The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ray McGovern Archive
The Great Power Shift: A Russia-China Alliance
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow 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

Top Russian and Chinese leaders are busy comparing notes, coordinating their approach to President Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg this weekend. Both sides are heralding the degree to which ties between the two countries have improved in recent years, as Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visits Moscow on his way to the G20. And, they are not just blowing smoke; there is ample substance behind the rhetoric.

Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America’s triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser.

Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington’s distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions that have pushed the two countries closer together.

But there is little sign that today’s U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air.

Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.

But consider this: it may soon be possible to foresee a Chinese challenge to “U.S. interests” in the South China Sea or even the Taiwan Strait in tandem with a U.S.-Russian clash in the skies over Syria or a showdown in Ukraine.

A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington’s behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built.

It’s almost like the old days when the U.S. military budgeted to fight wars on multiple fronts simultaneously. Recent weeks saw the following:

–The guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem on Sunday sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-claimed Triton Island in the Paracels in the South China Sea. The Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately branded this “a serious political and military provocation.”

–The U.S. last week announced a $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, placed sanctions on a Chinese bank for its dealings with North Korea, and labeled China the world’s worst human trafficker.

–On June 20, President Donald Trump sent off a condescending tweet intimating that, at his request, China had tried but failed to help restrain North Korea’s nuclear program: “It has not worked out. At least I know China tried.” (Over the centuries, the Chinese have had bad experience with Western condescension.)

Common Concern: Missile Defense

On the eve of his arrival in Moscow, Xi gave an interview to Russia’s TASS news agency, in which he focused on missile defense – an issue particularly close to Vladimir Putin’s heart. Xi focused on U.S. deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles to South Korea as “disrupting the strategic balance in the region” and threatening the security interests of all countries in the region, including Russia and China.

Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea’s new President will react more sensibly than his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February, Professor J. J. Suh and I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective of missile defense systems.]

Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting now under way in Moscow would be “a major event in bilateral relations.”

The Russian leader added, “By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral relations and the international agenda.”

If Sino-Russian “tradition” is meant to describe relations further back than three decades ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon.

Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA’s principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington’s advantage.

The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called “unequal treaties” dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides.

In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in the 1950s and refused to recognize the country’s communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China.

Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington.

Triangular Diplomacy

Washington’s adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam.

It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was.

Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon’s first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon.

Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S.

The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S. bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time.

We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong’s and Nikita Khrushchev’s successors proved to have cooler heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening.

Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that “normalization” of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China’s conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington.

A New Reality

Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached “unparalleled heights.” He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves.

A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to U.S. hegemony as the world’s unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia’s borders and President Obama’s “pivot to Asia.”

The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea’s request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev.

On the global stage, Putin fleshed out the earlier energy deal with China, including a massive 30-year natural gas contract valued at $400 billion. The move helped Putin demonstrate that the West’s post-Ukraine economic sanctions posed little threat to Russia’s financial survival.

As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other.

The sports slogan has it that nothing is over “until the fat lady sings,” but on this topic, her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is no more.

One perhaps can hope that someone in the U.S. government will inform President Trump that his Russian and Chinese counterparts are singing from essentially the same songbook, the unintended result of arrogant miscalculations by his immediate predecessors. Implications for U.S. national security are enormous.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected]. A version of this article first appeared on

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, Russia 
Hide 63 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Events this past year would make Henry Kissinger roll over in his grave, except he is somehow still alive. I remember when American diplomats and Generals were skilled and crafty. Since Bush II, they are mostly ignorant imbeciles who madly threaten and sometimes bomb other nations at will. They have a weekly meeting with the President to review the kill list of who they will assassinate each week, usually by drone but also by “Spec Ops” posted in nearly every nation. This will not end well.

  2. Headline this evening:

    US missile shield not yet ready for North Korean nukes

    Hmm, perhaps Israel could help us out? J/K..

  3. Real Time says:

    Have to love this guy. The Western nations controlled by the One World/New World Order globalist 0.1% White Collar business and banking mafia have done everything possible to take over Russia as they drool over the massive storehouse of natural treasures Russia has. Putin and the Kremlin leaders along with the military, KGB/FSB, and the Orthodox Church have no intention of allowing this conquest to happen. Currently NATO has moved troops and missiles up to the very frontiers of Russia. It has occupied Afghanistan and is moving further into the Balkans. The U.S. and E.U. have deliberately fomented trouble inside Russia and former soviet republics like Georgia, Armenia, and Ukraine to install anti-Russian puppet governments to aid in undermining Russia. When Russia responds in a very careful and restrained manner as in occupying and annexing the Crimea, which was Russian for centuries before the Communists “gave” it to Ukraine a few decades ago, the West swiftly puts harsh economic and financial sanctions on Russia and conspires with the oil and gas companies to drive prices down on Russia’s main sources of revenue. In desperation Russia is forced into the arms of her old enemy China. Now the neo cons and globalists are in an uproar over this supposed Sino-Russian Alliance—-a marriage of convenience only as China needs Russia’s natural resources at cheap prices and Russia needs China to “cover her back”. Also China is increasingly concerned about her own national sovereignty and independence from the NWO. Now Putin has sent a very clear message to the Western bandits: “Back off”. No doubt Russia supplied the icbm to North Korea that was set off to coincide with America’s Independence Day. Putin in a recent interview also pointed out that international cooperation has kept Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Russia has land borders with both North Korea and Iran and hundreds of extra icbms and atomic warheads which they could easily disassemble and send to them. Russia also has the largest military in Europe and the largest nuclear arsenal of any nation on earth. The neo-cons and banksters and crapitalists better heed the signs and back off from Russia. A word to the wise is sufficient. Unfortunately I fear there are very few wise heads in the Western One World Order hierarchy or their political prostitute puppets. I hope and pray cooler, wiser heads on all sides will prevail and World War III, which would destroy all life on this planet, does not happen.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s remarkable how well China and Russia complement one another in all aspects. The weakness of one partner is the strength of the other.

    Neither Russia nor China could resist the West on its own, but together the West has no chance to take on both.

    • Replies: @Karl
  5. That the objects of PNAC’s strategy, the AEI plan, began to cooperate should not surprise anyone, especially after Bush jr and Obama executed this strategy.
    Prof Laslo Maracs of UVA university Amsterdam explains Trump’s strategy from that he and his rich friends understand that continuing PNAC will ruin them, and the USA.
    I cannot see any implications for USA security, neither Russia nor China shows any inclination to attack the USA.

  6. Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea………

    Perhaps Xi has countenanced that Kim Jong- un being a titular minor deity through his grandfather, has millions of followers (believers) and must perform in ways that are hard for us to fathom. The West would do well to consider his standing at home and act accordingly.

    Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.

    Perhaps this was all a sideshow for the minions at home who crave to ‘study war’ above all else. Trump is a deal maker and may surprise us at the G20 by pulling off the Deal of Deals.

  7. JL says:

    Candidate Trump was very clear in highlighting the stupidity of US policy pushing Russia into China’s embrace. President Trump has continued with the same policy of antagonizing both, accelerating the very process he derided. It’s all so predictable, and depressing.

    Russia and China, on a cultural level, are rather incompatible. Russia is very much part of the West, while China is clearly East. However, on paper, each has what the other wants and needs. Russia has resources, land, and military technology, while China has manufacturing, loads of cash, and demand for Russia’s military tech.

    There is still a virulent strain of Sinophobia in Russia, especially in the military. It will probably take a generation, at least, to overcome this. It’s not clear that it will happen at all. However, if current trends continue, it will. The other possibility is that the two are forced into a closer alliance sooner by US aggression.

  8. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    But there is little sign that today’s U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action.

    What? You mean that Trump’s slumlord son-in-law and his fashion model daughter, neither having any experience in creating foreign policy, don’t have what it takes to deal with Russia and China in a meaningful, sensible way?

    As a slumlord, Jared has that ‘My way or the highway” attitude when jacking up rents and Ivanka knows that a shapely thigh can turn many a head, so they’re a fine addition to his foreign policy team!

  9. I can think of nothing better for world peace than a military alliance of Russia and China plus Iran to counter the axis of evil that is the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia.

  10. conatus says:

    I’ve got some Amur River privet in my backyard and it is a great hedge, grows like crazy, if you stick a newly cut branch in the ground sometimes it will sprout. The Amur River separates China from Russia below Siberia. It is just a river, not 3000 miles of ocean.
    And isn’t that the difference between these two Eurasian land mass countries(Russia and China) and the USA? They are right across the river from their enemies or former enemies and can be invaded at any time with little ado. However the USA has the Atlantic and Pacific between it and its competitors and has never been invaded. We live on the safest piece of real estate in the entire world and like to moralize to the entire world on what constitutes the good and the true. They on the other hand are more realistic about national motives becasue they live in a bad neighborhood where your neighbor can have an unfortunate decade and come across the river looking for someone to blame.
    Are these two more grounded countries allowed to have ‘interests’?Are China and Russia allowed to have a sphere of influence to protect them from potentially bad neighbors? Not according to the USA. And where did we get such wisdom? From spending ten times more than the Russians do on our military.
    We lied to the Russians in ’92 and expanded NATO up to their border when we promised we would not. Now I guess we should ask for brave volunteers to fight the dangerous North Koreans on the border with China. We should leave the two of them alone to their respective sphere of influence to grow their Amur River privet hedges.
    Good hedges make good neighbors.

  11. Agent76 says:

    May 13, 2017 China seeks to revive ‘Silk Road’ project

    China is looking to revive the ancient “Silk Road” trading route that would connect Asia to Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

    • Replies: @Robert Magill
  12. The only way for world peace, is to de-fang the federal reserve. Destroy the fed, and amazing things will happen. No more ‘loans’ for destruction! What a marvelous idea. Since the fed was created, all world wars have occurred, and more wars are ongoing presently.

    • Replies: @Agent76
    , @Wally
  13. Joe Wong says:
    @Real Time

    “Russia supplied the icbm to North Korea that was set off to coincide with America’s Independence Day.” that explains the miracle progress of the NK’s missile technology.

  14. Agent76 says:
    @in the middle

    You are spot on target In the middle! *All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars*

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

  15. @Agent76

    It’s well underway. Freight railservice London to Beijing started last month. Next stop North America.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  16. Wally says:
    @in the middle

    It’s revealing that The Fed resists all calls for an audit.

    They certainly don’t want US taxpayers knowing who they have ‘loaned’ money to, and on what terms.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

  17. Cyrano says:

    I think that the strategic “partnership” between Russia and China is overblown in its importance. It will exist only as long as there is the American threat. Chinese can not be trusted. Even the late Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze tried to warn the Russians before he died. He said to them: “Beware of the Chinese, they want Siberia”.

    I think that the Americans are aware that this partnership is shaky. At some point they’ll try to exploit the weakness of the partnership by wooing one of these 2 sides for a new partnership between USA and one of those other 2.

    Chinese have similar mentality to the US – they don’t care about anybody else but themselves, the only difference is that they do this not because they think that they are better than anybody else – like the Americans – but because their own interests simply come first. Russians on the other hand try to think globally – what’s best for everyone – that might not be the best approach. They should also start to think first of what’s best for them.

    • Replies: @1RW
    , @FLgeezer
    , @Anonymous
  18. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The largest holder of US debt is US citizens

  19. Jason Liu says:

    Assuming China, Russia and the USA all have relatively nationalistic leaders, is there a reason why there should be hostility between the three?

    The world is separating into nationalist countries vs globalist countries. There are now ideological factions on top of historic rivalries, and you gotta pick a side. I pick nationalism.

    If America didn’t try to push liberal democracy and its SJWish values on China and Russia, we would like you just fine.

  20. @Robert Magill

    MAY 9, 2016

    First freight trains from China arrive in Tehran

    Forty-five years ago when graduate school pals were getting jobs with US defense contractors who were selling weapons systems to Iran, our Japanese friend finished up his studies and returned to Tokyo where he helped create Japanese high-speech rail transport systems.

    US militarism (and later, devotion to a ‘special relationship” w/ you-know-who) has cost the USA more than half-a-century: while the rest of the world — China, Russia, even Iran — have moved forward, USA is still resting on WWII laurels. Even the propaganda is recycled from WWII.

    Trumpl’s speech in Poland reveals that his feet & brain are firmly cemented in that triumphalist — but dishonest — program; Michael Klare introduced another perspective on that backward vision of Dear Leader:

    Trump’s Military Nostalgia (Or Victory at Sea All Over Again)
    Rebuilding a Last-Century Military to Fight Last-Century Wars

    • Replies: @RobinG
  21. 1RW says:

    It’s entirely possible that once the US is knocked down a peg, Russia will moderate its ties with the Chinese and improve relations with the US

    Of course, right now, the US is incapable of cooperating with anyone who is a near peer, only with vassals or client states. Therefore, China and Russia must work together.

    As long as the US and China have pretensions to world hegemony, and Russia does not, it can be the arbiter of who wins. Or, how long the contest goes.

    If Europe manages to muddle thru its internal contradictions and assert its own interests then the whole geostrategic calculus will go out the window.

    But then it will be a more multipolar world than now, just what Russia wants

  22. FLgeezer says:

    >He said to them “Beware of the Chinese, they want Siberia”.

    The pending battle between the Zionist banksters and the Chinese should be epic.

  23. @Anon

    Does China hold enough US fed gov debt to cause a major problem for us, or not?

    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
  24. @Real Time

    “Russia also has the largest military in Europe and the largest nuclear arsenal of any nation on earth.”

    Really? I can believe the largest army remark without proof (russia is HUGE and other european nations let NATO be their muscle), but the largest nuclear arsenal? Really? I might be mistaken, but wouldnt that honor (lol) go to the US? unless america gave more nukes to isreal then anyone knows about, Russia doesn’t hold a candle to the american nuclear stockpile.

    • LOL: JL
    • Replies: @unseated
    , @tomgreg
    , @Avery
  25. @Anon

    At around 77%. This just means a very large financial crash is coming, and the rich will get richer, and everyone else will be left to wallow in mud and filth like the dirty peasants then expect us to be.

  26. @RadicalCenter

    If they were to “cash in”, instant financial crash. Some say it will be worse then the one in the 1920s, others think it will be more like the 2008 one.

    It would be in China’s best interest not to “cash in” tho. As soon as the chips hit the table, the US would declare war because that would be a clear sign of a foreign power intentionally destabilising our economy.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  27. unseated says:
    @Delinquent Snail

    Russia has a few more nuclear weapons than the US but the difference is not significant:

    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
  28. RobinG says:

    Deep State reacts to DPRK missile test with article in Business Insider:

    “If a nuclear bomb explodes, these are the emergency supplies you should have prepared or grab on the run.”

  29. If you want to know who controls the empire, look to the group that can play it both ways: nationalism and imperialism. All other groups must play only by the rules of imperialism.

    In the British Empire, the Brits could be patriotic & nationalist(and guard British sovereignty) but also imperialist in transgressing against the national or tribal independence & sovereignty of other peoples. Since non-Brits couldn’t insist on their own tribal or national independence/sovereignty, their only option was to submit to the imperialist agenda enforced by an external power.

    So, even though there were many races and cultures in the British Empire, the Brits ruled whereas others were ruled. Brits guarded their power and independence in the empire whereas all other groups had to succumb to British power and obey.

    And it was likewise in the Japanese Empire. Only the Japanese could be both nationalist and imperialist. Japanese territory, identity, and independence were inviolable.
    In contrast, other Asian peoples within the empire had to play by rules of imperialism. They could not have national sovereignty or independence. So, Japan wasn’t just part of the empire but its master. Empire was designed to glorify and increase Japanese pride and power at the expense of others who could only benefit as imperial subjects.

    Today, globalism is the new imperialism that mainly emanates from the US. Now, which is the ONLY group that is allowed both nationalism and imperialism in the globalist game? Some might say Americans, but that’s not true. After all, white Americans(and Europeans) are not allowed to have a racial, cultural, or national identity. Even Germans, French, Swedes, British, and Irish now must believe that there is no such thing as distinct or particular European Culture. ‘Western Values’ are now all about Diversity, Pop Culture, homomania, and opening white nations to endless tides of Third World thugs, savages, and grubsters.

    Does this mean globalism is a kind of universal imperialism where ALL nations and peoples become equally invaded and overrun and transformed?
    After all, the West easily invades and turns the Middle East upside down. And, the West is helpless to stem the invasive tide from Middle East and Africa. So, are all peoples equally helpless and victimized under globalist imperialism?

    No. There is one people and a nation that are exempt from the imperialist rule. Look at AIPAC, Israel, and Holocaust-as-religion, and Jews are clearly exempt from the imperialist rule of having to surrender -one’s identity, heritage, and nation-hood. If anything, there are more holocaust memorials going up all over Europe to spread the worship of Jews as a holy people. And if there is ONE ISSUE that both parties are agreed upon in the US, it is that we must all support Zionism and Israel, even turning a blind eye to ‘apartheid’ conditions in West Bank and war-torn ghetto conditions in Gaza.

    So, globalism is not universal imperialism that equally tramples on the national sovereignty of every people. One people are passed-over, and if anything, all nations must sing hosannas to Israel. Even as globo-Jews insist that Germany, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Baltics states must fill up with Muslims and Africans(or else be denounced as ‘far right’ or ‘nazi’ by world media), all those gentile nations must pledge in unison the utmost importance of defending, preserving, and glorifying Israel as a Jewish State.

    And even as whites must never ever fret about the loss of their identity and culture(and instead welcome non-whites as ‘new Europeans’ and ‘new Americans’ to replace them and spit on their graves), it’s perfectly fine for Jews to worry about the loss of Jewish identity as the greatest tragedy imaginable.

    So, if only the rulers of the empire can have both nationalism and imperialism, then it’s reasonable to conclude that Jews are indeed the rulers of the globalist empire as they and only they are allowed to proudly keep and guard the distinctness of their identity, history, and territory.

    • Replies: @FLgeezer
    , @Erebus
  30. Joey Zaza says:

    What do you call a swimming pool full of Americans?

    Vegetable soup.

  31. @unseated

    Thank you for that. I was mistaken. Humans as a whole need to drop that 14000+ nuclear weapon stock pile down to roughly zero nuclear weapons. Such an ugly weapon….

  32. FLgeezer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Superb, thought provoking post Priss. Thank you.

  33. Avery says:
    @Delinquent Snail

    {unless america gave more nukes to isreal then anyone knows about, Russia doesn’t hold a candle to the american nuclear stockpile.}

    Holds, and then some:

    Russia: 7,000* nukes.
    US: 6,800.

    Russia also has newer, more advanced ICBMs.

    [The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons. Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.
    The American Minuteman III ICBM, in contrast, weighs just 39 tons and carries three warheads.]**

    [As U.S. nuclear arsenal ages, other nations have modernized]
    [As Russian forces were drawing back from a swift and violent incursion into Ukraine this fall, Moscow was delivering another powerful military statement many miles to the north.

    A new 40-foot Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of delivering an unparalleled 10 nuclear warheads, was launched by a Russian navy submarine on a test run over the icy White Sea. The weapon was a clear signal to the world that as Russia battles tightening economic sanctions intended to block Moscow’s aggressive posturing on NATO’s frontiers, President Vladimir Putin has another card to play]
    [The debate over how to modernize America’s aging nuclear forces has taken on increasing urgency with the emergence of a newly assertive Russia and a new generation of nuclear powers with increasing technological sophistication.]***




    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
  34. peterAUS says:

    Don’t think it’s that clear cut and easy.

    The Empire, and Israel, are both really supported by just one thing: the US military might.
    Take that away and both Neocons and Israel Firsters are in deep trouble.

    Feeling of US exceptionalism, US nationalism, is crucial for maintaining US military cohesion.

    At the same time, too much of that and THEY have a problem.

    So, true, Jews can be as nationalistic as possible.
    The rest of peoples in the West must not.
    Except Americans. They are special case.
    Fine balancing case.

    US military rank and file voted for “America First” Trump policy.
    Top generals probably not so much.

    There is a conundrum there for powers that be.
    Too much either way they have a problem.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anarchyst
  35. Erebus says:
    @Priss Factor

    I hadn’t considered it from perspective of the tension between nationalist-imperialist cultures and attitudes, but indeed you seem to have hit and illuminated a salient point.

    Eminently clear now that the multi-polar world will limit their power to the West, and so why Russia and China are vilified.


  36. Karl says:

    4 Anonymous > It’s remarkable how well China and Russia complement one another in all aspects

    If a Russian boy makes a baby with a Chinese girl, what is the kid like?

    Answer: He drinks vodka until falling-down-drunk several times a day….. but he’s always thirsty again an hour later

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Russia is going about its business putting the world first? How noble of you.

    What kind of SJW nonsense is this. Seems like this board has been infected by Russians who need to be knocked down a peg or so.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  38. anarchyst says:

    Almost no Jews serve in the U S military. However, the sons and daughters of our Israeli-American dual-citizenship politicians and “movers and shakers” have no problem serving in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces).
    Serving in a foreign military should be absolute grounds for loss of American citizenship and immediate deportation.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @RadicalCenter
  39. anarchyst says:

    I would worry more about Israel’s nukes–even more so that North Korea. You see, Israel’s nukes do not require a “delivery system”…they are already “in place” in major American and European cities. This is the major reason why Israel refuses to account for its nukes. The “Samson Option” is very real and is a threat by Israel to the rest of the (western) world that, if Israel’s “interests” are threatened, it will “light one off” in a major American or European city.
    Probable American targets are Chicago or Los Angeles. Probable European targets are Rome or Paris.
    You can bet, that if the “promise” is fulfilled, some North Korean, Iranian or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble, not unlike the WTC 9-11…

  40. Agent76 says:

    Jul 3, 2017 How China Will Infiltrate Europe (Using the Czech Republic)

    The CCP wants to infiltrate Europe. And it’s starting with small countries like the Czech Republic. Will it succeed? Chris Chappell and Simon Whistler from VisualPolitik give you the scoop.

  41. Erebus says:

    …they are already “in place” in major American and European cities.

    If I’m not mistaken, you’ve voiced this theory more than once. In fact, it makes sense for the USA, Russia and China to have done this as well.

    Do you have any evidence that Israel has actually pre-positioned nuclear weapons on foreign territory?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  42. skrik says:

    The “Samson Option” is very real and is a threat by Israel to the rest of the (western) world that, if Israel’s “interests” are threatened, it will “light one off” in a major American or European city.

    «start prologue» Kindly correct even the slightest ‘inaccuracy’ from here to «end prologue»:

    1. Ashkenazi jews, estimated ~90% of ‘modern’ jews, are ‘European’ [= *not* descended from any reputed ‘Hebrews’], but are in fact descended from self-converted Khazars, at that conversion-time natives to the steppes somewhere north of the Caucasus. The only thing that makes them jews is their *adopted* [= stolen] Judaic religion; they’re better referred to as ‘fake joos.’ Now, talking about persons may be termed ‘ad hom,’ but since we’re more interested in ‘what they do’ than ‘who they are,’ the ‘expeditionary jews’ infesting Palestine [aka Zs] like to claim “God promised it to us!” – that particular claim self-flushes down the gurgler, and this para is 100% valid. And note, even IF descended from some alleged ancient Hebrew tribe THEN they still would have *no* claim on modern Palestinians’ land.

    2. Considering that a) the Manhattan project was sooo huge, and b) Iran has laboured sooo hard and long on enrichment, say (but still no bomb-quality U), one has to ask: Where did the Zs get their bomb-quality nuke-fuel? Prime suggested A: Quisling collaborators and/or filthy fifth-column traitors out in ‘the West.’ An alternative A: Dimona is hardly possible, except perhaps as a nuke-bomb-assembly plant. But it doesn’t matter much; Z-nukes are widely accepted as ‘real.’

    3. I have heard that IOF [O = offensive] forces have nuke-bomb-capable aircraft and rockets, some in [German provided!] submarines, but having nukes actually on-site in ‘Western’ capitals is news to me.

    «end prologue»

    So; thesis: Nuke-enabled Israel blackmails the world, with nukes already on-site in ‘Western’ cities.

    Q1: What would any surviving ‘Western’ population think of this, and why wait until a nuke is set off – to find fake-joo fingerprints all over the ‘next 9/11’ outrage, this one ‘taking out’ an entire city?

    Q2: Where is the ‘Western’ leadership on this; do they not have a ‘duty to protect’ us?

    Q3: Where is the ‘Western’ MSM on this; do they not have a ‘duty to inform’ us?

    Q4: Where is some decent, effective countervailing force? rgds

    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
  43. Cyrano says:

    Don’t play smart with me you moron. I said Russia tries to do what’s best for everyone. Like in Syria, upholding the International laws about sovereignty of a country, unlike US which consider their natural right to intervene wherever there is “fight against terrorism” – like they didn’t invented it in the first place.

    Because you see, US has been hurt so badly (9/11) that they now deserve the sympathy of the world forever and the right to intervene wherever they can manipulate the events into portraying them as fight against terrorism. 9/11 bought the Americans an ownership over the fight against terrorism and how dare anybody question that.

  44. anarchyst says:

    I see that I have drawn the hasbara out of the woodwork.
    All one has to do is to put 2 and 2 together…
    The Mossad is arguably the best counterintelligence and spy agency on the planet and is a total expert at “false flag” operations. “By way of deception, thou shalt do war”…
    The American government, Congress and most European governments have not only been “bought off” but have been infiltrated by the zionist entity. Most American State Department officials and other “policy wonks” have dual-citizenship with Israel, and WILL ALWAYS tilt toward Israel when making their (foreign) policy decisions.
    Look at Dick Cheney and Michael Chertoff (dual-citizenship Israeli) smacking their lips, seeing dollar signs and shekels, selling their “millimeter-wave” airport scanning machines after the zionist 9-11 WTC “false flag” operation…
    Look at the Israeli “art students” and mall kiosk proprietors who were deported right after 9-11.
    Look at the Israeli “moving company” that was on the New Jersey shore filming 9-11 as it happened, stating that “our problem is now your problem”.
    Look at Netanyahu stating that 9-11 “was good for Israel”…
    Israeli companies have also been a part of Israel’s spy operation, one example being Amdocs, an Israeli telephone billing operation, which has its tentacles in to just about every phone in the United States, even the secure phones that the government uses.
    Israel has warned the world, that if its interests are not protected, it will “light one off”.
    Diplomatic pouch, as well as Israel-owned shipping companies have made the “Samson Option” scenario extremely easy to implement. The nukes are already here…
    Raising the hackles of the hasbara PROVES that there is substance to my assertions.
    Do the research…you will not like what you find…

  45. peterAUS says:

    Well…..the “Jewish issue” (for the lack of better word) is, IMHO, rather complicated.

    I guess the POINT (big, like an elephant in the living room) is that what they do the nations of the West can not.

    That difference is so big, and, at the same time, debate about that is totally missing from public sphere that sometimes it feels…….just crazy.

    As in your post below.
    The all world (including Russia and China for that matter) is so keen on keeping a watching eye on development of nuclear weapons….and, at the same time…..nobody dares mentioning Israeli nuclear capability.
    Imagine some western top politician demanding inspecting Israeli nuclear capabilities.
    And, while we are on the topic, could somebody remind me when was the last time Russia or China demanded the same?

    With this willful, blatant, denial, I don’t think Jews need ‘Samson option”.

    And, personally, I don’t believe there are any Israeli nukes anywhere except in Israel. Just an opinion.

  46. peterAUS says:

    This “multipolar” bullshit is really getting out of hand.

    Not for Rusophiles and West-haters. They are O.K. in my book.
    They know what they want and there is solid logic behind their efforts.

    I mean people of the West who aren’t happy with the current state of affairs.
    I am still not sure is it just ‘virtue signalling” or simply self-loathing.
    If later there is a problem.


    Imagine that multipolar world.
    Ruled by elites as they are now.
    Say, half is ruled by Washington.
    Quarter is ruled by Moscow and quarter by Beijing.

    What part you’d (Westerner) want to live in?

    I guess people think that in multipolar world all three regimes would change in something better, and societies there would also change into something better than now. West in particular.
    I just don’t see how and why.

    I mean the life for lower 80 % of population.

    So…why, for Westerners, is this ‘multipolar” thing so popular?
    Like those three in “1984”?

  47. peterAUS says:

    One of possible theories why Westerners wish “multipolar world”.

    At the current state of affairs, with The Empire pushing and Russia retreating, it could come a point in time when Moscow regime decides to escalate into nuclear.
    Not good.

    The one of ways to prevent this (one of a couple that is…) is to weaken The Empire enough so it loses its capability to push.
    Or/and strengthen Russia enough so it can’t be pushed back into ‘nuclear”.

    Multipolar world. No pushing/retreating.
    No MAD.

    But….can anything guarantee that the balance of power will stay that way?
    Once the move downward (for the West) starts…where it’s going to stop?

    What if it goes beyond “equal” into “weaker”?
    Russia/China wouldn’t use that opportunity?
    Because they are much better humans?

  48. @Avery

    Thank you for the links. I based my comment off information i read about a decade ago. I wasnt aware the US had dismantled so many in the last few years. Its good news.

  49. @skrik

    1) the population will be pissed, but decieved.
    2) they are either aware of the blackmail and dont want to risk a nuclear attack on an american city, which would stain their legacy. Or they are unawares and just being led around by the money. They do haveba “duty to protect” us. Thats why its such an insult.
    3)they are “bought and paid for” by the very people that are doing the threatening, so they’re alliegence or duty isnt to the population that they talk at on a daily basis.
    4) who knows? Most american agencies have been run by Z for several decades now, so they wont try to stop it.

    • Replies: @skrik
  50. @Delinquent Snail

    Fair analysis. Pretty quick for a Snail 🙂

  51. @Karl

    Uh-o; I’m part Slavic and my wife is about half Chinese. We’ll have to wait and see if our kids have this problem 😉

  52. @anarchyst

    I wholeheartedly agree with your proposal, anarchyst. I admire someone who has the courage to volunteer for combat, or possible combat, but if they’re volunteering for the military of a foreign people and power, that is incompatible with being a loyal and trustworthy American.

    A childhood acquaintance of mine, born and raised in New Jersey to parents who were both born and raised in the USA, nonetheless enlisted in the IDF as a young man. Saw the guy again a few years ago; still really instinctively like the guy, but I can’t say that our loyalties and priorities are the same after learning that. I was disappointed and a bit offended.

    He didn’t seem to enjoy my response, either: “Did the US military not have any more openings?”

    Good thing I didn’t ask the question I really wanted to pose: “Why can’t you die for Israel in the UNITED STATES military like all the other patriotic American boys?”

    • LOL: Delinquent Snail
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
  53. @anarchyst

    The other day i thought about this. I have no proof, but it does fit nicely in with current appeasement of isreal. It makes sense. I cant beleive so many americans would willingly turn 2 blind eyes to the crap that isreal does to its neighbors and the US.

    A bomb in a random city, with “evidence” already manufactured to throw the blame on another group. With how deeply the zionists are imbedded in academia, the media, politics, its not really a stretch of the imagination to see that this is not only possible, but most likely probable.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  54. @RadicalCenter

    I worked with a duel citizen isreali/american some time last year and we had several great conversations regarding that very topic. He saw no problem with american isrealis going to isreal to join the isreali military. But he thought it was wrong for isrealis americans to join the US military. It was such a contradictory stance i couldnt take him serious anymore.

    His mentality was that isreal was “americas little brother in the middle east and you always stand up for your little brother.” which kind of made sense if you didnt think about it, but as soon as some critical thought was applied, it didnt make any sense. It was a nice slogan, and im sure he learned it in isreal as a schoolchild. He was always so quick to downplay the genocide and switch topics to Palestinians terror attacks, and no matter how many factual events of isreali aggression i presented, he always twisted it into it being a retaliation for something the Palestinians did.

    To his credit, he never once called me an anti-Semite, even tho all our conversavtions fell back to isreal and its conquest of its neighbors. Plus, he eagerly read any material i presented him, regardless of subject matter or source, which was a breath of fresh air compared to the illiterates i deal with daily……

  55. Communism sucks, but both Russia and China were hardened by the tragedy of communism. Also, they got some good side of communism, the emphasis on spartan virtue and moral culture over material culture.

    And even as Poles and Hungarians hate communism(not least because it was imposed by Soviets/Russians), they got some good influence from it too.
    Communism is a terrible economic ideology, but it’s about big moral themes of nobility of work and the basic needs of people.
    As communism never produced enough, people had to be hardy and not expect too much from life. Also, as narcissistic hedonism was frowned upon, the culture was serious and moral(though also dogmatic and censoriousness).

    The West had the advantage of freedom and material plenty. But over time, this led to excessive decadence and degeneracy. Freedom increasingly indulged in inanities, and the most hedonistic elements of society, Negroes and homos, came to dominate culture.
    Also, material plenty spoiled even the poor, who also came drugged on trashy junky pop culture.

    America went from Democracy to Emocracy. It’s all about butt-hurt emotions of certain overly sensitive groups who also have a problem with truth.

    So, we have blacks and their lies about BLM. We even had poop swastika at Mizzou.
    We have homos and their fantasies and escapism as New Reality.
    We have feminists retards crying non-existent rape in elite colleges while ignoring the real rape problem in black communities. RUN FROM HAVEN MONAHAN than from people who are most likely to be rapists: black thugs.

    Emocracy is batshi* crazy since it isn’t defined by principles, laws, or moral norms. It’s all about the often-imagined butt-hurt emotions of key groups favored for special ‘compassion’.

    So, it’s a big big issue if someone says All Lives Matter than ‘black lives matter’ because touchy black emotions be sooooo hurt.

  56. All military and other types of alliances and agreements should have one characteristic in common. That is the future viability of such an arrangement. Questions such as: will they be in business long? Will they weaken due to competition, internal incompetence, etc? This is what a business would evaluate before entering into contracts and arrangements with other businesses.

    The same with the United Socialist States of Amurka. It is painfully but clearly obvious that Europe is finished, as a cultural, military, and identity. It will be Muslim dominated in all aspects soon. It’s entropy will skyrocket, civil war will erupt, and overall dysfunction follows the dystopia of masochism and mass hysteria suicide. Very poor prospects for cooperation for the USSA.

    Rather, it would be much better and fruitful to enter into deep cooperation and symbiosis with Russian and China. This is for all the reasons that are excluded and the converse and inverse of the above undesirability of expecting good outcomes with weak, dissolute entities.

    This of course includes the current Eastern Europan countries that have some pride and courage left in their national character.

  57. @Delinquent Snail

    Well, you just have to look at the Southern Baptist Convention, and the bold assertion of the majority of American Protestants that, “Jesus was a rabbi”, “There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ”, and “I’m a Zionist Christian, JUST LIKE THE FOUNDING FATHERS”. These numbskulls will refer to Netanyahu-who considers the Gentiles as Goy, i.e., cattle as “Bibi” said this and that…….

    No matter what kind of engine you have, bad fuel will sabotage it and keep it from running satisfactorily.

  58. skrik says:
    @Delinquent Snail

    they are “bought and paid for” by the very people that are doing the threatening

    Thanks and yes; it’s called bribery/coercion, so we may (re)coin a term: *Khazar nostra*, and it’s active across the ‘Western’ board, negatively affecting most of the following:

    The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption.

    a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches

    add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies

    To all that, add in the rogue regimes’ snivelling quisling, sycophantic hangers-on, altogether the kernel of most of the worlds’ evil. (Of course, we omit a few more trivial bits.)

    OK; $s and threats; we can take that or leave it for a certain distance but perhaps not all the way, because I do wonder if there’s not something more, some extra bit like some erring ideology, say. One suggestion has a religious aspect, specifically that Christian believers think that since their [putative!] Christ was native to [‘ancient’] Palestine, the covetous invading aliens [aka Zs, actually rogue fake joos] must be allowed to take what they want, even if that is by murdering ethnic cleansing – thus giving the Khazar nostra some extra, one could say ‘supernatural’ leverage.

    Close, or any alternate theses?

  59. Miro23 says:

    The largest holder of US debt is US citizens

    Nice to know that the 0,1% have invested all these new $Trillions raised by the FED in Wall St bubbles and Middle East wars.

  60. Anonymous [AKA "beniamino"] says:

    “But consider this: it may soon be possible to foresee a Chinese challenge to “U.S. interests” in the South China Sea or even the Taiwan Strait in tandem with a U.S.-Russian clash in the skies over Syria or a showdown in Ukraine.”

    What U.S. interests? Every time I hear the phrases U.S. interests, national interests, national security I get pissed off. The alleged “interests” and “security”are not those of the nation, or the American people [whoever they may be] they are merely the interests of corporations and financial institutions, the rich, and their sycophants. Our interests, we the people, end at our borders.

    We need to stop using those terms of arrogance, delusion, and greed and to start examining things for what they are in fact. The terms of propaganda are used in order to obscure that Americans are being used as hit men and killers and sometimes dying or becoming injured on behalf of expanding privately controlled corporate and financial interests and not for any false threats to our country or ourselves.

    Our tax dollars are being diverted away from us, to whom they belong and on whose behalf they should be used, by a corrupt government that is supposed to be holding them in trust for us. Instead they are stolen and used to fight criminal immoral wars of ethnic cleansing and global capitalist expansion on behalf of the uber rich.

    America has been at war with someone somewhere since it was a colony. Cease and desist now.

    • Replies: @HogHappenin
  61. “Implications for U.S. national security are enormous.”


    Henceforth, could we substitute “the power and influence of the Anglo-American Imperial Class” for “U.S. national security?”

  62. @Anonymous

    True that. When we non-Americans and other “third worlders” hear these phrases, it fills us with immense rage and triggers a passive aggressive reaction against anything “US American”. AL though most of us know that the US populace is powerless against their “democratically elected Rulers”!

    Why don’t the US populace get off their burger eating bums for once and make it known like they did during Vietnam in the 70s??

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 Ray McGovern Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?