把数据权力从私人公司手里拿走，集中到政府手里 - 准确说是政府的情报系统手里，而且能将其实施制度化。这是中国与美国之间的一个重要区别。（美国在此是相反的 ，私人利益集团以各种形式购买决策权，从而控制政策和政治辩论）
数据权力（或者说数据主权），是中美冷战中的关键部分，它扮演着多重角色 - 从筹码到资本，从经济到国安 … 几乎关系到每一个阶段的谈判和博弈。（https://iyouport.substack.com/p/bb3?utm_source=publication-search ）
“国家网络身份认证”这一举措意味着一个大幅迈进的国家主义行动。
北京正在为冷战的深化积累筹码。
作为数字用户您应该早已知道，不论数据掌握在谁的手里 - 国家还是公司、政府还是资本家 - 都是对我们每个人的隐私的剥夺。
IYP的安全系列培训教材还在准备中。它追求成为一个多管齐下的资源系统，包括数字、心理、人际等等；我们需要尽可能走在前面，兵来将挡的反应力已经越来越难以适应当前的局势了。
随时欢迎各界有能力的朋友加入防御创意项目 - 以任何您喜欢的方式。
Putin’s Senior Aide Patrushev Shared Some Updates About The Arctic And Baltic Fronts
Putin’s Senior Aide Patrushev Shared Some Updates About The Arctic And Baltic Fronts
The Arctic front of the New Cold War is thawing a lot quicker than the Baltic one since the first is where the US could prospectively cooperate with Russia while the second is where the UK could try to provoke a crisis with Russia.
Putin’s senior aide Nikolai Patrushev, who ran the FSB for nearly a decade (1999-2008) before chairing the Security Council for over 15 years till recently (2008-2024), shared some updates about the Baltic and Arctic fronts of the New Cold War in a recent interview with Russia’s National Defence magazine. He began by blaming the Brits for orchestrating Baltic tensions in order to disrupt the incipient Russian-US normalization process and associated talks on Ukraine.
In connection with that, he also warned that some NATO members (presumably led by the British) are practicing cyberattacks against Russian ships’ navigation equipment and suggested that they might have been responsible for recent claims of sabotage in the Baltic, which prompted a larger naval presence. This same expanded presence poses a threat to Russia’s interests and could manifest itself through terrorist attacks against its underwater pipelines, tankers, and dry cargo ships.
Russia plans to defend against this through unmanned underwater systems and strengthening its Baltic Fleet. As for one of the worst-case conventional threats, that of Finland and Estonia teaming up to blockade Russia inside the Gulf of Finland, Patrushev expressed confidence that his country could overcome that plot and punish the aggressors. This segued the conversation into a discussion about Finland, which Patrushev said has a friendly population, unlike its government.
He mentioned how the authorities there distort history to avoid talking about the goal of “Greater Finland”, which took the form of occupying North-western Russia, placing its inhabitants into concentration camps, and exterminating the Slavs there. Just like Finland was used by the Nazis as a springboard for aggression against the USSR, so too did Patrushev warn that plans might be afoot for NATO to use it as a springboard potential aggression against Russia.
He then said a few words about how the Arctic is opening up as a new front of competition, mostly due to its resources, but reaffirmed that Russia wants peace and cooperation there instead of rivalry. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which commemorates its 500th-year conceptualization this year, can help bring that about. Russia will continue developing regional infrastructure and building ice-class vessels for facilitating transit through these waters year-round. It was on that note that the interview ended.
Reviewing Patrushev’s briefing, the first part about blaming the Brits for tensions in the Baltic aligns with what Russia’s Foreign Spy Service (SVR) recently claimed about how the UK is trying to sabotage Trump’s envisaged “New Détente”. It might therefore very well be that they’re attempting to open up this front for that purpose, first through unconventional acts of aggression like “plausibly deniable” terrorist attacks and then possibly escalating to a joint Finnish-Estonian blockade of the Gulf of Finland.
Exposing these plots and expressing confidence in Russia’s ability to overcome them were meant to respectively ensure that the Trump Administration is aware of what the UK is doing and to deter the UK’s regional proxies from going along with this since the US and even the UK might hang them out to dry. Patrushev’s words about Finland were important too in the sense of reminding everyone that governments don’t always reflect the will of the people on the foreign policy front.
At the same time, however, everyone should also be aware of the Finnish government’s historical distortions and the threat that its reckless foreign policy poses to its own people. Wrapping everything up, Patrushev pointed to the Arctic’s importance in Russia’s future planning, and his reaffirmation of its peaceful intentions could be interpreted as a willingness to partner with the US there like their representatives discussed last month in Riyadh. The NSR can also become a vector for cooperation too.
Putting everything together, the Arctic front of the New Cold War is thawing a lot quicker than the Baltic one since the first is where the US could prospectively cooperate with Russia while the second is where the UK could try to provoke a crisis with Russia, but it remains to be seen whether any of this will unfold. Russian-US cooperation in the Arctic is likely conditional on a ceasefire in Ukraine whereas a Russian-NATO conflict in the Baltic orchestrated by the Brits is conditional on them misleading the US about this.
Putin’s interest in a lasting political solution to the Ukrainian Conflict bodes well for the Arctic scenario just like Trump’s criticism of NATO bodes ill for the Baltic one so both ultimately come down to their will. They’re the two most powerful people on the planet so their ties will greatly determine what comes next on those fronts and every other one too. It’s precisely for this reason why the British want to ruin their relations, but after Patrushev just exposed their Baltic plot, that’s a lot less likely to succeed than before.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.
7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management
#Geopolitics #NATO #NewColdWar #Russia #TheArctic #TheBaltics #UK
Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 Megaproject Could Figure Into A Future Deal With The US
Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 Megaproject Could Figure Into A Future Deal With The US
Russian and Chinese interests don’t align on this particular issue and the dynamics associated with it.
Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that “Russia Is Wooing Arctic Gas Buyers With Life After US Sanctions”. They cited unnamed sources to report that Novatek, the company behind the Arctic LNG 2 megaproject, is courting American, European, and even Indian buyers ahead of Trump possibly curtailing or lifting sanctions on their initiative as part of the nascent Russian–US “New Détente”. According to them, a senior executive pitched this as “a way to counter a rising China”, which has a certain logic to it.
From those three potential clients’ perspectives, all three of which have troubled ties with China, whatever they might buy from Arctic LNG 2 would reduce the amount available to Beijing. There’s also the chance that they elbow China out of this megaproject entirely if they collectively replace its lost investments after private Chinese companies pulled out of Arctic LNG 2 due to American sanctions. This could prospectively be achieved if Japan and South Korea, which have similar interests, get involved too.
That could in turn force China to rely more on comparatively costlier LNG from other sources like Australia and Qatar, both of which are American allies and whose exports could be more easily cut off by the US Navy in the event of an Asian crisis, thus applying immense pressure on China in that scenario. Russia is neutral in the Sino-US dimension of the New Cold War, just like China is neutral to the Russian-American one, with both prioritizing their national interests as their leaders understand them to be.
China didn’t want to risk America’s wrath by defying one of the latter’s most significant sanctions, ergo why it pulled out of Arctic LNG 2, while Russia’s interests rest in offering the West privileged access to this same megaproject as an incentive for the US to coerce Ukraine into concessions. Russian and Chinese interests therefore don’t align on this particular issue and the dynamics associated with it, yet they’re expected to responsibly manage their differences as usual in the spirit of their partnership.
These approaches align with the US’ evolving interests, however, since it wanted China to informally comply with some sanctions such as this one and others as a means of pressuring Russia while curtailing or lifting sanctions on Russia (including in a possibly phased manner) is a means of pressuring China. The US might not have planned this in advance, rather it’s probably just flexibly adapting to changing circumstances brought about by Russia’s impressive resilience in the Ukrainian Conflict.
The sanctions didn’t bankrupt Russia, its military-industrial complex didn’t collapse, and no withdrawal from Ukraine followed, with Russia instead gradually gaining ground and now approaching the brink of a breakthrough that could either decisively end or escalate the conflict. The US doesn’t want Russia to achieve its maximum goals (let alone by military means) while Russia might not want to risk whatever the US could do stop it in the event of a breakthrough, hence why they began negotiations at this time.
The series of pragmatic compromises that they’re now discussing could see Russia agree to a ceasefire in exchange for partial sanctions relief that could restore a degree of its pre-conflict complex interdependence with the US-led West in order to lay the basis for a comprehensive deal later. There’d prospectively be other mutually beneficial terms to whatever ceasefire they might clinch but the energy aspect could play a leading role in getting both sides to agree as explained here in early January.
Arctic LNG 2 and Nord Stream, as Russia’s most globally significant energy megaprojects, could therefore figure prominently in any series of pragmatic compromises with the US. Taken together, they could bring together those two, the EU, and the Indo-Pacific Rim countries of India, Japan, and South Korea, thus resulting in a Eurasian-wide network of direct stakeholders for sustaining and building upon a ceasefire in Ukraine. This might even be what ultimately gets Putin and Trump to reach an interim agreement.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.
7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management
#China #EU #Geopolitics #NewColdWar #Russia #TheArctic #TheWest #USA
"Donald Trump is ending the Ukraine War but what does it mean for the future of Europe? Today we welcome Yanis Varoufakis to the show to discuss why Europe’s lack of leadership is leading it to act as a vassal to the United States and how tariffs from Donald Trump could result in Europe shifting closer to China."—Cyrus Janssen
European Finance Minister Reveals Truth about Ukraine and the Future of Europe >
https://youtu.be/xQFij3xBpu0?feature=shared
#interview #YanisVaroufakis #Europe #EU #USA #TradeDeficit #NATO #TradeWars #tariffs #debts #NewColdWar #leadership #ReserveCurrency #Nordstream #Germany #China #economy #AI #cloudalism #technology #TechnoFeudolism #SurveillanceCapitalism #Amazon #Alexa #AlibabaGroup #MeRA25 #DiEM #video
De-Dollarization Was Always More Of A Political Slogan Than A Pecuniary Fact
De-Dollarization Was Always More Of A Political Slogan Than A Pecuniary Fact
Any breakthrough in Russian-US relations would inevitably disappoint those multipolar enthusiasts who bought into the most ideologically dogmatic narratives of the New Cold War and consequently believed that Russia would forever eschew the dollar out of principle.
The three-year-long NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine contributed to the belief that the international community had bifurcated into the West and the World Majority respectively, with the outcome of the aforesaid conflict determining which camp will most powerfully shape the global systemic transition. This paradigm predisposed observers to imagine that BRICS, which represents the World Majority, is actively coordinating de-dollarization policies in order to decouple themselves from the West’s financial clutches.
That perception persists to this day despite last October’s BRICS Summit achieving nothing of tangible significance at all, including on the de-dollarization front, and leading members like India and Russia subsequently confirming in response to Trump’s tariff threats that they’re not creating a new currency. As it turns out, even before Trump initiated the nascent Russian–US “New Détente”, the international community wasn’t as divided over the past three years as many multipolar enthusiasts thought.
Complex interdependencies kept most of the main players together, including Russia and the West after Russia continued selling oil, gas, and critical minerals like uranium to the West in spite of their proxy war. Similar interdependencies account for why Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar declared in mid-November that “India has never been for de-dollarization” and then reaffirmed this position last week when he said that “we have absolutely no interest in undermining the dollar at all.”
He also said that “I don’t think there is a unified BRICS position on [de-dollarization]. I think BRICS members, and now that we have more members, have very diverse positions on this matter. So, the suggestion or the assumption that somewhere there is a united BRICS position against the dollar, I think, is not borne out by facts.” The reason why it’s important to draw attention to his latest words is because of the global context within which they were shared as regards the nascent Russian-US “New Détente”.
Putin’s recent invitation to American companies to cooperate with Russia on strategic resources, including energy in the Arctic and even rare earth minerals in Donbass, will lead to Russia using more dollars in international trade if anything comes of this. That would in turn discredit the perception shared earlier in this analysis of Russia actively de-dollarizing, which Putin himself always said that it was forced by sanctions into doing and thus wouldn’t have ordinarily happened on its own.
A thaw in their tensions brought about by the US brokering an end to their proxy war in a way that meets most of Russia’s interests would therefore naturally see Russia using the dollar yet again. To be sure, it’ll still support the creation of platforms like BRICS Bridge, BRICS Clear, and BRICS Pay, but these would be aimed at preventing dependence on the dollar more so than advancing de-dollarization per se. The rouble will also continue to be used as Russia’s preferred currency in conducting international trade.
Nevertheless, any breakthrough in Russian-US relations would inevitably disappoint those multipolar enthusiasts who bought into the most ideologically dogmatic narratives of the New Cold War and consequently believed that Russia would forever eschew the dollar out of principle. Those who previously criticized India’s pragmatic approach towards this currency, particularly Jaishankar’s comments from mid-November, would then eat crow if Russia ultimately ends up following its lead.
Even if Russia is just partially returned to the dollar’s global ecosystem through the lifting of US sanctions on that currency’s use for facilitating the strategic resource deals that Putin just proposed, then it would likely result in the rest of BRICS moderating their de-dollarization policies as well, if they even had them. China alone might continue making the most progress in this regard, but even it too has been hesitant to go all-out, also due to its complex interdependencies with the West (including its US Treasury holdings).
These observations about Russia, India, and China’s diverse views towards the dollar show that de-dollarization was always more of a political slogan than a pecuniary fact, one that only Russia made tangible progress on but only because it was forced to, though it might soon rebalance as explained. They collectively form RIC, the core of BRICS, so whatever they say or do will influence comparatively smaller countries. There’s nothing wrong with that though, neither in general nor in this context.
Comparatively smaller countries can’t make major impacts on the global economic or financial systems on their own, and in this particular context, almost all of them with few exceptions still have close trading ties with the US that necessitate them remaining within the dollar’s global ecosystem. They couldn’t realistically de-dollarize in the way that the most dogmatic ideologues imagined without immense cost to themselves or replacing their dependence on the US/dollar with China/the yuan.
The most pragmatic approach has always been the one pioneered by India whereby countries strive to use their national currencies more in trade while diversifying their foreign currency baskets in order to avert dependence on any single one. This enables them to strengthen their sovereignty in a meaningful and realistic way without risking the ire of major players by actively dropping their currency and/or actively adopting their rival’s. It’s this balance that will come to define financial multipolarity processes.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.
Will The EU Seize Russia’s “Shadow Fleet” In The Baltic?
Will The EU Seize Russia’s “Shadow Fleet” In The Baltic?
A major incident at sea could instantly spark a New Cold War crisis that brings the Baltic front of this competition to the centre of global attention.
Politico reported last week that some EU countries might seize Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the Baltic Sea on the pretext of complying with international piracy and environmental laws. They might also pass new national laws to legitimize this too. Finland’s seizure of one such ship last December on the pretext that it was involved in cutting an underwater cable allegedly inspired them to consider doing so regularly. The purpose would be to slash the Kremlin’s foreign revenue flow from sales of discounted oil to Asia.
Around 40% of its “shadow fleet” transits through the Baltic Sea, amounting to a little less than 350 vessels whose total business was roughly equivalent to around one-third of Russia’s annual defence budget, so stopping them from operating there could deal a powerful financial blow to the Kremlin. There are several challenges inherent in these plans which make them a lot more difficult to pull off than policymakers might think, however, and were touched upon in Politico’s report to their credit.
First of all, international law and third countries’ ownership of some “shadow fleet” vessels mean that hefty political and legal costs might follow the seizure of even a single ship, something that Finland is only just now discovering after December’s dramatic incident. These consequences might result in them rethinking the wisdom of seizing any more ships, especially if they can’t count on the EU as a whole to back them up, let alone NATO’s American leader.
The last-mentioned concern segues into the second point about the risk of escalation in the event that Russia dispatches naval convoys to escort its “shadow fleet” through the Baltic. The deputy chairman of Russia’s parliamentary defence committee warned that “any attack on our carriers can be regarded as an attack on our territory, even if the ship is under a foreign flag.” Trump doesn’t favour escalation against Russia, at least at this time, so he might not extend Article 5 guarantees to allies that seize such vessels.
And finally, all of this might simply be too little, too late. Russia and the US have already begun backchannel talks on Ukraine so their proxy war might end by the time that the stereotypically sluggish EU finally decides whether or not to support the seizure of Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the Baltic. Moreover, this wasn’t hitherto seriously considered due to the two aforesaid reasons, which remain relevant. It’s therefore unlikely that the bloc will suddenly change its calculations.
The preceding points raise the question of why this is even being considered, which might be as simple as some EU countries like the ultra-hawkish Baltic States wanting to make it seem like they haven’t yet exhausted their policy options against Russia. The realization that there’s nothing left that they could realistically do to contain it might lead to deep demoralization since everything that they’ve already done hasn’t stopped Russia’s on-the-ground advance nor collapsed its economy like they expected.
The other two reasons might be even simpler in the sense that they could have also convinced themselves that just talking about this could deter Russia’s “shadow fleet” from operating in the Baltic and/or encourage Trump to escalate in Ukraine. Neither outcome is likely to materialize but that doesn’t mean that they still don’t sincerely believe that they’re possible. These political fantasies could quickly become dangerous, however, if any of the associated states tries to unilaterally bring them to fruition.
A major incident at sea could instantly spark a New Cold War crisis that brings the Baltic front of this competition to the centre of global attention. If this occurs while Trump is still negotiating with Putin, then it’s extremely unlikely that he’d have the aggressor’s back against Russia since it would be obvious that this is a “deep state” provocation aimed at sabotaging a peace deal, but his approach could change if those talks collapse and he then decides to “escalate to de-escalate” on better terms for the US.
That could backfire though if Putin authorizes the navy to defend his “shadow fleet” as a reciprocal escalation following the precedent that he established last November. Back then, he authorized the first-ever use of the hypersonic Oreshniks in response to Ukraine using long-range Western missiles against targets within Russia’s pre-2014 borders, which signalled that the days of him backing down are over. He used to exercise self-restraint to avoid World War III but that only inadvertently invited more aggression.
Putin is therefore expected to strongly respond to the scenario of European countries seizing his “shadow fleet” in the Baltic, which could lead to a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that might easily spiral out of control. Trump doesn’t appear willing to risk World War III over slashing the Kremlin’s foreign revenue flow so he’d probably either decline to approve such a provocation or would abandon whichever ally unilaterally carries it out in defiance of his warnings not to.
Reflecting on all the insight that was shared in this analysis, Russia’s “shadow fleet” shouldn’t have anything to worry about since the odds of European countries systematically seizing its vessels are low, though some of them might still try to capture a few ships on spurious pretexts like last December’s. As long as this is extraordinarily rare, then Russia might not escalate just like how it didn’t less than two months ago, but any ramping up of that policy would almost certainly engender a strong response.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.
7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management
#BalticSea #EU #Finland #NATO #NewColdWar #Russia #TheBaltics
Mutual Interest In Resuming Arms Control Talks Can Speed Up The Ukrainian Peace Process
Mutual Interest In Resuming Arms Control Talks Can Speed Up The Ukrainian Peace Process
A new global arms race could follow the expiry of the New START in early 2026 if it’s not renewed or replaced.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Putin is ready to meet with Trump to discuss ending the Ukrainian Conflict and resuming arms control talks after the American leader told the Davos elite last week that he’d like to do both with his Russian counterpart as soon as possible. Their reference to resuming arms control talks is significant since the New START will expire in February 2026 but the negotiation process has been frozen since 2023. Here are some background briefings on this subject:
* 21 February 2023: “Russia Did The Right Thing At The Right Time By Suspending Participation In The New START”
* 20 January 2024: “Russia Won’t Resume Arms Control Talks With The US Till The Ukrainian Conflict Ends”
* 18 October 2024: “Biden’s Interest In Nuclear Talks With Russia Is A Response To Trump’s Recent Rhetoric”
To summarize for the reader’s convenience, global strategic stability is to a large degree dependent on the balance of nuclear and associated forces (like delivery systems) between Russia and the US, the countries with the largest such arsenals by far. They realized near the end of the Old Cold War how dangerous it was to produce so many thousands of nuclear weapons and how financially onerous such programs were for each of them, ergo why they agreed to partial cuts and monitoring mechanisms.
This helped alleviate their security dilemma, which refers to one side’s defensively intended moves (such as building nukes for deterrence purposes) being perceived by their rival as offensively intended (such as preparing for an overwhelming first strike) and thus catalysing an escalation cycle. Their security dilemma returned though due to NATO’s eastward expansion. It then reached a new dangerous phase with their proxy war in Ukraine and can further worsen if the New START expires without a replacement.
For that reason, Trump decided to make good on his campaign pledge to revive the denuclearization talks with Russia and China that he claimed were on the brink of success before the 2020 election, which explains why he brought this up during his video appearance at Davos. To be sure, he might have exaggerated the chances of reaching a deal had he won back then, especially since China wasn’t receptive to it and Russia demanded (as Peskov reminded Trump) British and French nuke cuts too.
Nevertheless, the importance in explaining this is to show that mutual US-Russian interest in resuming arms control talks could speed up the Ukrainian peace process since the former were suspended by Moscow pending a conclusion of the latter, which can incentivize mutual compromises to this end. It can only be speculated what form that could take, but the some of the proposals at the end of this analysis here and the one that was elaborated on here could be in the cards if both sides have the political will.
The need to resume arms control talks is more urgent than ever not just because the US-Russian security dilemma entered a new dangerous phase three years ago and the New START will soon expire, but also due to the development and deployment of new weapons systems like Russia’s hypersonic Oreshniks. It’s only a matter of time before the US and others catch up, and seeing as how these munitions can be comparable in force to nukes but without the radiation, a new global arms race might soon begin.
The hyper-proliferation of technology since the end of the Old Cold War means that this possibly impending competition wouldn’t just be between the US and Russia like before, but would almost inevitably include all other nuclear powers as well some non-nuclear states like Iran and others too. It’s only through a multilateral pact, with a US-Russian deal at its core, that other key nuclear and/or missile powers can be brought on board to agree to limit these arms and prevent others from obtaining them.
In practice, this could take the form of them also agreeing to authorize UNSC sanctions against any non-signatory state that’s credibly accused of developing or clandestinely deploying these weapons as well as against any signatory that’s credibly accused of stockpiling more of these munitions than agreed upon. What’s basically being proposed in a new international security architecture centred on the non-proliferation of cutting-edge non-nuclear weapons that requires the participation of all major players.
There’s still a long way to go before anything of the sort is agreed to at the proposed level that’s required for this to work, which includes the sensitive nitty-gritty details of monitoring mechanisms, but it’s in every responsible nuclear and missile power’s interests to have this happen. The means to that end is swiftly ending the Ukrainian Conflict through a serious of pragmatic mutual compromises in order for the US-Russian core of the global strategic security system to then begin work on this pronto.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.
7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management
#ColdWar #Geopolitics #NATO #NewColdWar #NuclearWeapons #Russia #Ukraine #UNSC #USA
Kleine Morgenübung in Medienkompetenz:
▶️ Wo haben Redaktion und PR-Agenturen in diesem Bild #Propaganda versteckt?
Tiny morning exercise in media literacy:
▶️ Where did the editors and PR agencies conceal propaganda in this picture?
#NewColdWar #USA #China #Russia #Russland #WarInEurope #Selensky #GrandChessBoard
4、……因为如果没有关于美国贷款的决议，国务院提出的这些项目都不能进行。
与此同时，苏联领导层急于从其他欧洲国家获得贷款。其中最成功的是瑞典，1946年年中，瑞典提供了2亿瑞典克朗（约合5500万美元）的长期信贷额度，用于支付瑞典向苏联提供的供应。
但最终，德国的巨额赔款 —— 约200亿美元，其中一半（即接近100亿美元）将归苏联所有 —— 得到了美国国务卿小爱德华·斯特蒂纽斯的全力支持，他甚至建议让数百万德国工人在未来五六年内参与苏联经济复苏建设”。
(不难看出，德国的这100亿美元赔款，还不算其他几个战败国的赔款，正好等于美国原计划向苏联提供的贷款，同样的100亿）。
这就是整个过程。
配图没搞错。我是想说，很多时候人们太过看重意识形态的决定性了。意识形态做的是解释性的工作而不是指挥性的。就如图中这本书，不是说它写得有多好，但我觉得中国人都该看看，也许能借此认识到自己的历史知识及其理解中曾经出现的狭隘。
Thought experiment poll.
If Russia effectively collapsed in some way tomorrow, either into various Republics, or into a democratic progressive country (ha!), neither of which wanted anything to do with nuclear weapons and they unilaterally rid themselves of every warhead and missile. Would the USA follow suit?
#Polls #Russia #Ukraine #USA #ColdWar #NewColdWar #War #NuclearWeapons
Custom playing card for an imaginary Twilight Struggle game about recent events. Photo from Reuters / Vitaly Nevar. You can design your own cards at http://igostuff.nfshost.com/tscardgen/
#TwilightStruggle #CustomCard #GameTheory #Strategy #NewColdWar #HybridWar #NATO #Russia #BalticSea #Lithuania #Latvia #Estonia #Finland
![Custom card for Twilight Struggle.
Neutral, 1 Ops
Early War
The Thin Red Line
Suggest redrawing the Baltic Sea's maritime borders. Roll one die and subtract 1 for every enemy-controlled country adjacent to the sea. Player Victory on modified die roll of 1–6.
Effects of Victory: Player gains 1 VP and removes 1 Opponent Influence to [sic] Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Finland.](https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/112/495/741/049/913/904/original/406fdf9b0e9ed824.png)
I'm a child of the Cold War. That settled down to a dull background anxiety with the fall of the Soviet Union, with the occasional proxy war flareup. But the Cold War is back though it's being fought on a different and less tangible front using propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation, and hacking to destabilize societies.
https://coredump3.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-new-cold-war.html
#Russia #NewColdWar #Disinformation #Misinformation #Hacking
Leaked files from Chinese firm show vast international hacking effort
#NewColdWar #Misinformation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/21/china-hacking-leak-documents-isoon/
The West Isn’t Content With Serbian President’s Many Concessions And Wants Full Control Over Serbia
The West Isn’t Content With Serbian President’s Many Concessions And Wants Full Control Over Serbia
Under his government, Serbia clinched an “Individual Partnership Action Plan” with NATO, the same alliance that bombed it for 78 days in 1999. It’s also an official EU aspirant and has informally recognized Kosovo & Metohija’s self-declared “independence” at Brussels’ urging. Furthermore, Serbia voted against its historical Russian ally at the UN over Ukraine in solidarity with its new Euro-Atlantic partners. For all intents and purposes, Serbia has proven itself to be less reliable of a partner for Russia than many Global South states.
Serbian President Vucic condemned the failed Colour Revolution attempt on Sunday by the Western-backed opposition whose pretext for trying to seize government buildings was their anger with the latest national elections’ alleged irregularities. He also thanked unnamed foreign spy agencies for tipping him off about this plot, which Prime Minister Brnabic soon thereafter confirmed were Russia’s. Although the damage to the Belgrade administration building was deemed by Mayor Sapic to be irreparable, the state still stands.
Many were surprised by what just unfolded since Vucic has made many concessions towards the West. Under his government, Serbia clinched an “Individual Partnership Action Plan” with NATO, the same alliance that bombed it for 78 days in 1999. It’s also an official EU aspirant and has informally recognized Kosovo & Metohija’s self-declared “independence” at Brussels’ urging. Furthermore, Serbia voted against its historical Russian ally at the UN over Ukraine in solidarity with its new Euro-Atlantic partners.
The only two issues on which Serbia hasn’t budged under pressure concern the West’s demands to sanction Russia and cut off military-technical cooperation with it, but the latter might not be as solid as some earlier thought. The Pentagon leaks earlier this year alleged that Serbia agreed to send arms to Ukraine, which Vucic denied, but then he said over the summer that he isn’t opposed to Ukraine receiving Serbian ammunition via third parties. This suggests that such rat lines do indeed exist.
For all intents and purposes, Vucic’s Serbia has proven itself to be less reliable of a political-military partner for Russia than many Global South states, including those that are its non-traditional partners with whom relations only expanded in recent years. One would therefore think that the West would be content with his many concessions towards their New Cold War bloc, but instead it wants full control over Serbia as proven by Sunday night’s events.
This hegemonic mentality is counterproductive to its objective interests since the signal being sent to other countries is that no number of concessions will satiate the West’s lust for full control over them. They might therefore be reluctant to comply with related pressure after seeing that even the most uncomfortable policies, including those that inflict damage on their own interests, won’t protect them from Colour Revolution threats. All that they’ll do is weaken them more before an impending coup plot.
Looking forward, it would be wise for Vucic to seriously consider recalibrating his admittedly lopsided balancing act between Russia and the West. There’s no doubt that Serbia is in a very difficult position that greatly limits the exercise of its sovereignty, but even so, he could at the very least have his government issue an official demarche to those Western ones that backed the Colour Revolution attempt. Suspending cooperation with NATO, even if only in part, could also send a strong message of discontent.
The problem that Vucic has found himself in, and it’s entirely of its own making, is that his country’s liberal–globalists wanted him to make maximum concessions towards the West while its conservative-nationalists were appalled at how much he’s already done. That’s why it was important to clarify over the summer that “Serbia’s Anti-Government Protesters Are A Mix Of Colour Revolutionaries & Patriots”. Without intending to, he angered both influential groups, which reduced his public support.
What happened on Sunday was a textbook Colour Revolution attempt that no bonafide patriot could support in good conscience, but some undoubtedly experienced schadenfreude after he tried running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, only for the liberal-globalists to turn on him. Vucic was never going to entirely please them, yet he still consistently made his best effort to do so. It’s unlikely that he learned his lesson and will finally dump them, but that would be the best-case scenario.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.
7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management
Julia Davis, of The Daily Beast, posted a YouTube video at the hellsite of domestic Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovyov. There, in a panel discussion, he argued, "nuclear war is inevitable."
He further said it wouldn't lead to worldwide destruction, using the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations that ended World War II as examples.
Below is a clip with translation from Russian Media Monitor.
#Russia #Russian #russianmedia #propaganda #nuclearwar #newcoldwar
The new normal in #Arctic research alas. The Norwegian research ship Prins Haakon was followed for hours by a Russian war ship.
#NewColdWar
#Ukraine
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/russisk-spionskib-overvaagede-polarekspedition-med-danske-forskere-i-18-timer
Peace is good for #StrongmanCapitalism, bad for the #MilitaryIndustrialComplex: Iran and Saudi Arabia have effectively fought a devastating proxy war in #Yemen, where #Houthi rebels aligned with Tehran battled Saudi forces for eight years.
#BRICSPolitics #NonAlignedMovement #NewColdWar #PeaceDividend #ClintonWasTheWorstPresident #CarbonBombKleptocracies
#Kleptocracy #BeyondBelief: The crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is "beyond belief," says #humanitarian leader Jan Egeland of Norway. "Nowhere else in the world is there more than 25 million people experiencing #violence, #hunger, #disease, #neglect."
#ResourceTheft #NewColdWar #DeterioratingCarbonSinks
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/9/7/democratic_republic_congo_conflict_jan_egeland
.> Even arch anti-communists like Nixon and Reagan made bold gambits to reduce tensions, fearful of global annihilation. We face a similar dynamic today, facing collective catastrophe if we do not change course.
.> Here is the insane dynamic that must be changed. In recent years, both the US and China have greatly increased their #MilitaryBudgets.
.> But organizing most of our national effort around a zero-sum global confrontation with China is unlikely to change Chinese behavior and will alienate allies and partners....
.> Most importantly, it could doom our planet by making climate cooperation impossible between the world’s two largest greenhouse emitters. We need to move in a bold new direction. Recent history provides some instructive examples.
.> ... here’s a “radical” idea. Instead of spending enormous amounts of money planning for a war against each other, the US and China should come to an agreement to mutually cut their military budgets and use the savings to move aggressively to improve energy efficiency, move toward sustainable energy and end our reliance on fossil fuels. They should also provide increased support for developing countries who are suffering from the climate crisis through no fault of their own....
.> In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act included an unprecedented $300bn in investments in clean energy and energy efficiency, which could help increase US solar energy by 500% and more than double wind energy by 2035, reducing carbon emissions by roughly 40%.
.> Other countries have also made major investments. China spent $546bn on clean energy last year and continues to manufacture and deploy more renewable energy than the rest of the world combined....
.> ... we are still falling well short of the kinds of investments needed to deal with this crisis. We are still not moving fast enough to save our planet. The latest report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that without more urgent action, the world will pass the key 1.5C (2.7F) threshold by the early 2030s, risking a far deadlier future for our children and future generations. The science is clear: if the US, China, and the rest of the planet do not act with greater urgency to dramatically cut carbon emissions, our planet will face enormous and irreversible damage.
.> Now is the time for a radical rethinking of geopolitics to reflect the reality that international cooperation is not only in the best interests of all countries, but is absolutely necessary for the survival of the planet.#BernieSanders on #ClimateCatastrophe /HT #DavidSwanson
> 44% of the world’s oceans are experiencing a marine heatwave.
> since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the US has put more carbon into the atmosphere, by far, than any other country. While the new technologies sustained by fossil fuels improved our standard of living, we laid the groundwork for the climate calamity the planet is now experiencing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/21/us-bernie-sanders-china-climate-change-cooperation
#BernieSanders #GlobalWarming #ClimateCrisis #China #TheUSA #NewColdWar #ComingWarOnChina
/HT #DavidSwanson
