On 27 September 21, the brilliant geostrategic analyst Brian Berletic headlined “US War Plans with China Taking Shape”. He linked to and analyzed the then-latest draft of the U.S. Government’s detailed plans to conquer China. (The plan had been drawn-up in 2016, but sounds like today.) The objective of these plans is for the U.S. Government to continue into the indefinite future the U.S. Government’s dominance over the entire world, and to do this by conquering first Russia, and then China — conquering both of the now-rising superpowers — thereby not only extending its presently existing global dominance, but even increasing that, with the ultimate goal being for the U.S. to become the world’s first-ever all-encompassing global empire (by crippling both Russia and China).
I have personally checked and verified each one of Berletic’s linked-to sources there. All of them are authentic, and reflect accurately the U.S. Government’s actual decisions and actions, right up until today, which fact (the U.S. Government’s doing all of these things) suggests that those are the U.S. Government’s operative plans, until the present moment. These are the U.S. Government’s plans for China. Berletic excerpted from the draft-plan its most crucial passages, and all of them have been U.S. foreign policies ever since 27 September 2021 (actually, even since 2016): they accurately represent U.S. foreign policies toward, in fact, both Russia and China, as-of today. They describe the ways in which the U.S. Government is hiring proxy-forces throughout the world, in order to destroy China’s Belt & Road Initiative before it can even become operative, and also the U.S. Government’s employing proxy forces and agents in order to defeat Russia in the opening battlefield of World War III, which is Ukraine. It’s the function which Ukraine is serving for the U.S. Government. Berletic makes clear that he does not believe that the U.S. Government expects things to extend so far as getting into a direct nuclear conflict between the U.S. and either Russia or China; however, I have published elsewhere evidence that at least ever since 2006, the U.S. Government has abandoned the prior (mutually shared, both U.S. and Russia) “Mutually Assured Destruction” or “M.A.D.” meta-strategy, which formerly had guided both countries’ nuclear-weapons strategy and designs. M.A.D. was the meta-strategy in order to prevent such a nuclear war from ever occurring. In America, it has been replaced by what is unofficially called “Nuclear Primacy”, or the design and deployment of nuclear weapons so as to win a nuclear war against Russia and/or China: aiming for all-out nuclear-war victory by the U.S. Government. Such ‘victory’ would be defined as consisting of the United States being destroyed less than any of its nuclear-war opponents would be destroyed (thereby maintaining, or even increasing, its existing control over the entire planet). They say that “the benefits of nuclear primacy may exceed the risks” (the destruction to the American side), and that among the possible “benefits” mentioned would be to “stave off the emergence of a peer competitor,” and to be “forcibly exporting democracy.” The U.S. Government’s “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy says that there are ‘acceptable’ levels of destruction of America in a nuclear war against Russia and/or China, so long as America ‘comes out on top’ globally, at the end. Berletic unfortunately just assumes that the U.S. Government remains committed to the M.A.D. meta-strategy. To me, that is instead an open question. In fact, existing evidence (such as I have linked to) indicates that the U.S. Government is now guided by the “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy: arming to win a nuclear WW III, not to prevent one.
On 19 July 2022, Russia’s RT News bannered “Julia Melnikova: World War Three is off – why NATO can’t afford to have Russia as its main enemy”, and basically seconded Berletic’s viewpoint (that America probably wouldn’t go all the way to nuclear war), without even mentioning Berletic’s article. Her commentary alleged that the U.S. Government had only recently been intending to conquer post-communist Russia (and so might peaceably accept again — as-if it did during the 1990s — what others call a “multi-polar world,” or at least a world that the U.S. Government wasn’t coercing):
Naturally, NATO’s new strategic document differs from previous entries in the series. The 1991 concept noted a reduction in the security threat due to the change in the balance of power in Europe, but also noted the need to take the legacy of the Soviet Union’s military potential into account. The 1999 edition characterized Russia, Ukraine, and the Republic of Moldova as partners for dialogue. The installment from 2010 finally attached strategic importance to relations with Russia and was aimed at deepening them on issues of mutual interest.
That “partners for dialogue” and “deepening … issues of mutual interest” never has reflected the U.S. Government’s real attitude toward Russia after the Soviet Union ended in 1991.
I have documented that the plan by America’s Government was instead to fool Russia’s Government to believe that America ended the Cold War on our side at the same time when Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991, but that the U.S. Government was actually planning instead to surround Russia by increasing NATO, right up to Russia’s borders, and doing it in such a way so that by the time Russia recognized that this was the case, it would already be too late for Russia to be able to defend itself against the fait accompli, and so Russia would then become swallowed-up by the U.S. Government. That RT analysis remains deceived by the U.S. plan, which didn’t even start to become disclosed, even to America’s vassal-nations (such as the EU), until 24 February 1990. Russia’s Government shouldn’t continue to publish affirmations of lies that America’s Government had privately admitted to its own vassal nations are lies, as early as 24 February 1990. Why does it do that? Does it make any sense continuing to do that?
Consequently: the U.S. game-plan is, as Berletic documented, to defeat Russia before defeating China; and this is the reason why the U.S. Government is so determined to win the opening battle of WW III, which is on the battlefields of Ukraine. (The U.S. Government was, in fact, so bold in the planning of their 2014 coup that took Ukraine, that it had even included their replacing Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and still is) in Crimea ever since 1783, and to turn it into another U.S. naval base, but that part of the plan failed.)
If Russia wins its objectives in Ukraine, while the U.S. fails to win its objectives there (which are simply to defeat Russia there — so that this is a zero-sum “game”), this would, in and of itself, end the U.S. empire that had started on 25 July 1945, when U.S. President Harry S. Truman decided (on the basis of the advice that he had received from his hero, Dwight Eisenhower), that if the U.S. wouldn’t take over control of the world, then the Soviet Union would; so, America must take over control of the world. It was either “us” or “them,” Truman was told; and he decided that it WOULDN’T be “them” that will win this zero-sum game. And President GHW Bush secretly informed America’s ‘allies’, starting on 24 February 1990, that it STILL wouldn’t be “them” to continue equally with “us” in peace, meaning now Russia to be a “partner” except as being a continuing adversary, because “To hell with that!” (meaning real peace with Russia); “We prevailed, they didn’t” (and “they” still need to be totally and humiliatingly defeated, by “us”; “they” need to become conquered). That is the reality (the U.S. Government’s pure zero-sum-game mentality), which Brian Berletic’s article documents to be the case regarding the U.S. Government’s plan regarding China; and (as I have documented) it applies ALSO regarding Russia. (Yet, Berletic seems to believe that it’s not being applied in U.S. thinking about the conflict in Ukraine.) The Governments of both nations (Russia and China) would do well to publicize that it applies throughout the U.S. Government’s international-affairs policies, instead of continuing to promote the U.S. Government’s lies to the contrary.
This is the reality. No myth. America’s foreign policies are laser-focused on crippling, if not destroying, all possible competitors.
Especially, all nations in Europe need to know this, and to reverse course because of it. Because, if they don’t, then Europe’s economies will be crushed this coming winter, in order to keep up the U.S. Government’s lies. It’s their choice. Either continuing as American vassal-nations, or else making a fundamental turn, toward freedom and justice — the breakup of the U.S. empire, and emergence of a real democracy and equal rights, in the relations among the world’s nations. It’s their choice, to make, one way or the other. Thus far, Europe’s leaders have been virtually suiciding their nations. How, and how well, is the U.S. Government bribing them to do that, to their nations? Or, are they actually that stupid, to be ignorant of what they are doing, or why, or whom the beneficiaries of it are? Of course, the press has also played a role, but it’s serving the same group of ultimate masters. How can European publics ever wake up? Before it’s too late?
A double-edged sword: Mr. Biden’s pilgrimage to Jeddah
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
The Pendulum Has Started To Swing Moscow’s Way
Ukraine Is Only the Start: Special Operations’ Geopolitical Repercussions Will Transform How We View the World
A double-edged sword: Mr. Biden’s pilgrimage to Jeddah
Mikhail Bogdanov’s Passion for Africa and the Critical Russia’s Policy Debates -Part 1
CFP: IV Eurasian Research on Modern China and Eurasia Conference
China’s vision of the results and outputs of the Jeddah summit and the American role
US President Joe Biden’s controversial pilgrimage to Jeddah is part of a broader and more complex geopolitical puzzle with multiple Gulf and Red Sea littoral states attempting to hedge their bets and play rival global and regional powers against one another.
Widely seen as a knee fall after the president refused, since coming to office, to interact with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Mr. Biden’s visit is likely to prove a double-edged sword for the United States.
Mr. Bin Salman and other regional leaders will have welcomed Mr. Biden’s reassurance that the United States, with tens of thousands of troops in the region, would not abandon the Middle East and allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
The problem is the reassurance comes from a man who may not be in office three years from now and from a country whose credibility and authority have been weakened, not least by Mr. Biden’s Saudi knee fall.
Even so, attempts to hedge bets and enhance leverage will seek to increase the region’s relevance to the international community, particularly the United States, rather than supplant the US as the region’s foremost security guarantor.
Maneuvering will also heighten regional rivalries, notably in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, that figured prominently in a joint statement issued by the United States and Saudi Arabia during Mr. Biden’s visit to the kingdom. Some 30 per cent of the world’s container traffic passes each year through those waterways.
The statement stressed the importance of preserving the free flow of commerce through strategic international waterways like the Bab al-Mandab and the Strait of Hormuz.
It noted that a recently established maritime unit, Combined Task Force 153, would focus on enhancing security in the Bab-al Mandab and intercepting smuggling into war-torn Yemen. In addition, the statement welcomed Saudi Arabia’s assumption of the command of a similar unit, Combined Task Force 150, that operates in the Gulf of Oman and the North Arabian Sea.
From Mr. Biden’s perspective, projecting enhanced security cooperation with regional players was boosted by reports that Russian efforts to establish a naval base, Russia’s first in Africa, at Sudan’s Red Sea city of Port Sudan, were faltering because of differences among the African country’s military leadership.
More problematic from Mr. Biden’s perspective is that Gulf states cooperate closely with China, which has acquired stakes in ports and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Oman, and Djibouti, where the People’s Republic has a military base.
The environment becomes more complex in light of stepped-up competition among US allies for regional influence and Iranian enhancement of the Islamic republic’s naval capabilities.
Regarding ports, Mr. Bin Salman plans to turn his kingdom into a transportation and logistics hub that connects continents and replaces the UAE and Qatar as the Middle East’s go-to addresses.
Saudi Arabia is a latecomer to the global port control game in which Dubai’s DP World and China are major players. DP World operates 82 marine and inland terminals in more than 40 countries, including Djibouti, Somaliland, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Cyprus, and crucially, Dubai’s central Jebel Ali port.
Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea Gateway Terminal (RSGT), backed by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, is initially targeting ports that would service vital Saudi imports, such as food.
“We have a focus on ports in Sudan and Egypt. They weren’t picked for that reason, but they happen to be significant countries for Saudi Arabia’s food security strategy,” said RSGT Chief Executive Officer Jens Floe.
Last year, the PIF and China’s Cosco Shipping Ports bought a 20 per cent stake in RSGT. The Chinese investment fits into China’s Belt and Road strategy, which included the acquisition of stakes in ports and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Oman, and Djibouti, where China has a military base.
The United Arab Emirates halted in late 2020 construction at a Chinese port project near Abu Dhabi after US officials asserted that China intended to use the site for military purposes.
While Saudi port plans have yet to move beyond modernising Dammam’s King Abdulaziz Port and bolstering its crane capacity, Abu Dhabi Ports agreed to develop, operate, and manage a terminal at Safaga Port on Egypt’s east coast as a part of a consortium.
Safaga, south of Hurghada, a Red Sea resort town, exports phosphates and hosts a ferry for Hajj pilgrims to Duba in Saudi Arabia.
The UAE potentially is more ruthless in its competition for control of the region’s waterways. A pro-Houthi Yemeni news agency asserted that the UAE was seeking to change the demography in its favour of the strategic Yemeni Indian Ocean island of Socotra.
The agency, Hodhod, said the UAE police was recruiting Socotra Yemenis in large numbers and transferring them off the island. It claimed that Emiratis willing to move to Socotra were awarded 100,000 dirhams (US$27,200). However, it was not clear why significant numbers of Emiratis would want to leave the hypermodern UAE for a forsaken island.
The UAE appeared to be playing both ends against the middle as Iranian state television trumpeted that the Islamic republic had welcomed Mr. Biden’s visit by enhancing its capability to put armed drones on warships in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
The US and its allies see as a major threat Iranian drones that Iran and its allies have used to target critical infrastructure, including oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and the UAE and shipping in the Gulf.
Forging its own path, the UAE distanced itself from the security-focused anti-Iranian tenor of Mr. Biden’s meetings with Mr. Bin Salman and the leaders of the other Gulf countries and Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq.
“We are open to cooperation, but not cooperation targeted at any other country in the region, and I specifically mention Iran… We have to find solutions, and we have also to use economic cooperation in various areas,” said Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to UAE president Mohammed bin Zayed.
With Mr. Biden still in the region, Mr. Gargash disclosed that the UAE was seeking to return its ambassador to Iran for the first time since 2016. The UAE downgraded its diplomatic ties after a mob attacked Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Tehran in protest against the execution of a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric.
With the UAE staking out its own position and states like Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Iraq unlikely to, at this point, adopt confrontational policies towards Iran, Mr. Biden’s main anti-Iranian regional pillars are Saudi Arabia, its appendage Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel.
That left Mr. Biden little choice but to eat humble pie by making his way to Jeddah. That was all the truer given the president’s inclination to bolster approaches that have not solved any of the Middle East’s multiple problems rather than build them into broader and bolder policies that could prove more effective.
China views the Jeddah summit with Joe Biden from a competing point of view, given the strategic and political rivalry between China and the United States of America in the Gulf and the Middle East. China also basically wants to compete with the US role in the Palestinian-Israeli peace agreements in the Middle East, far from the name of peace or the new Abrahamic agreement, which China rejects altogether. Hence, China’s follow-up to the Jeddah summit comes within the framework of its follow-up to the general position and the US role in the region. The Chinese follow-up to the Jeddah summit also comes to push for an international peace conference to be adopted by China, on a large scale, in order to find a just, comprehensive and lasting solution to the Palestinian issue as soon as possible.
China’s follow-up to the Jeddah summit is also in line with the current Chinese vision to build a state of collective security. According to the Chinese view, the pursuit of absolute security, or unilateral security for the benefit of America only, will inevitably lead to a dead end. Here, what matters most to China at the present time is its call to build a “multilateral platform for dialogue in the region”, which consolidates Sino-Arab Gulf cooperation, with the real Chinese desire to adopt a “multilateral dialogue platform to advance dialogue and lay the foundations for reconciliation between Iran”, and the Gulf states”, led by Saudi Arabia, under the auspices of China. Therefore, the Jeddah summit is important for China to follow up, and accordingly it will determine the map, shape and pattern of its next moves, whether regarding its declaration of its desire to adopt a comprehensive reconciliation between Iran, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia under Chinese auspices, or through China’s endorsement of the concept of comprehensive peace regarding the developments of the Palestinian issue, and China’s entry As a partner to sponsor peace talks in the region between the Palestinian and Israeli sides.
On the other hand, Mr.Wang Di, Director-General of the West Asia and North Africa Department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, made statements about China’s vision of US interventions in the Arabian Gulf and the region in order to establish the pattern of American democracy, freedoms and human rights. Here, Wang Di’s statements came that democracy and human rights are basically the common values of all mankind, and are not US patents for individual countries such as America. China also officially confirmed that democracy and human rights are not an exclusive right of the United States of America and Western countries, because the system of Shura in the Islamic world and popular democracy with its full operations in China, both are considered – from the Chinese point of view – of the important wealth of global human civilization.
China rejects and monitors all American moves to establish democracy and human rights in the Arab Gulf and the Middle East in general, because the Chinese vision lies in the agreement of all that the right to survival and the right to development are at the forefront of human rights for developing countries.
China also sees that, in the absence of development, there is no room for the US or the West to talk about any human rights, and that American democracy, regardless of its model, will be meaningless, as China sees it, of the need for China to agree with the peoples of the Middle East countries, In pursuit of a development model different from that of the American democracy imposed on the people of the region despite their failure to prepare for it.
Therefore, China will monitor everything that comes or comes from US President “Joe Biden” during the Jeddah summit, regarding any talk about Iran, human rights, or any settlement of the outcomes of the Palestinian cause to respond to it decisively.
The Chinese vision is also based on the United States of America penetrating and violating the rules of the international system, which is based on fair rules, accusing Washington of replacing the international system of which the United Nations is the center, and substituting the rules of the international system based on international law and the basic rules of international relations, based on purposes and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, with the laws and rules of “small gangs of America,” and Washington’s attempt to monopolize the right of global governance, with the American insistence from the Chinese point of view, to deprive Washington of all developing and poor countries and countries of the right to equal participation globally.
The Chinese vision is basically based on the fact that there are 140 countries around the world, including China, out of 190 other countries in the world, that did not participate primarily in those sanctions imposed on Russia, a step that expresses from China’s point of view the position of these countries rejecting the policy of hegemony led by the United States of America that have been practiced around the world.
Here, China is looking at the Jeddah summit, in light of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war, and the fact that the US sanctions on Russia are unilateral, described as arbitrary, and have led to an imbalance between supply and demand in the global market, with the rise in oil and grain prices and turmoil in global financial markets, It led to a sharp increase in pressure on development and people’s livelihood in all countries of the world. Therefore, China will monitor the outcomes of the Jeddah summit out of precaution and extreme caution to monitor the agreement to change oil prices globally and its impact on the world in the first place.
In contrast to the American vision towards peace and settling issues in the Middle East, China, on the other hand, is making joint efforts with the countries of the Middle East, in order to advance the settlement of differences through dialogue, reduce and calm the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and give priority to confronting urgent challenges in the fields of energy, food and finance, in order to absorb the negative effects of the unilateral US sanctions on Russia, and the negative impact of the Middle East and the Arab Gulf on them, and to try to avoid them as much as possible.
From pledging to make the country a pariah state to fist-bumping with an alleged murderer shrouded as a crown prince, the US foreign policy has indeed covered the whole circle around Saudi Arabia. I mean, with all due respect to Mr. Biden, this is not the first time the US has cast duplicity in the global diplomatic arena. Whether imposing tariffs on China to inhibit its drive to economic supremacy or throwing away the nuclear deal with Iran to assert a macho image – the sight is practically a cliche at this point. Thus, the deplorable gesture was not much of a surprise to me as to my counterparts across the Atlantic. Well, we all know what dragged the mighty president from the White House to the doorstep of a human rights abuser, accused by the US intelligence agencies of the murder of multiple dissidents – including the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Nonetheless, I have to pose just one question: Is the American policy (and economy) this weak that a president hastily overruns his promises as soon as the midterm elections approach?
I admit, I already know the answer. Sure the year-on-year US inflation in June bypassed expectations. Sure the abnormal global oil prices are suffocating domestic consumers. And Russia is still grinding through Ukraine toward a war of attrition – throwing the western alliance into jeopardy. But the American economy is recovering. The fed may pull the cord tight enough to spark a recession, but the policymakers are still gripping the steering wheel. Then let us assume that the Biden visit is actually to lure the Saudi Kingdom to pump more crude into the global market to ease price pressures. But can Saudi Arabia override Russia – its core partner in the OPEC+ alliance? And will Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) casually overlook the allegations by the United States; its haphazard withdrawal of support from the Yemen war? The answer could be as complex as this peculiar visit while Europe struggles to contain a belligerent Russia. But I believe the answer might be straightforward: the fear of Iran.
The detour to Israel before landing in Riyadh was not just convenient – but also symbolic. The nuclear deal with Iran has been in the air since last year as mediations have trudged with no objective achievement. European diplomats have continually warned that Iran is mere weeks away from developing a nuclear missile. And after wasting a year on hyping hopes to revive the deal, Mr. Biden is putting a facade by projecting defiance, stating that the US would use “all elements of national power” available to impede Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal. Well we all witnessed how that turned out to be in the eclipsing years of the Trump era. This declaration might be an implicit warning to Iran, a reminder that the clock is ticking on the nuclear deal. Yet, time is in favor of Iran rather than the United States.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has pushed the oil prices up in spades. A price cap on the Russian oil supply is in a discussion. However, expert analysts have warned that an experimental mechanism without global consensus could edge petroleum prices by twofold. The situation favors Iran – one of the founding members of the OPEC alliance. While sanctions would still prove like an albatross to Iran, the US would eventually get pressured by Europe to ease restrictions on Iranian oil to ease market pressure. That may be why Biden is trying to hedge Saudi Arabia back as an ally – to act as the all-weather traditional partner pumping oil to satisfy the US means in the Middle East without any substantial economic consequence. That period, unbeknownst to the United States, has long departed.
Saudi Arabia – alongside the OPEC+ alliance – would hit pre-pandemic production levels next month. Earlier in May, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan reiterated that Riyadh was already pumping close to maximum capacity. He instead retorted that the industry should do more to enhance the refining capacity. As global recession fears could plummet demand shortly, I believe Saudi Arabia would not want a repeat of the oil price war of 2020 by unilaterally crossing Russia to pump more oil under US dictation. Highly unlikely when we account that Saudi Arabia’s oil-driven economy has expanded by 9.6% in the first quarter – its fastest growth rate in a decade.
Ultimately, Biden’s visit might prove to be a catalyst for the Abraham Accords 2.0 i.e. the normalization of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. It may also salvage the US alliance with Saudi Arabia to dent China’s growing influence in the Middle East. But this visit has showcased a reality that (ironically) was never really obscure. A fact that any US president – Biden or Trump, Democrat or Republican – would allow a pass on sheer abuse of human rights and freedom (even murder and genocide) to gain economic and diplomatic leverage. Whether it is the blood of Jamal Khashoggi or Shereen Abu Aqleh, or whether the freedom of Palestinians or Saudi citizens, US diplomacy is a sham in the name of human rights and justice.
Russia continues to ravage innocent Ukrainians. Mr. Biden recently termed it a genocide, tagged Putin as a ‘War Criminal’ and promised to hold him accountable for his crimes. Putting every bias, every prejudice aside, ask yourself: what guarantees that a few years forward, Putin would not get harmonized like MBS? If it is hard to picture, ponder over the words Ms. Hatice Cengiz – Khashoggi’s fiancée – tweeted with the photo of Biden and MBS, emulating the thoughts of her fiancé: “Is this the accountability you promised for my murder?”
On 27 September 21, the brilliant geostrategic analyst Brian Berletic headlined “US War Plans with China Taking Shape”. He linked...
Authors: Harsh Mahaseth and Jeetendra Vishwakarma* The Act, mandating compulsory registrations for SIM cards and social media accounts, has been fiercely...
With the tourism industry on a high bounce following the lifting of pandemic restrictions, many holiday-goers are looking for ways...
Asad Lalljee is SVP, Essar Group, CEO, Avid Learning and Curator, Royal Opera House, Mumbai. Prior to relocating to India, Asad worked for 14 years...
Shortly after celebrating the 15th anniversary of its zero waste commitment, the Tuscan city of Capannori has become a Zero...
Jordan’s economy is projected to grow by 2.1% in 2022, however, rising commodity prices, supply bottlenecks and the impact of...
After water, concrete is the most widely used substance on Earth. With applications from housing and industry to coastal defence...
A Real Estate and Banking Crisis in China?
Key UN forum closes with ‘enthusiasm, passion and high-energy’ to reach the SDGs
The espionage war between China and the USA
Despite its High Interest, Russia Achieves Little in Oil and Gas Sector in Africa
Chinese propaganda in the Middle East through social media and Twitter
China and the CIA Project of right Judgments of Future Predictors
CFP: IV Eurasian Research on Modern China and Eurasia Conference
A Severe Economic Crisis in Lebanon: The Lebanese Pound Has Collapsed