Although Japan used to be associated with the poetic name “Land of the Rising Sun,” it has recently been increasingly turning, through the fault of its current political authorities, into a “Land of the Rising Sanctions.”

Until recently, under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, relations between Russia and Japan were consistently good and even warm. Regular working and personal contacts between Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin fostered trade and business cooperation between the two countries and were somewhat of a “failsafe” against Japan sliding into Russophobia under pressure from Washington and its own right-wing radicals calling for “war over the Kuril Islands.” It is precisely this skillful dialogue that distinguishes an outstanding politician, which Shinzo Abe no doubt was, from a run-of-the-mill Washington stooge willing to “please the big brother” even for a small handout from the big table.

Sure, Japan lost its identity after World War II and became an outright US dependent state, suffering a host of challenges from more than 75 years of US occupation, forced as a geisha to serve a contingent of thousands of US troops, who rampage and commit multiple crimes against Japanese citizens on a regular basis. The US military has notoriously been stationed in Japan since the end of World War II. More than 70% of US military facilities are located on the island of Okinawa – some 30,000 US troops serve here and several tens of thousands of their family members live there. According to statistics, Americans have committed more than five thousand crimes in Japan since 1972. And the US military often went unpunished. The Japanese regularly take to the streets to demand the dismantling of the military bases, but Japanese politicians have not been sufficiently assertive and consistent in supporting such demands of their people, servilely preferring “not to anger Washington” in the UN and other international institutions.

Nevertheless, even this stance towards the US has not prevented the now legendary Shinzo Abe from pursuing a policy of his own, which has led, among other things, to maintaining a “special relationship” with Russia. Abe’s main foreign policy tenets have been, in addition to alliance with the US and containment of a fast-growing China, friendship with Russia. A friendship, or rather amity between the two parties that enables cooperation to solve common problems. Abe took the approach literally – building a good personal relationship with Vladimir Putin, whom he called his friend, and with whom he met almost 30 times for talks. Because of this relationship, in 2014, despite pressure from Washington, Tokyo imposed a very mild, minimalist package of sanctions against Russia, described in the press as “polite,” letting everyone know that it does so with great reluctance too.

Abe’s tremendous domestic support made it possible to hope that Japan, through him, would agree to a convenient compromise (for example, joint economic activities on the disputed islands) that would open a truly new era in bilateral relations.

Abe valued mutual understanding with Putin because he believed it could ensure the balance of power in the South China Sea region, where Japan’s main adversary and – potentially – mortal enemy, i.e. China, has been creeping expansion for years.

But the new leadership of Japan, a country with centuries-old traditions of morality and noble behavior, Bushido, which has always stood apart from the rest of the world, has decided to fundamentally change its policy and bow even more to Washington. As early as January 21, a meeting between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida led to the conclusion that Japan’s new leadership, together with Washington, would open a second front against Russia in the Pacific Ocean if Russia carried out an “invasion” of Ukraine.

And now, according to the Japanese Mainichi Shimbun, some 70 volunteers, including about 50 former members of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, are to go to Ukraine to fight for the Nazi authorities in Kiev. The Japanese government has announced the freezing of assets of four Russian banks, including VTB, as part of sanctions against Russia over the situation in Ukraine, Kyodo news agency reported, citing the country’s finance ministry chief, Shunichi Suzuki. Then the Japanese government imposed export sanctions on 49 Russian companies and organizations, as well as sanctions on 20 Russians, including businessmen, officials and prominent Russian figures in connection with the Russian military special operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine.

Given the clearly Washington-inspired support by official Tokyo for the Nazi authorities in Kiev, it is not surprising that the Russian embassy in Tokyo said in its Telegram channel that Japan “has supported a Nazi regime twice in less than a hundred years.” Meaning that the first of these regimes was Hitler’s Germany and the second the current Ukraine.

At the same time, Tokyo’s territorial claims to Russia have intensified, as expressed, in particular, in Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s declaration during a March 7 parliamentary debate that the southern part of the Kuril Islands are “ancestral territories” of Japan. “Unfortunately, Japan has been very active in this Western mainstream, and is obeying all instructions without complaint. Japan does not seem to realize how destructive it is acting against its own national interests,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on March 9 on Sputnik radio, commenting on Japanese officials’ statements about territorial claims against Moscow.

At the same time, Japan’s business world refuses to go along with Tokyo and Washington’s politicians in dealing with Russia. Despite announcements of large-scale withdrawal of Western companies from Russia and the fact that Dutch-British Shell is leaving the Sakhalin-2 project, Japan’s Mitsui & Co. and Mitsubishi Corp. consider it advisable to stay. According to Nikkei, a top corporate executive in Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has submitted a document saying that a hasty withdrawal is dangerous and will play into China’s hands. Sakhalin-2 is the first LNG project in Russia, in which Gazprom owns 50%, Shell another 27.5% and Mitsui & Co. and Mitsubishi Corp. 12.5 and 10%, respectively. The Japanese companies believe, Nikkei reports, that no matter what happens, Sakhalin-2 will continue to operate, and Japanese consumers will have to pay an extra $20 billion for LNG on the spot market if corporations leave Sakhalin-2.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Europe has been shaken by galloping gas prices in recent months, leading to financial and socio-political instability in the Old World.

There are several reasons for this, one of them being the politics of domestic European speculators, who wanted to get rich quick when, as a result of their blatant Russophobic policies, European officials managed to keep Gazprom and its cheap gas out of the EU internal market. As a result, these speculators sell at a markup of 300, 400 or 500 per cent the cheap gas that Gazprom pumped into their storages back in the summer. In doing so, they squeeze their super-profits out of the European consumer. And until they sell these reserves, they will not let Russian gas into Europe.

In addition to European speculators on Russian gas, the United States has become enormously rich in recent months, profiting from the extraordinarily high prices. Meanwhile, in order to distract public opinion from the true situation on the issue, Joe Biden’s administration officials are trying to falsely accuse Moscow of increasing gas prices, while doing nothing to lower those prices themselves, as their fall is absolutely unprofitable for Washington.

And this is confirmed by data from the Russian Federal Customs Service and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, which clearly show reports on gas exports to Europe by the US and prove that it is the US that has been making more money than Russia on the super-high gas prices in recent months. Thus, the value of natural gas and LNG exported by Russia in January-August 2021 was $33.197 billion, compared with $42.9 billion worth of LNG exported by the US during the same period!

Most US gas supplies to Europe come under spot contracts (at exchange prices, quick purchase and payment and delivery by a certain date) concluded in December and January, when quotations in Europe were hitting record highs. As a result, traders now supplying American gas to Europe are making super profits. In January, they not only benefited from supplying Europe with gas produced in the US, but they also diverted volumes from the Middle Easten and even Asian routes  as a result of lower gas prices in the Asia-Pacific region (APAC).

As for Gazprom, it delivers, fulfilling its contractual obligations mainly under long-term contracts, i.e. at prices significantly lower than those on the stock exchange.

If LNG supplies result in lower gas prices in Europe, that market will automatically become uninteresting to US exporters, and Europeans themselves will have to go back to buying gas from the traditional suppliers. The panic mood in Europe is therefore now being artificially maintained by allegtions that Russia could cut off gas supplies because of the escalating situation around Ukraine. It is remarkable, however, that all the LNG supplies from the US have never managed to seriously depress gas exchange quotations in Europe, while any news of successful negotiations between Russia and the US or European leaders knocks prices down by $100-150.

As we know, the European gas market is the backyard of the global LNG market, dependent on the conditions in the APAC countries, where the market is physically larger. As soon as prices begin to fall in Asia, they also fall in Europe, and vice versa. In 2021, half of US gas exports went to Asia-Pacific and only a quarter to Europe. However, the diversion of LNG flows from the US to Europe could soon result in higher gas prices in the APAC, with US gas carriers heading back to Asia and European prices again breaking records for the benefit of the same European speculators and US traders, and to the misfortune of Europeans who will pay the price for Washington’s gangster gas policy.

Europe, with its substantial gas consumption and dozens of underutilized LNG import terminals, has long been of great interest to US companies, which have spent a total of $60bn on export infrastructure. There has been a real boom in the construction of LNG terminals in Europe too, under the influence of Washington, and they have even been built in Lithuania and Poland. However, no one can deny that LNG is expensive compared to pipeline gas from Russia. This is why, until recently, Europe was very enthusiastic about buying pipeline gas cheaply from Russia and why 75-80% of Europe’s LNG terminal capacity stood empty. In any case, the main criterion for assessing the prospects of US LNG as a competitor to Gazprom in Europe is price.

However, there have been some significant deteriorations in the gas market in recent weeks.  Above all, they followed Russia’s receipt in late February of written confirmation of NATO’s and the United States’ refusal to engage in a dialogue with Moscow on security guarantees. This came against a backdrop where the West had previously blatantly refused to reassure Kiev’s rampant neo-Nazi authorities, who came to power in 2014 through a Washington-inspired coup. But for 8 years, at the instigation of Washington and with the tacit support of the West, the Kiev authorities have consistently pursued a policy of genocide in Donbas, where, according to incomplete information, they have killed more than 13,000 Russian-speaking civilians and pursued a policy of Russophobia. In addition, the Kiev authorities have recently intensified their neo-Nazi activities in the country and have made increasing threats of a potential nuclear weapon capability in Ukraine, in the hope of using which Kiev has already begun to develop far-reaching plans to attack Russia.

Under these conditions and in the absence of a proper Western response to the activities of the Kiev authorities, in late February Moscow was forced to launch a special operation in Ukraine to demilitarize and denazify it for reasons of self-preservation. In response, Washington and its Western allies unleashed an information war against Russia and slapped severe sanctions. Brussels, in a bid to please the Russophobic US political establishment, has refused to certify the already built Nord Stream 2, which could have significantly eased the situation on the European gas market. However, other Russian pipelines continue to operate and pump gas to Europe. Moreover, despite the misleading anti-Russian information warfare unleashed by Washington, Russian gas continues to flow through the Ukrainian gas transmission system without interruption, as reported by the Ukrainian transmission system operator itself. Gas supplies to Europe are not just flowing through the Ukrainian pipeline, they have also increased. The Europeans have increased their requests for supply and Gazprom has begun to pump through the Ukrainian pipe all of 109 million cubic meters of gas per day instead of 50 million cubic meters per day, as it was before the Russian special operation in Ukraine began, which is a doubling of supplies.

However, due to the depletion of European underground storage facilities due to winter weather, there is almost no gas left, forcing the EU to switch to current imports, which are “obligingly” offered by the US, which itself unleashed the crisis in Ukraine to, among other things, raise the price of gas in Europe. As for the Europeans, they are so far trying to move Russia’s hydrocarbon supplies out of the sanctions bracket, although individual European politicians, such as Borel, who openly “eat from Washington’s table”, have started talking about imposing additional sanctions against Russia in the gas sector as well, to please White House policy. At the same time, such European officials know full well that Russia is not going to use its gas as a tool against Europe. The EU has no substitute for that, by the way, and many of the world’s gas exporters have already spoken out about it. And the situation in Europe will only get worse for the population if the anti-Russian policy of the current European officials continues, threatening not only the impoverishment of the population, but also the bankruptcy of many European companies and even entire sectors of the economy.

At the same time, as Europe’s anti-Russian sanctions policy continues to escalate, it cannot be ruled out that Russia may eventually, in order to ensure its own security, use hydrocarbon supplies as a retaliatory measure if it considers Western sanctions to be disastrous for the Russian economy. But such actions will only lead to a clear victory for the United States over Europe, a further increase in its dependence on Washington, including on gas, and an even greater enrichment of the United States through its previously planned increase of gas prices in Europe by exacerbating relations with Russia.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The vast Sahel region, stretching across Africa from Senegal to Sudan, has long been the continent’s powder keg. National governments have been able to secure peace here and as a result millions of citizens in Mali, Niger, Burkina-Faso and the other Sahel nations have been forced from their homes and flee en masse to Europe’s Mediterranean coast or risk being recruited by militants. The many extremist groups present in the region, each with their own agenda, have been joined by militants from Syria and Iran where terrorist organizations such as DAESH (a prohibited organization in Russia) have suffered significant losses.

Europe, and particularly France – a former colonial power and still a significant influence in the Sahel region, are concerned about the situation there, especially in terms of its impact on migration and terrorism.  It is therefore no surprise that when, on February 16 2014, the heads of state of Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Burkina-Faso and Chad met together in Nouakchott to found the G5 Sahel group (or G5S), France was the real, if unofficial, initiator of the project. The stated goals of the new regional group were to coordinate their work on reducing poverty, developing infrastructure and agriculture and ensuring security. It was intended to supplement and support the existing regional bodies, including the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS). But in reality the main goal of the G5S was the formation of a military alliance, which was officially established at the G5 summit in February 2017. In accordance with an agreement reached during that summit, the following year the members of the group established the G5 Sahel Joint Force, made up of 5,000 soldiers and police with a single command structure, tasked with preventing terrorist attacks. France later conducted two counter-terrorist operations, Serval and Barkhane, in partnership with the Joint Force.

The establishment of the G5S joint force was greeted positively in Europe, particularly in France, which took on the role of main mentor and supporter of the Sahel nations in order to boost the effectiveness of their counter-terrorism alliance. Concerned by the high levels of illegal migration from Africa – a problem experienced by many European countries – France lobbied for the adoption of the EU Sahel Strategy Regional Action Plan 2015–2020. The EU clearly shares France’s concerns: it has provided significant funding – 50 million euros – for the African nations’ “united army,” as well as humanitarian aid, launched the European Union Capacity Building Mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger), and financed the Coordination Center in partnership with French law-enforcement bodies, as well as investing tens of millions of euros in infrastructure development.

But, besides migration and terrorism, France has other, very direct concerns in its former colonies. It has a number of economic interests there, and is particularly reliant on the region for uranium supplies. The former colonial power has traditionally depended on resources from the Sahel, and Niger supplies a third of its uranium needs – which are significant, since 80% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power. That explains why the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and the French multinational nuclear power company Areva were so keen to persuade the French government to launch its Serval operation in Mali in 2013-2014, aimed a protecting France’s multi-million euro investments in the Sahel. But one should not forget that Paris has a number of other significant financial involvements in the region. To name just a few, the Orange Telecom holding has a presence in Niger, Bolloré logistics is involved in developing the rail network in Niger, as is Sitarail in Burkina-Faso and Camrail in Chad, and Veolia’s African subsidiary Société des Eaux du Niger operates a water treatment plant in Niger – all projects of significant economic and geo-strategic significance for France.

Paris’s determination to implement its security policy in the Sahel forms part of its soft power strategy: the French government uses the French media to promote its official position, namely that it is “helping the Sahel nations in their fight against terrorism,” and present the Barkhane operation as a counter-terrorist initiative. Paris considers that this helps to boost France’s “liberal” image within the international community. Thus, as reported by Le Figaro, Emmanuel Macron gained political capital from the presence of French troops in Niamey, capital of Niger, as part of a joint New Year celebration – a clear illustration of the close connection between France’s foreign policy initiatives and the reputation of the French political establishment back at home.

France’s security policy in the Sahel countries has been viewed as an attempt by the former colonial power to demonstrate its influence, and an expression of its quite rational wish to be seen as an important global power, a particularly pressing concern for France given the growing influence of other powers from outside the region, including China and Russia.

France’s leadership – under the banner of the G5S – of its largest military campaign since the Second World War led to an increase in demand for armaments and gave France the opportunity to develop and demonstrate its military hardware.

However, despite Paris’s attempts, at a local level the G5S has proved itself inadequate, largely as a result of its inaction in the face of the terrorist threat to the region. And that failure has been confirmed by various developments, notably the results of the meeting with the heads of state of the G5S countries, organized by Emmanuel Macron and held on February 16 – which two of the intended participants, the leaders of Mali and Burkina Faso, failed to attend.

As the Malian newspaper Malijet Actualite put it, “today the G5 Sahel Group faces a new challenge — the end of the Barkhane military operation in Mali and the reorganization of the French military presence in the Sahel. Another problem is the changes of regime in Mali and Burkina-Faso, as a result of which both countries have now left the G5S. The future, indeed the continued existence, of what remains of the G5S now looks increasingly doubtful.”  Following the withdrawal of Mali and Burkina-Faso, which formed the core of the G5S, it is unclear whether the alliance is still viable.

And at the same time, France’s policy in Africa is becoming increasingly unsustainable, especially in the eyes of the countries that used to live under French rule. Therefore, it is not surprising that the openly anti-French sentimes were voiced during the recent demonstrations, that gather thousands of people. Those sentiments were expressed in the burning of French flags, as well as in the destruction of portraits and even cardboard figures of President of the Fifth Republic Emmanuel Macron.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On February 24, the Syrian Arab news agency SANA reported that the United States was sending another military escort to Syria, which again acknowledged Washington’s ongoing occupation policy in this Middle Eastern country. It has been continued since 2014 without any UN sanctions and without any permission from official Damascus authorities.

The US military convoy from Iraq, consisting of 23 transport units, including 18 trucks with weapons, ammunition and logistics equipment, as well as 5 empty tank trucks, crossed the border at the illegal Al-Waleed border crossing. The military convoy headed to the Rmelan district in the north-east of the Al-Hasakah Governorate, where the US military bases, in particular, Al-Tanf, are located. The American convoy was accompanied by two vehicles belonging to the opposition Syrian Democratic Forces, equipped with small arms.

It is assumed that the next batch of weapons delivered by the United States to Syria is intended for the military bases of Kurdish insurgents from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) located in the north of the country, who regularly receive assistance from the Americans. The tank trucks in the above mentioned US military convoy are, for sure, intended to transport the oil as part of continued Washington’s pillage of Syrian oil resources, most of which are concentrated in the east of the country where the major Syrian oil fields are located: the Conoco, Al Omar, and Al Tanak oil fields are located on the left bank of the Euphrates, in the area controlled by the pro-American SDF. US Kurdish allies are also actively involved in smuggling oil from Syria, and in exchange, the Americans supply them with weapons.

The Kurdish illegal armed groups that appeared in the midst of the civil war in Syria managed to gain support in the United States, which was facilitated by lobbyists hired by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava) to build links with the American establishment. The names of those people in the USA who promote the interests of SDF in the United States, can be easily found in the database of the US Department of Justice, which contains relevant information provided in accordance with the law about registration of FARA foreign agents.

The Syrian Democratic Forces were formed in the midst of the civil war which began in Syria in 2011, right after the “Arab spring,” their official date of formation is October 11, 2015. The skeleton of this organization consisted of Kurds, and also includes Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmens, Armenians and Circassians. By now, SDF has taken control over parts of the North-East of the Syrian Arabian Republic (SAR). The United States is interested in having the Kurds as the opposition to the official regime in Damascus, and for this reason, in 2013 the administration of the then President Barack Obama took a decision to supply weapons to that armed group. However, in July 2017, when Donald Trump was in office, this “CIA’s secret program for weapons provisioning and training of certain groups of insurgents” who were fighting against the government of Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian President, was terminated. Already in early 2018, SDF launched their first representative office in Washington, the US mission of the Syrian Democratic Council, which was headed by the US citizen, Ahmed Al-Khendi, having declared in its US registration documents its goals. The Kurds managed to establish relations with a number of MPs, including a representative of the Republican party, Marco Rubio.

In 2021, with the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidential term in the White House, the US office of the SDF expanded its activity, including mining and sale of illegally extracted Syrian oil with the participation of Delta Crescent Energy, a US-based company registered in Delaware. Up to three million barrels of raw materials are extracted monthly at the fields in the Al-Hasakah, Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor Governorates. About a third of the stolen oil is sold to the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq at a price of USD 35-40 per barrel, with the US support. According to Al-Monitor, this “cooperation” was made possible with the support of the White House and under the protection of the US military.

Hundreds of terrorists in Syria were released to join the US-controlled armed groups, some of which have been delivered to the territory of the Al-Tanf zone.  The US intelligence agencies plan to offer to the extremist cells in Damascus and Latakia to commit actions against the Syrian, Russian and Iranian military forces, and try to arrange a media campaign to provoke protest sentiments in the Syrian civil society.

With its illegal activities in Syria, the US military continues to kill hundreds of civilians in this country. At the same time, the United States kept hiding the real data on the number of civilians killed after the air raids in Syria, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq, as evidenced by the results of the investigation by the New York Times, in particular. So, on February 22, as a result of another armed attack by landing troops in the village of Ad-Dakhla in the east of the Deir ez-Zor Governorate, the US armed forces together with SDF commenced intense and random fire attack at the residential buildings and agricultural land. As a result, the elder of the Al-Bakkara tribe, Ibrahim Al-Omar, was killed.

Alexander Efimov, Russia’s ambassador in Syria, in his interview with RIA Novosti on February 9, 2022, made the following comments on the US presence in Syria: “First of all, I shall repeat what has been repeatedly said: the presence in Syria of the forces of the so-called “international coalition” led by the United States has no legal basis — such as the resolutions by the UN Security Council or the consent of the legitimate Syrian authorities – and this presence should be terminated immediately. Moreover, the United States obviously has not succeeded in combating terrorism in Syria. In addition to the Trans-Euphrates region, there is another “grey zone” that emerged thanks to the efforts of the Americans, and located in the south of the SAR – the Al-Tanf zone, where Magavir Al-Saura gunmen (an organization banned in Russia) do whatever they want, acting in the atmosphere of impunity and permissiveness, in particular, they hinder the overdue resettlement of the Rukban camp for IDPs located there.

In other words, they divide terrorists into “bad guys” and “good guys,” many of them are given a “second start,” and they continue to accumulate power potential and radicalize civilians. And the longer the United States stays here, the more powerful the delayed-time bomb may turn out to be. We shouldn’t forget the fact that Washington continues to support the illegal appropriation of the SAR’s natural resources – primarily oil and wheat in the North-East of the country.

These facts are sufficient enough to persistently demand the illegal American occupation of the SAR to be terminated.”

This appeal to terminate the US illegal aggressive operation in Syria and to have the presence of the US occupation forces in Syria recognized as illegal by the UN, is a burning issue today, especially in the context of the criticism against Russia by Washington and NATO countries regarding Russia’s military special operation in the Donbass. Recall that this operation is intended to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, and it was started because no reaction from the Ukrainian authorities followed to stop the policy of genocide of the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, a policy supported by Kiev militants since 2014, which resulted in killing hundreds of civilians.

It makes one wonder, how come the political demagogues from Washington and Western Europe have the right to criticize other countries, impose unilateral sanctions, at the same time being silent about their war crimes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier in Yugoslavia? Thus, they are demonstrating “double standards” in assessing international events and understating Washington’s blatant violation of international norms!

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In a recent interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, Turkish presidential spokesman İbrahim Kalın admitted that at the moment Turkey’s relations with Germany are not at the desired level.

Indeed, the two partners, Berlin and Ankara, have had a lot of grievances against each other in recent years. Although Germany had been the main “defender” of Turkey’s interests in the EU, it should nevertheless not be forgotten that this position of the federal government was directly linked to the Social Democratic-Green coalition staying in power. However, with the Christian Democrats replacing them for a prolonged stay in power the relations between the two countries have been severely tested, and the influence of the Turkish lobby in the European Union has been significantly undermined. While the Schroder government had previously supported Ankara in one way or another on the issue of Turkish membership in the EU, Merkel would more than once successfully exploit the anti-Turkish sentiment of Germans in the battle for votes, becoming an active supporter of the idea of an expanded “privileged” partnership of Turkey with the EU instead of its full membership in the organization. This explains much of Ankara’s coolness towards Merkel and Germany as a whole.

This fissure in relations between Berlin and Ankara intensified after Turkey finally realized that it was unlikely to become a member of the EU, and its hoplesss presence the “waiting line” for EU membership since 1987 was a direct result of the German resistance.

The discontent in Germany, where more than three million Turks live, is largely due to the reluctance of many migrants to integrate into German society. The Bundestag believes that part of the blame for this lies with President Erdoğan and his entourage, who have repeatedly urged German Turks to preserve their native language, faith and traditions.

However, some blame lies with the German authorities themselves, who made a serious mistake by allowing the Turks to settle close to each other. Because of this, many of them live in a kind of parallel world, communicating only with their compatriots and not trying to learn German. Because of the language barrier, some Turkish teenagers often drop out of school to subsequently fill unemployment liines. However, there is another trend: the children and grandchildren of Turkish migrants, having received a good German education, return to Turkey, where they receive higher salaries and build successful careers.

The Turkish diaspora in Germany, as in Europe as a whole, is not only viewed with suspicion in Berlin. We must not forget that almost half of the imams in these countries are Turks. Turkish mosques are being actively built in various countries, from the Netherlands to Belgium. Sermons in Turkish mosques are given exclusively in Turkish. In addition, Turkish schools and madrasas are being actively built in European countries. Turkish ministers are running political campaigns in Europe, addressing the diaspora. And Erdoğan himself is constantly addressing members of the diaspora. Even now, the Turkish population in Western Europe exceeds that of countries such as Hungary, Sweden or Portugal. And Erdoğanэs influence is no different!

The Turkish leader has repeatedly asked Berlin to show more solidarity towards the Turks living in the country, accusing German authorities of doing too little to integrate the minority. In particular, Berlin opposes dual citizenship that Ankara insists on. The Turkish president is also unhappy about the partial continuation of the visa regime between the countries, while Germans themselves can travel to Turkey unhindered (they only need to show their internal passport at the border, while Turks need a visa to travel to Germany). This, incidentally, was used by German jihadists who travelled through Turkey to fight for DAESH fighters (a movement banned in the Russian Federation) in Syria and Iraq, which is unsettling for the German government.

Berlin’s criticism of Turkey’s human rights abuses in the country during the suppression of the military rebellion in 2016, as well as after the German parliament passed a resolution recognizing the 1915 Armenian Genocide, has also irritated bilateral relations.

Risking his partnership with Germany, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly made highly controversial remarks about the German authorities, undercutting the ground he is sitting on, as Germany is Turkey’s biggest trading partner. Germany accounts for about 10% of Turkey’s exports, which in absolute terms amounts to EUR 14bn (the UK being the second largest importer of Turkish goods, with Iraq coming in third by a wide margin). If you look at the list of goods that Turkey imports, it is even more dependent on Germany than any other country: equipment, electrical engineering and chemical products – a large proportion of which are produced by highly specialized German companies. Germany, for its part, buys primarily textiles from Turkey, the republic’s biggest export commodity, and food, which is the most expensive of Turkish exports. However, Germany could easily replace Turkey as a supplier. While Germany is Turkey’s number one trading partner, the Republic of Turkey is only ranked 13th on Germany’s equivalent list. An important feature of Turkish-German economic relations is the large number of German subsidiaries operating in Turkey, more than 6,000 – more than in any other country.

Because Turkish imports far exceed exports, the country regularly runs a trade deficit, which Ankara is trying to patch up through tourism, one of the most important sectors of the Turkish economy, where Germany has once again overtaken other European partners of Turkey (around 15% of all tourist traffic is linked to Germany).

Ankara has certainly pinned its EU integration hopes on a change of government in the FRG. However, the obstacles for Turkey have not gone anywhere. In October last year, the European Commission noted in a report that Ankara’s accession to the EU was “at a standstill” because of serious democratic deficiencies in the Turkish system. In particular, the EU’s serious concerns stem from the continuing deterioration in the areas of democracy, the rule of law, fundamental rights and the independence of the judiciary. There has been a further setback in many areas, the EU report said.

Therefore, even with the current Social Democratic-dominated coalition in Germany, consisting of the Greens, the Liberals and the Social Democrats, one can hardly expect relations between the two countries to improve quickly and radically. After all, Olaf Scholz will have to adhere to Brussels’ position in his views, including on relations with Turkey, and the need for reforms demanded by the EU from Ankara in a number of areas that are simply not possible, because Turkey’s level of external and internal threats differs significantly from those for the EU.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The run-up to the discharging of chemically treated, but still radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is once again taking center stage in the eyes of many of Japan’s neighbors.

The Japanese authorities opted to release Fukushima water last April to advance the decommissioning process that has lasted for more than a decade. As the reader may recall, in 2011, a massive magnitude 9.0 earthquake triggered a huge tsunami that killed more than 18,000 people along Japan’s north-east coast. Tsunami waves crashed into Fukushima nuclear power plant, knocking out its backup electricity supply, which caused meltdowns in three of its reactors and sending large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere. More than 150,000 people were forced to flee their homes. At the same time, evacuation orders in communities closest to the plant were only recently partially lifted.

Almost immediately after the disaster at the nuclear power plant, radioactive water became a serious headache for the government and the company operating the power plant, Tokyo Electric Power. The government plan envisages that millions of tons of chemically treated, but still radioactive water will be dumped into the sea in the course of 30 years in several stages, starting in 2023.

This accident at Fukishima Daiichi has been the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, although the environmental fallout turned out to be less damaging than experts feared. Immediately after the disaster Japan’s government banned the sale of 44 fish species, but by 2020 it lifted all these restrictions. Excess radiation in the agricultural products is also becoming increasingly rare. For that reason, in early February, Taiwan announced that it would lift the ban on food and agricultural imports from Northern Japan since it is now deemed safe.

Nonetheless, the issue of getting rid of radioactive water still looms large on the agenda of the government and Tokyo Electric Power. As of last year, 150 tons of radioactive water flowed to the NPP every day, with rain and ground water mixing up with the water used to cool the reactors.

For now, this radioactive water is being treated, but to remove tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, and some other elements from it is just not possible. All radioactive water is stored in 1,061 tanks, and according to Tokyo Electric Power, those will be filled to the brim by spring 2023. Japan’s authorities fear that adding up to the battery of tanks may pose new difficulties, so the issue of discharging water has taken on particular urgency.

However, to ensure that tritium level is low enough when diluted with seawater, storage sites are being constructed which will be used as temporary tanks before the discharge itself. Besides, the Japanese authorities’ project sets out for building of an underwater tunnel through which water will be dumped into the sea at a 1 km distance from the plant. The tunnel construction was expected to get under way earlier this year. The works, however, were put off until June as many officials doubt that the tunnel will be ready in time due to recent delays induced by the coronavirus pandemic as well as the lack of consent for such efforts both in Japan and abroad.

Some environmental experts and nuclear physicists believe that discharging water is the lesser evil as the Pacific ocean will help make radiation harmless to humans. At the same time, local fisherman abandoned by their customers in the wake of the disaster, lambasted the move as “absolutely unacceptable.”

The South Korean government whose waters border the Japanese ones, has fiercely opposed the plan. On February 4, Russian and Chinese leaderships issued a joint statement where they voiced concerns over Japan’s plan to release into the ocean contaminated water from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant saying that the water should be disposed of in a responsible and adequate manner based on Japan’s agreements with neighboring countries and international organizations.

Tokyo Electric Power argues that its purification technology allows for removing almost all radioactive elements from the water except for tritium which is harmless in small quantities. It said the gradual release of the water, diluted with seawater, would not pose a threat to human health or the marine environment. In 2020, however, Greenpeace said the water still contained contaminants beside tritium and would have to be treated again.

In these conditions, the Japanese government asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit Fukushima and to examine the safety of the treated radioactive water with the idea that a seal of approval from a credible international body could be used as a powerful argument in debates with critics at home and abroad. At first, a team of researchers from 11 countries, including China, South Korea, and Russia, which are the fiercest opponents of the water release, was expected to visit Japan in December but the trip was cancelled due to a new coronavirus wave.

The Japanese government has also struggled to gain support from fishermen and the public regarding the plan of releasing chemically treated water from the NPP. Fishermen are particularly adamant in the opposition against dumping radioactive water in the area.

Their fears are justified by the events of the last month, when the Japaneses government suspended sales of black rockfish that had been caught not far off from Fukushima. This comes after experts found that the fish was 14 times more radioactive than the legally permitted level: according to Japan’s ministry of health, the fish contained 1,400 becquerels of radiation per kilogram, compared with a safe level of 100 becquerels per kilogram. This news, as The Times reports, added to anxiety of the local population which opposes the authorities’ plans to release contaminated water into the ocean from the crippled power plant.

On February 14, a group of IAEA experts arrived to Japan to review the “controversial” planned release of more than 1.25 million tons of contaminated water from Fukushima Daiichi into the ocean. The IAEA group promised to report its findings in late April.

However, as The Guardian reports, Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist for Greenpeace East Asia, said he did not believe the IAEA would fully investigate and address safety and environmental concerns in its report. He noted that “the IAEA is not an independent agency in nuclear affairs – under statute its mission is to promote nuclear power. It has sought to justify radioactive marine pollution as having no impact and safe. But the IAEA is incapable of protecting the environment, human health or human rights from radiation risks – that’s not its job.”

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Spearheaded by Paris and Canada, Europeans recognized the futility of their activities in Mali within the ill-fated anti-terrorist Operation Barkhane that lasted for 9 years since 2014, and on February 17 decided to begin a coordinated military withdrawal from this African country. French president Emmanuel Macron said that after pulling out of Mali European troops would be redeployed to neighboring Niger.

Pan-African activists, however, have been outspoken in their criticism of the news about the French troops redeployment from Mali to Niger. They argue that France had plenty of time to deal away with terrorist groups but it failed to accomplish this goal. For example, a pan-African activist Moussa Tchangari said: “This is Emmanuel Macron’s mistake. By keeping his troops in the Sahel, the Elysee Palace runs a risk of putting these countries in a tough spot. We have already criticized the French military presence since we think it is useless. Moreover, in the long term it threatens Niger’s sovereignty.”

France’s military withdrawal from Mali will take four to six months, President of the former colonial power Emmanuel Macron said. At the same time, Mali’s authorities demanded that France step up its military withdrawal. A statement to this effect was made by Colonel Abdoulaye Maïga, the government’s spokesperson. In particular, he stressed out the following: “Given constant violations of defense agreements the government suggested that the French authorities should without delay withdraw its task forces within Operations Barkhane and Takuba from the territories under the control of the Malian authorities.”

According to France 24, Emmanuel Macron’s announcement about the French pullout did not come as a surprise in the Malian capital Bamako. The media outlet also stressed that nine years of French intervention did not succeed in providing response to the security issues and now Malian citizens place faith in new partners such as Russia, China and Turkey. In general, the locals are in favor of rebuilding sovereign pan-African Mali against “dictate and interference from France.” This is evidenced by the last several months that have been marked by anti-French demonstrations across this entire African country and its regional neighbors. The population denounced French foreign policy in the Western Africa and questioned the validity of Operation Barkhane, which after nine years of intervention has not succeeded in reaching the stated security goals.

According to the Elysee Palace, there are currently 25,000 European troops in the Sahel region (Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad), including 4,300 French service members. Besides, 2,400 French soldiers have been deployed in Mali. This country has also accommodated 15,000 troops as part of the UN Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). During the operation, 53 French soldiers have been killed in action. An average of $1.27 billion is spent annually to prop up MINUSMA, which makes it the most expensive UN peacekeeping mission.

However, neither high numbers, nor exorbitant expenses have been enough help for the peacekeepers to accomplish their primary task in Mali. The death toll increased exponentially: in 2016 the conflict claimed 71 lives while in 2019, 815 people were killed. Further down the line, this figure continued to grow. Human Rights Watch experts think that even those numbers are significantly downplayed campared to the facts on the ground.

Since their arrival to Mali, MINUSMA employees did not take any interest in fighting the militants. Instead of protecting civilians, those “peacekeepers,” according to the local media, promoted chaos in the country using it as a pretext to demand the extension of the UN mandate and additional funds. MINUSMA representatives’ criminal record is trivial: robberies, rape, murder, execution of civilians, smuggling, inaction, training, supplying and aiding the militants. Indeed, one of the victims said she was gang-raped, after which the “peacekeepers” burned her genitals with cigarettes. By 2021, the terrorist group Boko Haram (banned in Russia) not only increased its footprint but also turned the republic into Africa’s drug powerhouse.

Over the years these “peacekeepers” were stationed in Mali, they showed a poor performance while being unable to stop radical violence in the region.

France’s decision to pull back troops from Mali grabbed headlines in many countries. Nathalie Yamb, Cameroonian human rights activist, stressed that the decision to entirely withdraw French troops from Mali was made by local residents and the government, not by Paris. “When the Elysee Palace officials announced that they curtail the ineffective Operation Barkhane they understood that this was not their decision, but the decision of the African population. We are witnessing France’s complete defeat, their rout shall be credited with the local residents and the government,” she said.

According to a poll by Le Figaro, about 90% of persons reading this French newspaper approve of the Elysee Palace’s decision to withdraw troops from the Republic of Mali.

Alioune Tine, UN independent expert on human rights, said that the security situation in Mali improved after the nation’s authorities scaled back their cooperation with France. African figures and government officials in Bamako argue that the shutdown of foreign-backed anti-terrorist operations will not harm the republic. At the same time, prime minister Choguel Kokalla Maïga pointed out that after the Western soldiers had been deployed, the situation in the country went downhill: “International experts think that the withdrawal of Barkhane and Takuba forces results from the failure of Western military intervention which led to terrorism spilling onto 80% of the nation’s territory as opposed to fighting it. France established an enclave in Mali. It formed and trained a radical group in Kidal. In 2013, during military push against the armed gangs in the northern regions Paris blocked Mali’s military from returning to Kidal because it had established there a training facility.”

According to RFI Kiswahili news agency, prime minister Maïga also accused France of its plans to splinter the West African nation through military intervention in the Sahel. “After a time of “elation” when French soldiers liberated northern Mali from jihadists in 2013, the intervention turned into an operation of de facto partition of Mali,” he said.

Against the backdrop of the termination of Mali’s security cooperation with France, Information and Public Relations Department of the Malian Armed forces (DIRPA) held its fifth press conference on the security situation. Souleymane Dembélé, DIPRA’s director, spoke about the growing might of the Malian Armed Forces (FAM) touting the results of its anti-terrorist operations. From December 25 to February 17 alone, FAM soldiers eliminated 208 bandits, detained 108 criminals, and confiscated 47 weapons.

African journalists noted that the Armed forces of Mali grew stronger due to rapprochement between Moscow and Bamako. Moreover, according to their reports, even militants fled the town of Bankass in panic when they heard of Russian instructors being deployed nearby. The retreat of foreign military contingents from Mali will have a positive effect on the national army’s combat capabilities, reports Mali Actu.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Following the opening, on February 8, of the eighth round of talks on restarting the Iran nuclear deal (formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), and with a 20-page draft document on the revival of the “deal of the century” now on the table, there are grounds for hoping that the negotiations are drawing to an end. But some recent moves by the Biden administration suggest that it is still too early to celebrate.

The participants in the Vienna talks are certainly trying to demonstrate that they share a common goal, and are working together to achieve success. And, despite the barrage of propaganda from opponents of the nuclear deal, and the protests being aired in the media, progress is clearly being made.

The goal of the talks in Vienna is to revive the JCPOA on the terms and in the form agreed in 2015, not to agree on a “Plan B” which would come into effect should the efforts to revive the deal be unsuccessful. “Globally, the general consensus is that there is no reasonable alternative to the JCPOA, and that the last US administration’s serious mistakes and violations of UNSC Resolution No. 2231 need to be put right. This will allow Iran to continue complying with its voluntary commitments under the deal – a process which was put on hold in response to Washington’s withdrawal from the deal,” said Vladimir Yermakov,  Director of the Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department at the Russian Foreign Ministry.

However, as previous experience in these negotiations has proved, it is still too early to speculate on the results of the talks or make any predictions about deadlines.

Currently, the assumption is that the JCPOA will be revived in its entirety, with nothing added, and nothing taken away. Since the situation has changed considerably over the last four years, it is possible that some new issues may arise, but these should be discussed separately at the end of the process. A great deal has already been achieved. A draft of the final document has been drawn up. It does contain a number of points requiring further elaboration, and a considerable number of questions, some of which are fairly fundamental, still need to be resolved. The document deals with the lifting of the US sanctions, Iran’s future actions in relation to its nuclear program, and, finally, a road map for implementing the measures agreed on. Once a final agreement has been reached, the preparations for its implementation will begin. This may take one or two months. And then, we may see the long-awaited JCPOA coming into effect, more or less in the form that was agreed back in 2015.

During the Vienna talks, the international community – which reflects all views, not only those of Washington and Tel Aviv – has shown itself sympathetic to Iran’s wishes. After all, in this case Iran is the injured party – it was the USA, not Tehran, that withdrew from the JCPOA in breach of international rules and accepted negotiating practice. And it was not Iran’s idea to renege on its obligations, the decision was forced on it by the US’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

As readers will remember, Iran signed the JCPOA with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, in July 2015. But in 2018 the USA unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and imposed sanctions on Iran, and the following year Iran, in response, began its staged withdrawal from its obligations under the JCPOA. But following the inauguration of Joe Biden as US President Washington decided to renew the dialog with Iran, and considerable progress was made in six rounds of indirect talks, held in Vienna. But last June’s presidential elections in Iran brought a new team to power in Tehran, and the talks were paused until November, and when they were renewed, at the end of the year, they ran into difficulties.

And in recent months Israel has also been raising objections to the revival of the JCPOA. Thus on November 28 Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett stated that Tel Aviv was becoming increasingly concerned about the leading world powers’ willingness to lift the sanctions in exchange for “insufficient” restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Bennett had earlier declared that his government would not comply with the terms of the nuclear deal, even if it was revived with the support of Washington, as Israel was not a party to it. The possibility of the renewal of the nuclear deal concluded between the USA and Iran clearly frightens Israel – and not just because it would help to boost Iran’s status within the international community. Israel is also concerned that the JCPOA may deal a lethal blow to the anti-Iranian coalition between the US, Israel and the Persian Gulf nations, that came into being with the signing of the Abraham Accords.

On February 6 Naftali Bennet had the latest in a series of telephone conversations with Joe Biden to discuss the “growing Iranian aggression, and the steps to block the Iranian nuclear program”. Moreover, the news site Axios, citing an unnamed Israeli civil servant, reports that Naftali Bennet had urged the US not to revive the Iran nuclear deal. According to the site’s source, during the telephone conversation the Israeli premier assured his US counterpart that “nothing will happen if you don’t sign it”.

The White House, apparently prompted by Tel Aviv, then found a highly original way to retreat from its position without losing face. The Biden administration appointed Sam Brinton to a high-ranking post in the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, a position that involves liaising with counterparts in China, Russia and Iran on nuclear-related issues including the JCPOA.

In certain respects the appointment appears entirely reasonable: Sam Brinton has a dual Master’s degree in engineering systems and nuclear sciences from the globally renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Brinton has extensive professional experience and is no stranger to the workings of government, having advised the Obama administration and worked with the US Congress on its nuclear policy.

However, Brinton’s public image is strikingly different from what would be expected of a senior functionary in most countries, especially in Asia – and particularly in Iran. Sam Brinton is a LGBTQ activist whose highly individual appearance and openly queer lifestyle have provoked a storm of comment on social media. Brinton is an out-and-proud drag queen and “pup handler” – a gay sub-culture in which men dressed in fetish gear “train” other men, who play the role of dogs, as a prelude to sexual activity. Sam Brinton has also given talks on the kink lifestyle in many university campuses and is the author, apparently, of Instagram posts containing graphic “live demonstrations” of various sexual perversions.

As for Iran, a fundamentalist Muslim country with nuclear ambitions, the involvement of an openly queer drag queen in the negotiations will certainly put a strain on the relations between the two countries, and Brinton’s sexual orientation may even put the newly appointed expert at risk of prosecution in the Islamic Republic. That is a very real risk – as number of media outlets have reported, the latest in a series of executions of gay men took place in Tehran on January 30. And in June last year two other men were executed for the same offense, according to Human Rights Activists.

The Biden administration’s decision to appoint Sam Brinton is an symbolizes the US’s social decadence and, better than anything else, illustrates the mentality of the country’s current government. As reported by the Daily Mail, recently more than thirty Republican delegates, headed by former Presidential Doctor Ronny Jackson, called for Joe Biden to undergo a cognitive skills test to prove that he is still fit for office. In their letter they refer to a number of recent gaffes made by the President and cite the precedent of Donald Trump, who took such a test in 2018. Maybe the lawmakers are onto something, and there really are grounds for concern.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Despite the active efforts of the White House, by various dirty machinations and the failed attempt at a “diplomatic boycott,” to belittle the significance of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games, these Games themselves, as well as the contacts held against their background by the Chinese authorities with the leaders of a number of foreign states, have become the focus of attention of the international community and numerous foreign media.

Naturally, in the first place in this sense was the reaction to the February 4 talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, which caused a lively discussion not only in China and Russia, but also in the West, for which Russian-Chinese cooperation is a painful topic.  The international community has paid particular attention to the unprecedented nature of Russian-Chinese cooperation, as well as the provisions of the joint statement following this meeting, where China officially supported Russia’s position on the further non-expansion of NATO and the indivisible security space. The Washington Post even wrote that during negotiations China and Russia expressed their discontent at the current world order headed by the USA, and the subtext of the Olympic meeting was “the renewal of the division of the world into two main camps: China and Russia vs the USA and its allies.”

After the results of the meeting between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, perhaps the second place in the interest shown in the latest international events against the backdrop of the opening of the Olympics was the meeting of the Chinese leader on February 6 with Argentine President Alberto Fernandez, who also arrived in Beijing to participate in the opening ceremony of the 2022 Winter Games.

Active development by Beijing of the relations with Latin American countries began following the end of the Cold War, when several state leaders, including those of Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia, became increasingly critical of the dominance of Washington across the region. Under these conditions, exacerbated by the financial crisis flaring up, the countries of the region turned their attention to China, hoping to protect themselves with the help of Chinese money. When prices for gas and other commodities fell in 2011 and several countries of the region suddenly found themselves in highly unstable positions, China once again came to the rescue, making deals that would further solidify its role as a central player in Latin America for many decades to come. In subsequent years, despite the internal political struggle and the “reconsideration” by a number of states of their political course, the leaders of the new generation adapted their political ambitions to suit their Chinese partners, which allowed Beijing to calmly implement its far-reaching plans in Latin America. As a result of China’s cooperation with states of the region, mutual trade has noticeably increased and Beijing has rendered help to governments of many Latin American countries, implemented a whole range of large infrastructure projects, strengthened the military-technical partnership and concentrated such financial, political and human resources in the region that the fate of several Latin American countries is now closely connected with China. According to data from Boston University, in 2021 trade turnover between China, Latin American countries and the Caribbean basin reached $451,59 billion and Chinese exports to the region – $229,9 billion, plus 52% compared to the previous year. Since 2015 China has been the main trade partner of South America, ahead of the United States. While the United States is doing its best to “topple” the shaky government of yet another “Third World” state, China is making every effort to save this government. This was exactly the case with Venezuela and Brazil where China actively and generously supported state companies in crisis.

This applies to a large extent to China’s relations with Argentina, which was closed for many years to international credit markets due to a default on bonds amounting to approximately $100 billion. Under these conditions, China extended a helping hand to the then President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, after which, in particular, a large-scale construction of a new space station in Patagonia began, a $50 million project involving the deployment, in the “backyard” of the United States, of a completely isolated base whose main tasks were to monitor outer space and control Chinese orbital satellites. In March of 2018 the station became part of a project with the Chinese Space Administration on exploration of the far side of the moon.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the leaders of the People’s Republic of China and Argentina, at the opening of the Beijing Olympics, had quite a warm and frank meeting, which ended with a joint statement. In this statement, the Argentine President Alberto Fernandez announced that he fully supports the “One China” policy, according to which Taiwan is recognized as a part of the PRC, and further that the Latin American republic fully joins the Chinese initiative Belt and Road Initiative. The participation in this megaproject allows Argentina “to earn” additional funds to its budget – Beijing will allocate more than $23 billion to the country in order to implement various projects. Besides, the countries signed 13 documents on the partnership in such areas as green technology, digital economy, space and atomic spheres, technology and innovation, education, agriculture and media.

However, this meeting attracted particular attention not because Argentina, like many African and Latin American countries that accept Chinese investments, assures Beijing of friendship and good neighborliness. More significant were the words of Xi Jinping, which threw many world politicians who share the “Anglo-Saxon world order” into frustration.

The Chinese leader announced support for Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, ceded to Britain as a result of hostilities in 1982.

Back then, these islands, located 400 km from the coast of Argentina and 12,400 km from Britain, became the subject of a clash of two states with a powerful navy and strong air forces, not to mention that British ships could potentially use nuclear weapons against Argentina. Ultimately, Britain took possession of the islands by force and continues to maintain control over them at the present time. According to the AP agency, 649 Argentine and 255 British soldiers died during this operation. The British use the islands as a staging post on their way from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean that allows them to control the southern Atlantic. Oil reserves on the shelves near the islands have intensified the territorial dispute between London and Buenos Aires.

The British Foreign Office immediately reacted to Xi Jinping’s statement with indignation, calling on China to respect the sovereignty of the Falklands on its Twitter. It cannot be ruled out that against this background, London, following the Sinophobic instructions of Washington, will want to once again demonstrate its imperial ambitions to Beijing and, as six months ago, will send a British aircraft carrier group led by ‘Queen Elisabeth’ to the coast of China to “show the flag” in the South China Sea. Still, it is highly doubtful that this “ship” will be able to once again reach far away shores, especially considering the leak discovered after a major overhaul. According to the conclusion of analysts from China, circulated earlier in the Chinese publication Sohu, this aircraft carrier no longer fits the definition of “pride of the British fleet”, is in a deplorable state and can hardly have any impact on the operational situation in the oceans.

In the meantime, British Foreign Minister Liz Truss, quite hastily, went to Moscow, obviously to find out what the presidents of Russia and Argentina, Vladimir Putin and Alberto Fernandez, talked about on February 4…

At the same time, some media outlets have reported that Britain began the deployment on the disputed Malvinas (Falkland) Islands of the Sky Saber anti-aircraft system, a new generation ground-based air defense system with a long range. On the islands, the local Defense Forces are conducting military drills with members of the army, navy and the Royal Air Force of Britain, which are part of the British forces in the South Atlantic. In this context, on February 5 the Argentine MFA expressed protest as the strength of militarization of the islands and English military presence on the disputed territory goes against a number of UN resolutions.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On February 2, the Pentagon chief announced that US Special Forces had completed a counter-terrorism operation in Syria, controlled by the US Central Command, stressing that “the mission was successful” and “there were no US casualties.” As it turned out, the target of this operation near the town of Atme in the Syrian province of Idlib, close to the Turkish border, was the leader of the terrorist group ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation), Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Quraishi. Damascus cannot yet confirm US reports of the killing of al-Quraishi, the chairman of the Syrian parliament’s international committee, Butrus al-Marjan, said on February 3.

Only blatantly unhealthy individuals would accept the American military establishment’s bold assessment of the results of the “operation,” since no operation can be considered successful when civilians are killed in the process! Associated Press reported on more than ten deaths, which was further confirmed by the White Helmets, who pointed out that six children and four women were among the victims!

Another example of the US military failures is the incident from a week before in the same Kurdish-American zone of influence in northwestern Syria, in the city of Al-Hasakah, where a terrorist group stormed the Al-Sinaa prison on January 23. It is noteworthy that the terrorists managed to form a storm unit of 200 militants right under the noses of US officials. As a result, they released some 800 (!!!) militants, who subsequently escaped and dispersed among the local population.  It is also worth noting that several thousand Kurds, led by “Pentagon specialists” and supported by US armored vehicles, aircraft and US special forces, were unable to recapture the Al-Sinaa prison from the remaining militants for several days. In the act of utter desperation, the Americans called in British special forces for a decisive storming of the prison, ultimately confirming the US military’s lack of ability to even suppress the remaining militants.

Eventually, on the night of January 26, US aircraft struck the prison building and its surroundings, killing many ISIS militants. There were reportedly many ISIS militants among the prisoners, including minors, both from Syria and other countries. In addition, not only militants, but also their relatives, women and children had been kept in this prison “for their links with ISIS.”

As a result of massive strikes by the US Air Force, including on neighboring residential areas, more than 40,000 civilians fearing for their safety were forced to flee their homes and move to safe areas under the control of the Syrian government. According to Hasan Khalil, head of the regional administration, the province of Al-Hasakah in northeastern Syria has suffered extensive damage inflicted the US Air Force, particularly to the academic buildings of the Technical University. According to Arab News, there were civilian casualties.

The UN is concerned about reports of civilian deaths in US operations and believes “it would be important to have an investigation,” deputy UN Secretary General Farhan Haq told at a briefing.

According to eyewitness accounts, US-controlled territory in Syria has become a grey area where militants operate with impunity. This was already the case in Afghanistan, which US soldiers ignominiously abandoned in August.

In this context, it is entirely justified that on January 27, Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s first deputy permanent representative to the UN, demanded at Security Council meeting that US troops be withdrawn from Syria, as they are failing in the fight against terrorism and are in that country without UN and Syrian government sanction. “The problems remain where the Americans created legal vacuum and where Syria’s sovereign territory remains occupied by foreign troops. The United States clearly fails fight against terrorism even on a local scale to say nothing of the global dimension,” he said.

Polyanskiy called attention to the dangerous situation in northeastern Syria, illegally occupied by US troops. According to him, “areas that Americans have been robbing of oil suffer from a true environmental disaster… We must say that cross-Euphrates area is another “grey spot” on the Syrian map, same as the al-Tanf area, where militants from ”Mahavir as-Saura“, indulged by the United States, enjoy total impunity and permissiveness. The illegal presence of US military in Syria created a “lawless zone” in the north-east, where foreign terrorists and militants, as well as various criminals feel perfectly at ease,” the Russian representative continued. That is why the Syrian armed forces, with the support of the Russian military, continue to seek out and destroy ISIS terrorists in Syria and this work will continue.

Polyanskiy added that “anarchy and violence” characterize any location “where the US military has been stationed – both during their presence and upon withdrawal.” The most recent evidence of this was Afghanistan, from which the US withdrew, unable to cope with the enormous burden of problems that had accumulated over the years of US occupation.

The armed conflict in Syria has been ongoing since 2011. The US, under the pretext of fighting terrorists, invaded the country without permission from the Syrian authorities and the UN. In recent months, anti-American sentiments have noticeably intensified in Syria, with Syrians demanding the withdrawal of the US troops from their country. The growth of these sentiments is also due to the continuing illegal export of Syrian oil by the United States to Iraq, as has been regularly reported by the Syrian Arab news agency SANA and from the UN rostrum by the official Syrian authorities.

On January 28, and before that in late December, Syrian Arab Army (SAA) units barred a US military convoy from entering the city of Al-Hasakah in the north-east of the republic. The residents of Tell Dahab, with the help of the Syrian military at the roadblock, prevented US armored vehicles from entering the village, forcing them to turn around.

Washington’s use of the US Army and mercenaries to secure neo-colonial targets has become the standard of US behavior. And this is especially clearly visible in the actions of Washington in Syria, where the US, backed by its army and thousands of private military companies (PMCs), continues to plunder the country, its energy resources, artefacts and any other valuable property, and kill civilians. The international community must pressure the US into immediately ceasing this treacherous behavior.

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.