In this sense, though you wouldn’t know it if you only followed the American media or “debates” in Washington, we’re potentially entering a new world. Once upon a time not so long ago, Beijing’s leadership was flirting with the idea of rewriting the geopolitical/economic game side by side with the U.S., while Putin’s Moscow hinted at the possibility of someday joining NATO. No longer. Today, the part of the West that both countries are interested in is a possible future Germany no longer dominated by American power and Washington’s wishes.

Moscow has, in fact, been involved in no less than half a century of strategic dialogue with Berlin that has included industrial cooperation and increasing energy interdependence. In many quarters of the Global South this has been noted and Germany is starting to be viewed as “the sixth BRICS” power (after Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

In the midst of global crises ranging from Syria to Ukraine, Berlin’s geostrategic interests seem to be slowly diverging from Washington’s. German industrialists, in particular, appear eager to pursue unlimited commercial deals with Russia and China. These might set their country on a path to global power unlimited by the EU’s borders and, in the long term, signal the end of the era in which Germany, however politely dealt with, was essentially an American satellite.

It will be a long and winding road. The Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, is still addicted to a strong Atlanticist agenda and a preemptive obedience to Washington. There are still tens of thousands of American soldiers on German soil. Yet, for the first time, German chancellor Angela Merkel has been hesitating when it comes to imposing ever-heavier sanctions on Russia over the situation in Ukraine, because no fewer than 300,000 German jobs depend on relations with that country. Industrial leaders and the financial establishment have already sounded the alarm, fearing such sanctions would be totally counterproductive.

China’s Silk Road Banquet


China’s new geopolitical power play in Eurasia has few parallels in modern history. The days when the “Little Helmsman” Deng Xiaoping insisted that the country “keep a low profile” on the global stage are long gone. Of course, there are disagreements and conflicting strategies when it comes to managing the country’s hot spots: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, the South China Sea, competitors India and Japan, and problematic allies like North Korea and Pakistan. And popular unrest in some Beijing-dominated “peripheries” is growing to incendiary levels.

The country’s number one priority remains domestic and focused on carrying out President Xi’s economic reforms, while increasing “transparency” and fighting corruption within the ruling Communist Party. A distant second is the question of how to progressively hedge against the Pentagon’s “pivot” plans in the region — via the build-up of a blue-water navy, nuclear submarines, and a technologically advanced air force — without getting so assertive as to freak out Washington’s “China threat”-minded establishment.

Meanwhile, with the U.S. Navy controlling global sea lanes for the foreseeable future, planning for those new Silk Roads across Eurasia is proceeding apace. The end result should prove a triumph of integrated infrastructure — roads, high-speed rail, pipelines, ports — that will connect China to Western Europe and the Mediterranean Sea, the old Roman imperial Mare Nostrum, in every imaginable way.

In a reverse Marco Polo-style journey, remixed for the Google world, one key Silk Road branch will go from the former imperial capital Xian to Urumqi in Xinjiang Province, then through Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey’s Anatolia, ending in Venice. Another will be a maritime Silk Road starting from Fujian province and going through the Malacca strait, the Indian Ocean, Nairobi in Kenya, and finally all the way to the Mediterranean via the Suez canal. Taken together, it’s what Beijing refers to as the Silk Road Economic Belt.

China’s strategy is to create a network of interconnections among no less than five key regions: Russia (the key bridge between Asia and Europe), the Central Asian “stans,” Southwest Asia (with major roles for Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey), the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe (including Belarus, Moldova, and depending upon its stability, Ukraine). And don’t forget Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, which could be thought of as Silk Road plus.

Silk Road plus would involve connecting the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor to the China-Pakistan economic corridor, and could offer Beijing privileged access to the Indian Ocean. Once again, a total package — roads, high-speed rail, pipelines, and fiber optic networks — would link the region to China.

Xi himself put the India-China connection in a neat package of images in an op-ed he published in the Hindu prior to his recent visit to New Delhi. “The combination of the ‘world’s factory’ and the ‘world’s back office,’” he wrote, “will produce the most competitive production base and the most attractive consumer market.”

The central node of China’s elaborate planning for the Eurasian future is Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang Province and the site of the largest commercial fair in Central Asia, the China-Eurasia Fair. Since 2000, one of Beijing’s top priorities has been to urbanize that largely desert but oil-rich province and industrialize it, whatever it takes. And what it takes, as Beijing sees it, is the hardcore Sinicization of the region — with its corollary, the suppression of any possibility of ethnic Uighur dissent. People’s Liberation Army General Li Yazhou has, in these terms, described Central Asia as “the most subtle slice of cake donated by the sky to modern China.”

Most of China’s vision of a new Eurasia tied to Beijing by every form of transport and communication was vividly detailed in “Marching Westwards: The Rebalancing of China’s Geostrategy,” a landmark 2012 essay published by scholar Wang Jisi of the Center of International and Strategic Studies at Beijing University. As a response to such a future set of Eurasian connections, the best the Obama administration has come up with is a version of naval containment from the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea, while sharpening conflicts with and strategic alliances around China from Japan to India. (NATO is, of course, left with the task of containing Russia in Eastern Europe.)

An Iron Curtain vs. Silk Roads

The $400 billion “gas deal of the century,” signed by Putin and the Chinese president last May, laid the groundwork for the building of the Power of Siberia pipeline, already under construction in Yakutsk. It will bring a flood of Russian natural gas onto the Chinese market. It clearly represents just the beginning of a turbocharged, energy-based strategic alliance between the two countries. Meanwhile, German businessmen and industrialists have been noting another emerging reality: as much as the final market for made-in-China products traveling on future new Silk Roads will be Europe, the reverse also applies. In one possible commercial future, China is slated to become Germany’s top trading partner by 2018, surging ahead of both the U.S. and France.

A potential barrier to such developments, welcomed in Washington, is Cold War 2.0, which is already tearing not NATO, but the EU apart. In the EU of this moment, the anti-Russian camp includes Great Britain, Sweden, Poland, Romania, and the Baltic nations. Italy and Hungary, on the other hand, can be counted in the pro-Russian camp, while a still unpredictable Germany is the key to whether the future will hold a new Iron Curtain or “Go East” mindset. For this, Ukraine remains the key. If it is successfully Finlandized (with significant autonomy for its regions), as Moscow has been proposing — a suggestion that is anathema to Washington — the Go-East path will remain open. If not, a BMB future will be a dicier proposition.

It should be noted that another vision of the Eurasian economic future is also on the horizon. Washington is attempting to impose a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on Europe and a similar Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Asia. Both favor globalizing American corporations and their aim is visibly to impede the ascent of the BRICS economies and the rise of other emerging markets, while solidifying American global economic hegemony.


Two stark facts, carefully noted in Moscow, Beijing, and Berlin, suggest the hardcore geopolitics behind these two “commercial” pacts. The TPP excludes China and the TTIP excludes Russia. They represent, that is, the barely disguised sinews of a future trade/monetary war. On my own recent travels, I have had quality agricultural producers in Spain, Italy, and France repeatedly tell me that TTIP is nothing but an economic version of NATO, the military alliance that China’s Xi Jinping calls, perhaps wishfully, an “obsolete structure.”

There is significant resistance to the TTIP among many EU nations (especially in the Club Med countries of southern Europe), as there is against the TPP among Asian nations (especially Japan and Malaysia). It is this that gives the Chinese and the Russians hope for their new Silk Roads and a new style of trade across the Eurasian heartland backed by a Russian-supported Eurasian Union. To this, key figures in German business and industrial circles, for whom relations with Russia remain essential, are paying close attention.

After all, Berlin has not shown overwhelming concern for the rest of the crisis-ridden EU (three recessions in five years). Via a much-despised troika — the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Commission — Berlin is, for all practical purposes, already at the helm of Europe, thriving, and looking east for more.

Three months ago, German chancellor Angela Merkel visited Beijing. Hardly featured in the news was the political acceleration of a potentially groundbreaking project: an uninterrupted high-speed rail connection between Beijing and Berlin. When finally built, it will prove a transportation and trade magnet for dozens of nations along its route from Asia to Europe. Passing through Moscow, it could become the ultimate Silk Road integrator for Europe and perhaps the ultimate nightmare for Washington.

“Losing” Russia

In a blaze of media attention, the recent NATO summit in Wales yielded only a modest “rapid reaction force” for deployment in any future Ukraine-like situations. Meanwhile, the expanding Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a possible Asian counterpart to NATO, met in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. In Washington and Western Europe essentially no one noticed. They should have. There, China, Russia, and four Central Asian “stans” agreed to add an impressive set of new members: India, Pakistan, and Iran. The implications could be far-reaching. After all, India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi is now on the brink of its own version of Silk Road mania. Behind it lies the possibility of a “Chindia” economic rapprochement, which could change the Eurasian geopolitical map. At the same time, Iran is also being woven into the “Chindia” fold.

So the SCO is slowly but surely shaping up as the most important international organization in Asia. It’s already clear that one of its key long-term objectives will be to stop trading in U.S. dollars, while advancing the use of the petroyuan and petroruble in the energy trade. The U.S., of course, will never be welcomed into the organization.

All of this lies in the future, however. In the present, the Kremlin keeps signaling that it once again wants to start talking with Washington, while Beijing has never wanted to stop. Yet the Obama administration remains myopically embedded in its own version of a zero-sum game, relying on its technological and military might to maintain an advantageous position in Eurasia. Beijing, however, has access to markets and loads of cash, while Moscow has loads of energy. Triangular cooperation between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow would undoubtedly be — as the Chinese would say — a win-win-win game, but don’t hold your breath.

Instead, expect China and Russia to deepen their strategic partnership, while pulling in other Eurasian regional powers. Beijing has bet the farm that the U.S./NATO confrontation with Russia over Ukraine will leave Vladimir Putin turning east. At the same time, Moscow is carefully calibrating what its ongoing reorientation toward such an economic powerhouse will mean. Someday, it’s possible that voices of sanity in Washington will be wondering aloud how the U.S. “lost” Russia to China.

In the meantime, think of China as a magnet for a new world order in a future Eurasian century. The same integration process Russia is facing, for instance, seems increasingly to apply to India and other Eurasian nations, and possibly sooner or later to a neutral Germany as well. In the endgame of such a process, the U.S. might find itself progressively squeezed out of Eurasia, with the BMB emerging as a game-changer. Place your bets soon. They’ll be called in by 2025.

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT, and a TomDispatch regular. His new book, Empire of Chaos , will be published in November by Nimble Books. Follow him on Facebook.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Russia 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Insightful article, and great to see you publishing on Unz, Pepe. Maybe your next piece could incorporate Ryan Dawson? One thing I still don’t understand in the context of the above is whether Japan and South Korea will remain unshakably captured by the Anglosphere, or whether there will be any temptation to flirt with this waxing coalition.

    • Replies: @Pseudonymic Handle
  2. Phronimo says:

    Pepe – I am a follower of your very interesting geopolitical articles. I agree that German business is fed up with Merkel’s knee-jerk pro-Americanism, but something that no-one realises or at least no-one writes about is the fact that German business is also fed up with the mill-stone that is the Eurozone and the EU. In that context the new Russian situation is an opportunity for them. While you say that Germany might join the Russia-China axis, Germany qua nation-state shouldn’t be confounded with German business.
    In this whole thing, Russia is streets ahead of China, although it is a smaller economy with admittedly some demographic and economic problems. But Putin also sees the opportunity in his new situation, and he has done two remarkably intelligent things: (i) although the highest-grade military equipment is on the development agenda for Russia for deterrence purposes- WAR is off the agenda and Putin has made that clear. The East European countries will continue to sound the Russia alarm bells because that gets them a lot of free money – but its all a mere distraction. Putin has announced PEACE, and more to the point in the latest St Petersburg business conference, he has announced INDUSTRIAL GROWTH. (ii) he is letting the ruble collapse and, despite US claims that Russia is going to have to put in capital controls (which is what the Washington consensus expects, just like they expected Putin to attack Kiev militarily and he didn’t oblige), the Russia Central Bank is denying that it has any plans to institute capital controls. What the Russians are therefore saying to German business: how cheap do you want the ruble to get before you start investing much more into Russia – in fact switch the majority of your operations here? As many Russian oligarchs high-tail it to their London Mayfair pads and put their money into Western banks, other investors will take their place in Russia. But even for Russian oligarchs, as the ruble collapses, it becomes less and less attractive for them to take their money out. Also, in an era of repressive finance, where exactly can they get returns like the returns they can get in Russia?
    Putin is thus restructuring the money-creating elite of the future in Russia and this is going to be the foundation of the new Russian state and its long-term economic-financial foundation.
    So with the new economic situation, with the now endless supply of East-Ukrainian skilled workers, and the traditionally fantastic educational and research base that Russia has in the sciences, it is no brainer that only German but all rational European business, and Chinese business for that matter, will start up high-tech factories in Russia. China is more difficult to invest it, and in many sectors is almost played out. India, despite everything, is still incredibly corrupt and inefficient. So it looks like Russia might become the driving force of the SCO

  3. Quercus says:

    In response to the article’s title — I do hope so, I do fervently hope so.

  4. I wonder why people in the Far East having a good life and decent economic growth is considered as such a threat to Western powers.

  5. Another insightful piece by “roving eye” Pepe Escobar. His geopolitical analysis is worth its weight in gold.

    Only a few minor comments/quibbles:

    As for the Caliph, he’s just a minor diversion. A postmodern cynic might even contend that he was an emissary sent onto the global playing field by China and Russia to take the eye of the planet’s hyperpower off the ball.

    Alternatively, a “postmodern cynic” might contend that the new ‘caliph’ is an emissary of Saudi Arabia, intended to get Obama to drop his opposition to boots-on-the-ground and attack Syria.

    In order to keep the Pacific Ocean as a classic “American lake,” the Obama administration has been “pivoting” back to Asia for several years now. This has involved only modest military moves, but an immodest attempt to pit Chinese nationalism against the Japanese variety, while strengthening alliances and relations across Southeast Asia with a focus on South China Sea energy disputes.

    The ‘Asia pivot’ also seems to involve something else that the neocons love so much: color revolutions. A variety of sources have revealed the NED/NDI links to Hong Kong’s ‘Occupy Central’. Just last spring, in fact, none other than Paul Wolfowitz was spotted boarding a yacht in Taiwan with Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, a Hong Kong media-magnate who owns the pro-Washington Apple Daily newspaper. China did miss the chance to condemn this:

    And popular unrest in some Beijing-dominated “peripheries” is growing to incendiary levels.

    Things may yet get more “incendiary” still in China. Some sources have reported that ISIS is now grooming Uighurs (and Chechens) for leadership positions in the Syrian/Iraqi war. Presumably, they can be smuggled back into China/Russia to foment terrorism and political instability in those countries.

  6. Sean says:

    Russia and China are natural enemies, given the border disputes, immigration – infiltration and crucial background fact that they are both serous potential threats to each other (the two toughest guys on the block), one should be able to predict that one is going to make an alliance with the US. However Russia has natural resources and China needs them, so they are economically symbiotic for the moment. But the US also seems tied into China economically. China has money to buy resources from Russia and loan to the US. It is becoming rather obvious China is well on the way to turning into a Mega state, which Russia and the US will both fear.

    • Replies: @Bill M
  7. Perhaps you should rewrite this article about how powerful China and Russia are after their elites stop trying to export their money out of their countries.

    That’s if they stop

  8. Unit472 says:

    A ridiculous attempt to weave Russian straw into gold. Let’s face it Russia is to China as Canada or the UK is to the US except they are not even culturally and linguistically close. Russian GDP is about 1/5 of China’s and its population barely 10%. Russia is closer to Pakistan than Germany in geopolitical terms, a large but poor country of 142 million with nuclear weapons in the case of Russia , a large poor country of 195 million with nuclear weapons in the case of Pakistan. The Germans? Well their economy is more than 1.5 times the size of Russia’s and, whatever trade they do with Russia, it is dwarfed by their trade with their EU partners and the Anglosphere. BMW and Mercedes aren’t going to be telling Angela Merkel to let them sell expensive cars to a small Russian elite if it means they lose the North American and UK market! These are the economic realities.

    The potentialities. Well, the Power of Siberia pipeline might get built, but not by 2019 if Putin is running things. The largest suppliers of large diameter steel pipe to Russia happens to be the steel industry in the Donbass which, you may have noticed, is not producing much of anything these days. With Russia cut off from Western finance and fracking technology, building that pipeline and developing the gas fields to supply it has also got some problems. Russia could ask China to for help but if Russia won’t allow Western oil and gas companies to hold majority stakes in Russian energy projects you think Putin is going to let Chinese companies set up shop in Russia’s Far East where only 8 million Russians live and to which China has territorial claims.

    I have had enough. This article is fantasy driven by its writers hopes not the real world.

  9. @Anonymous


    South Korea is using shared anti-japanese sentiment to become politically closer to China. The chinese president visited Seoul again a month ago and he has a lot to offer including being the only person who can influence North Korea. I think it was the 5th meeting between the current SK and China presidents in the last 2 years. Of course, this doesn’t mean that SK will abandon it’s alliance with Washington for Beijing, it will just try to profit from relations with both.

    I think this is the main point. Nobody is interested in becoming vassal to China, but the reborn Eurasian trade could offer to many nations more breathing space away from the American Empire.

  10. Sam J. says:

    What’s left unsaid is WHY we want Russian and China to be against each other. We’re running the same geopolitical theory as the British did years ago, namely “The Geographical Pivot of History” by Halford John Mackinder in 1904. The idea being that the area in central Europe is a pivot to the super continent of Europe-Russia-Asia combined and anyone controlling all the super continent would control the World.

    A good theory except presently it’s wrong. It used to be correct but technology changed. Now whoever controls space controls the world island.

    So what we’re doing is stupid and strategically worthless. Supposedly the amount of energy to get to low Earth orbit is something like the fuel cost to go from San Francisco to Australia. Many very smart fellows have said we can build a single stage to orbit(SSTO) and we know we can build a two stage to orbit reusable craft. With such we could bomb anything on the planet with hypersonic rock falls. Nothing larger than a dinghy could travel the Oceans. We don’t need the Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Europe, etc.

  11. Brian says:

    The American people want peace and prosperity, despite what he Beltway elite pursue. How can the American people be better represented toward that end? That is, primarily de-escalation (no war) in the South China Sea or in Ukraine? More peaceful trade with Russia and China is good for everyone. Who or what is behind this, and how do we return to a traditional American foreign policy of peace and trade?
    Thanks for your great article.

  12. Tom Welsh says:

    “Someday, it’s possible that voices of sanity in Washington will be wondering aloud how the U.S. “lost” Russia to China”.

    There are voices of sanity in Washington? Why weren’t we told??

  13. Tom Welsh says:

    “The American people want peace and prosperity, despite what he Beltway elite pursue. How can the American people be better represented toward that end?”

    Maybe they need to carry out a revolution and replace their present government with some form of democracy.

  14. Bill M says:

    What the US wants is major internal political change, effectively political revolution, within Russia or China that would remove Putin or the CCP and replace them with an American client regime. With an American client regime in either Russia or China, the US would then be able to completely isolate the remaining power and achieve global hegemony.

    What Putin and the CCP want are stable, friendly relations with the mutual goal of thwarting American global hegemony. Putin or the CCP may ally with the US to defend against the other, but that’s if the other becomes a larger threat than American global hegemony. And they want to ally with the US on their own or on mutual terms, rather than by completely acquiescing to the US and US organized globalization.

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Things are changing, at the moment towards violence as substitution for policy.

    From my point of view (Hamburg, Germany with commercial ties to Russia) things looks a little different as the authors view.

    At first, the only one who is in needs of “global sea lanes” is called USA. Europe and Asia can do Onshore or by plane, and they do. But USA, thousands of nautical miles away from all the others, can’t leave them alone. The other way around, nobody cares about the US troublemakers. And after they give all the technology to china, nobody needs them (anymore).

    At second, this Ukrainian Adventure game is out of control. Mainly for western politicians who made a disastrous job. It was a bad idea to sting the Russian bear with the idiotic Maidan Amateur putsch. Now they try to hide this by claiming Russia in a manner of child’s at Kindergarten age.
    It’s an easy game for the Russian government this “aus zu Lavieren”. And they made a lough at it.

    We can buy technology? OK, than you can’t sale “Apples” 😉 and vegetables. You have a no flight list? OK we too, but we don’t tell you who is on it.

    At third, nearly nobody in Russia wants to integrate East European countries to the RF. They where needed as buffer in cold war I, were costly and the outcome was not really much more than hate and anger against Russia (doubtless with a lot of reasons). But they know what happened with Iraq, Vietnam, Palestine, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, Nicaragua, Egypt, Lebanon … .

    And Last but not least. Russia has all the Energy and raw materials the rest of the world needs. And an Army too.

    The Situation is not comparable with the roman empire. This was an high intelligent system. Based on cultural autonomy of the subjected territories and a give and take policy. It lasted for centuries.

    The USA are different. Everywhere they are plundered devastated regions are the main view. But the benefit is a growing money debt in Washington D.C.

    This is more comparable with Spain at times of the Conquistadores. At that time the gold inrush triggered an import orientated consumer state which has lost nearly all of its industry. After the gold streams dried out this leaves a country which didn’t have the money to buy the needed good. Spain lost all trade channels and declined for centuries.

    You can’t eat from an iPhone,
    if it’s “Made in China”.

  16. Billy O says:

    It’s a natural. A united Eurasia, with the USA sidelined. I love it! The UK? Welcome if they behave.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pepe Escobar Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World