Against the backdrop of events in Ukraine, Boris Johnson, who just days ago found himself under increased criticism from the British and on the verge of impeachment for his indifference towards the subjects of the kingdom, decided to “brush his feathers and his tufts.” Not surprisingly, in his attempt to stay relevant he turned to a tried and tested tool of Russophobia, and under this banner this descendant of the Circassian muhajirs decided to launch an all out attack on everything Russian.

Despite his previously demonstrated love for freedom and respect for human rights, so far Boris Johnson has not properly condemned, either as a private individual or as a – for the time being – head of government, the recent Russophobic actions of the British extremists. In particular, the recent pogrom at the Russian St Nicholas Church in Oxford, amid a fake news campaign launched in the country personally by the British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister of the Kingdom.

Incidents of xenophobia towards Russians and manifestations of Russophobia have long occurred in Britain, intensifying dramatically whenever relations between the Russian and Western worlds reached the point of direct conflict. This was the case during the Crimean War in the 19th century, after the Great October Revolution and then throughout the Cold War under the banner of the “red menace.” Even before the military special operation in Ukraine, Russophobia had again become widespread in Britain, with images of “Russian spies Petrov and Boshirov” as well as the name of the poisoning agent “Novichok.” However, multiple sources in Britain itself are confidently leaning towards the involvement not of Russia in this provocative Skripals incident, but of British secret services and the Kingdom’s secret biological laboratory at Porton Down. When Moscow’s special operation to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine began on February 24, Boris Johnson was once again dragged anti-Russian sentiments out of a dusty cupboard and widely spread them in the Kingdom, resulting in ordinary Russian citizens and institutions becoming the target of attacks and insults.

At the same time, Johnson failed to condemn or, indeed, mention the recent mass execution, Saudi Arabia’s biggest in decades, in which 81 people were beheaded. Moreover, he has made an urgent visit to Riyadh, though again with the same anti-Russian overtones of replacing Russian energy supplies in the Persian Gulf. Although the sheikhs there have recently refused to participate in Biden’s anti-Russian energy campaign. However, Boris Johnson tried to maneuver his way around British politicians when organizing the trip, as MPs in the House of Commons expressed deep concerns about British-Arab relations. First of all, after 81 people were executed in Saudi Arabia on March 12, 2022, a week after the Crown Prince pledged to modernize his justice system. The House of Commons considers the events of March 12 to be a gross violation of human rights.

Before flying to Riyadh, Johnson met with leaders of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). But he found here no success either, especially with the elimination of three British mercenaries in a strike on the Yavorivsky training ground near Lviv in western Ukraine, as already reported by the Daily Mirror. The United Kingdom-led Joint Expeditionary Force, established in 2014, is not a permanent force. Participating countries (aside from Britain, these include Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) periodically conduct joint field training exercises. And now Johnson intends to use their “potential” in strengthening the confrontation with Russia in Ukraine.

Moreover, criticism of Johnson’s provocative sanctions policy against Russia, which is hurting the British population the most, has intensified considerably in the Kingdom in recent days. As The Daily Mail reported on March 12, Britain bought a record £2.6 billion worth of goods from Russia in the month before the situation in Ukraine escalated. According to the Office for National Statistics, January imports included fuel worth £911.5 million: coal, coke and briquettes worth £32 million, oil worth £590.4 million and gas worth £289.1 million. All of which Britain will now have to forfeit because of the anti-Russian sanctions initiated by Boris Johnson. The surge in oil prices as a result of sanctions against Russia could have dire economic consequences for the United Kingdom, surpassing even the effects of the 1973 oil crisis, according to The Daily Mail.

Given that gas prices have skyrocketed in recent days, increasing about fivefold, Britain is inevitably facing a growing energy crisis, warns The Daily Telegraph. In addition, the cessation of wood pellets supplies from Russia due to the new sanctions will lead to a sharp increase in heating costs for homeowners and organizations that use this fuel. As wood fuel pellets will no longer be imported and purchased from Russian producers, this will also have an impact on supplies globally, not just in Britain, given the huge volumes of previous exports from Russia. Since British and international sanctions and restrictions are now in place against Moscow, total European production could fall by 12-15%, experts warn. So a rise in prices in Britain because of the current situation is inevitable, as is mass bankruptcy in the Kingdom.

Barely recovered from the pandemic, the United Kingdom is once again in crisis: British consumers face “severe hardships” from rising inflation and higher everyday costs, reports The Independent.

It is therefore not surprising that, despite the tense situation around Ukraine, Britain has decided to revisit Johnson’s past sins. BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg recalled that Johnson not so long ago was “trying to keep his political head above water” with his last bit of strength. As recently as late February, the media were overflowing with headlines about parties, cakes, cheese, wine, questionnaires from the Metropolitan Police and rules during lockdowns. Labour Party leader Keir Starmer said on March 6 that an investigation into coronavirus violations in Downing Street was still pending. In the comments, British readers pointed out that the “Johnson’s problem” needs to be addressed immediately, because when the events in Ukraine are over, he will say he saved everyone, and then there will be no way to get rid of him. “War is not enough reason to stop addressing Johnson and Tories. In fact, them taking Putin’s money and the break up of EU is a significant part of the “war” issue. Get Johnson and his government out now. He is only using the war as an opportunity to showboat,” says @paulio80410204.

Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

For several years now, the world economy has been showing signs of a global crisis, affecting not only underdeveloped economies but also fully developed states such as the US or the EU. One of the signs of instability and unease increasing around the world is the rapid growth of the arms trade.

Data on arms transfers are often concealed, and so there are several versions of how they have evolved over the past few years. In March 2022, for example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its report on the global arms trade. According to its data, the global arms trade declined slightly between 2017 and 2021, primarily due to lower deliveries to Latin America (LA). This news could be to the advantage of the US, as many blame Washington for the extrajudicial killings of Colombian and Mexican drug traffickers, which led to a struggle between the surviving drug lords for vacated spheres of influence. This struggle has turned into a real war, which claims thousands of lives every year in LA. The decline in arms shipments to Latin American countries suggests that this war may have been on the wane. Probably until the next US force actions.

However, as mentioned above, according to SIPRI, arms trade declined only marginally between 2017 and 2021, as the decline in shipments to LA was almost entirely offset by a rapid increase in arms exports to East Asia, Europe and Oceania.

But there are other data as well. For example, the Russian Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade (CAWAT) gives the following picture for 2018-2021: in 2018, global trade in “conventional weapons” (that is, all weapons and military equipment not related to weapons of mass destruction) was over $76 billion. In 2019, this figure was $79.7 billion, and in 2020 it was over $85.4 billion. In 2021, according to various sources, the global arms trade was about $100 billion. It is believed to be the largest volume since the Cold War.

Given the secrecy of the subject, it is hard to say who provides more reliable information: the pro-Western SIPRI or the pro-Kremlin CAWAT. It is much more interesting to see where they agree. SIPRI and CAWAT are unanimous on the following points:

As always, the US topped the list of arms suppliers, accounting for about 40% of all arms exports by the end of 2021.

Russia comes next in the top ten arms exporters. It should be recalled that the Russian defense industry, established back in Soviet times, was originally “geared” primarily towards national defense and aid to friendly states, with commercial interests being a secondary consideration.

France, Italy, China, Germany, Spain and Israel are next in the top ten according to CAWAT. Interestingly, there has been a movement in this group between 2018 and 2021, with China moving from sixth to fifth place. As for SIRPI, as of the end of 2021, it gives the Celestial Empire an even higher, fourth place after France. Thus, despite significant differences in information from SIRPI and CAWAT, both organizations agree that the PRC has been very successful in the arms trade.

Having developed into a superpower with the world’s second largest economy, in recent years China has been actively building up its military might by developing and producing modern weapons and military equipment in large quantities sufficient for both the Chinese army and for exports. According to some estimates, China’s arms exports are growing faster than those of other countries, and a new reshuffle of the top exporters’ rankings is not long in coming.

It should be noted that, despite all the negative elements that are associated with periods of growth in an economy sector such as the military trade, it should be recognized that arms production is a very high-tech, knowledge-intensive industry that stimulates scientific and technological development and generates large revenues. Therefore, military technology and its exports are not only means of competition between states, but also spheres of that competition.

Of course, to win in arms export competition, the quality of the arms produced and their price are important: every state that cares about its security wants to provide its troops with effective weapons in the right quantities. However, the relationship between the purchasing state and the arms supplying country also plays a significant role. No one understands certain types of weapons better than the manufacturer, and by purchasing weapons, especially high-tech ones, the importer makes his defense dependent on equipment whose characteristics are all known to the exporter. Therefore, arms are usually bought from countries with which, at the very least, one is not in conflict. Often the purchase of arms is a friendly gesture on the part of the importer towards the supplier, a demonstration of trust, and so arms are often bought from those countries with which they want to maintain friendly relations, sometimes even if the weapon is not the best in terms of price/quality ratio. Thus, arms exports can be used to assess current international relations.

In 2020, for example, the main purchasers of weapons from the PRC were from the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. China is competing with the US for influence in both of these regions, and the success of Chinese sales suggests that its struggle with America is also going well. The situation in South Asia is also revealing: India is the most powerful and wealthy state in the region. It does not buy weapons from China because it is its old and bitter rival. Instead, the People’s Republic of Bangladesh has acquired many Chinese weapons, which is interesting: for a long time it was considered a zone of Indian influence, then there was a competition between India and China for it, and now it seems that China is prevailing. Pakistan, another South Asian state, also purchases a lot of Chinese arms. On the one hand, this is not surprising, as Pakistan has very strained and even hostile relations with India. On the other hand, in past years, the US was considered Pakistan’s main military and technical partner. Now, Pakistan prefers to cooperate with Beijing.

It can be concluded that the state of the arms market clearly reflects the situation in international relations: China is steadily gaining weight on the world stage, gradually overtaking its competitors, and its arms exports serve both as a means of increasing Chinese influence and as an indicator of it.

Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year. Launched on February 2, 2012, it has become the permanent regulatory body of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The main purpose of the Eurasian Economic Commission is to ensure the conditions for the functioning and development of the EAEU and to draw up proposals for the further development of integration. “Despite external pressure, the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union are strengthening and developing cooperation,” Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said at the EAEU intergovernmental council on February 25.

It is well known that the US and the EU are trying to obstruct the development and strengthening of Eurasian integration by subversively suggesting to the states that have not yet become full members of the Union (in particular Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) that joining the EAEU would allegedly have a negative impact on their trade and economic ties with Western countries. Washington is particularly active in preventing Uzbekistan from moving closer to the EAEU, primarily because it is one of the most attractive states in Central Asia in terms of resources and development potential. Back in the mid-1990s, the US placed its bets on a number of post-Soviet republics to increase its geopolitical influence: Georgia in the South Caucasus, Ukraine in the European part of the CIS, and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Washington’s policy shows that this trend is still valid today. However, unlike Ukraine, which has been put under a tough choice – either the West or the EAEU, Washington has so far failed to impose such conditions of choice and bloc confrontation on Uzbekistan, as there are no serious contradictions between WTO membership and the development of Eurasian integration. Prior to the Andijan events in 2005, the desire to choose the best format of cooperation led Tashkent to swing its foreign policy course like a “seesaw,” first to Russia, then to the United States. However, the attempted coup convinced Uzbekistan to take a more balanced course towards military and political cooperation with the US.

In recent years, the EAEU has become a powerful regional association with prospects for integration into the global economy through a network of FTAs. For example, existing and pending agreements provide opportunities to enter markets in Southeast Asia (via Vietnam and Singapore), the Middle East (via Iran), Africa (via Egypt) and, in the future, Latin America as well. In some cases, the terms of trade for EAEU exporters under the FTA are much more favorable than under WTO conditions (certain groups of goods are subject to a complete abolition of import duties).

In the context of global geopolitical and economic turbulence, the development of integration in the Eurasian space is of particular importance. And along the way, Russia has had considerable success in strategizing integration processes in the Eurasian space and bringing its closest neighbors together within the EAEU. An updated concept of Eurasian integration in relation to the new geopolitical and geo-economic context has been elaborated and its gradual implementation with the most prepared partners from the CIS countries has been initiated. At the same time, the negative experience in the EAEU space, the existing problems in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Armenia are also taken into account. Russia is also going through a difficult geopolitical and economic period, under the burden of international sanctions, which are negatively affecting its own economy.

Nevertheless, as a result of the calibrated policy of Eurasian integration, in 2021 the volume of mutual trade of the EAEU countries in value terms set a record, reaching $72.6 billion and increasing by 31.9% compared to the previous year. The growth rate of mutual trade was only slightly behind that of external trade (35.1%), which is much more dependent on energy exports and tends to grow much faster in a well-priced hydrocarbon market. Kyrgyzstan (44.9%) tops the list in terms of trade growth with the EAEU countries in 2021, managing to significantly increase its supplies of metals and textiles to the Union. Kazakhstan (34.9%) and Russia (34.3%) rank second with almost identical results, showing high increases in shipments of food, metals and metal products as well as wood and pulp and paper products. Armenia (25.2%) and Belarus (24.7%) are the next fastest growing intra-union trade, with the former most active in food, agricultural raw materials and textiles, and the latter in food and metals.

The high growth rate of mutual trade between the EAEU countries is evidence of the economic sustainability of the association, which has significant prospects for further development. And in the face of sanctions pressure on Russia and Belarus, the role of the intra-union market may become even more important.

It is therefore not surprising that Tashkent is slowly but surely moving closer to the EAEU. It is well known that Uzbekistan obtained observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union in December 2020 and since then the republic has been systematically studying the rules of the EAEU in an effort to deepen economic cooperation. On February 25, Prime Minister of Uzbekistan Abdulla Aripov addressed a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council, where he announced accession to certain EAEU projects. A little earlier, on January 31 this year, President of the Republic Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed a development strategy for Uzbekistan for 2022-2026, under which the EAEU treaty will be analyzed and proposals for the country’s further integration with this international organization will be drawn up; there will be a smooth synchronization of economic policies to bring together the regulations, to which businesses must prepare in time. This work should be completed by the end of 2022. The main interest for Uzbekistan is the very large EAEU market, which is already the main destination for Uzbek fruit and vegetable products and textile goods. Moreover, Uzbekistan is interested in the joint development of the transport and transit potential of all EAEU countries.

Iran continues its efforts to join the Eurasian Economic Union as a full-fledged member of the organization. Since March 21, 2021, Iran’s trade turnover with the Eurasian Economic Union has reached $5.034 billion, a 48% increase over the same period last year. At the same time, Iran’s non-oil exports to the EAEU amounted to over $1 billion, a 15% increase over the same period last year, and Iran’s non-oil imports from the Union amounted to $3.949 billion, a 95% increase over the same period last year. The full membership in the EAEU by Iran, a hundred million nation, would make the organization potentially more powerful than the European Union, and the territory of the Eurasian Economic Union would spread from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean.

It has been reported that, against the background of the positive results of the integration processes in the EAEU, Abkhazia and South Ossetia may ask for observer status in the Union. Although formal discussion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia joining the Eurasian Economic Union is premature for the time being, increased economic integration with the Union could allow the republics to qualify for observer status in the EAEU.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

When the US President Joe Biden announced, on March 8, his decision to ban imports of Russian oil and gas to the US, he opened up a potential business opportunity for the US LNG gas business to expand further into Europe and beyond. While Biden’s decision does not automatically apply to Europe, given how Europe is mindlessly following the US in its footsteps at the expense of its own strategic autonomy, there was/is no denying that most European nations will follow suit the US decision. Indeed, this was Biden’s intention when he said that this decision was made in “close consultation with our Allies and our partners around the world, particularly in Europe .. to keep all NATO and all of the EU and our allies totally united.” But this is not just about unity; it is about business, making money and keeping Europe under exclusive US control.

For quite a long time, the US has been making efforts to prevent Europe from asserting too much autonomy in the international arena as a player in itself. Europe decided to refuse to follow the US decision to scrap the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. Until recently, it had differences with the US over NATO, with the French President Macron even calling the organisation “brain dead.”

But things are fast changing to the US advantage. By deliberately pushing for NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe and by denying Russia any reasonable security guarantees, the US set the stage for the present crisis, which has now not only ‘united’ the EU under the US leadership, but many NATO members – in particular, Germany – have decided to increase their defense budget by at least 100 billion Euros.

What the US President Trump was unable to do through table-talks, the Biden administration has achieved through generating an actual war/ crisis in Eastern Europe. Other than NATO members, non-NATO members like Sweden, too, have decided to increase their budget, with public opinion in Sweden swinging for the fits time in favour of NATO membership in the wake of the on-going crisis. Where will this defense spending go?

There is no denying that no European county will be buying weapon systems from Russia or China, but mainly from the US military industrial complex. (NATO does not have its own force; “NATO forces” refer to multinational forces from NATO member countries, who in turn contribute both personnel and equipment to the organisation for “collective defense.”) A highly expected sale will involve F-35 fighter jets. It is, therefore, not surprising to see two major US military industrial groups, Lockheed and Raytheon, have seen their market shares rising up by 16 per cent and 3 per cent since the start of the war in Ukraine, respectively.

Apart from this massive increase in defense production, a clear indication of war in Europe being a business opportunity for the US is the field of energy export to Europe. The US decision to impose a ban on energy exports from Russia is symbolic insofar as the US is not a large buyer of Russian oil and gas. The imposition of the ban is, however, aimed at luring European markets to the US. The US, in short, is eyeing capturing the European market on a long-term basis.

As it stands, US LNG exporters are already appearing to be the big winners as gas prices in Europe hit all-time high. Major US exporters like Cheniere Energy Inc are among the top beneficiaries, as they have been able to sign long-term delas to sell LNG to Europe in very recent months. The present crisis has only made their task a lot easier and much more profitable at the same time.

This is happening at a time when the US LNG exports are expected to reach 11.4 billion cubic feet per day in 2022, accounting roughly for 22 per cent of the expected global LNG demands next year. The number of cargos of LNG shipped from the US to Europe, only in the first two months of 2022, has reached a record high of 164, as compared to the previous record of 125 in 2020. This trend is likely to continue – and even intensify – amidst European nations’ claims to reduce their dependence on Russian natural gas.

Supplying the US LNG to Europe is also part of a US plan-in-the-making to globalise its exports. As a recent report in the Washington-based think-tank, Centre for Strategic and International Studies – which receives funding from the US government – the US export of LNG to Europe for the next 20 years could provide the foundation for the export of US LNG to Asia, which is the largest market for LNG. Expansion of US LNG gas supply lines to Asia would also mean a direct territorial expansion of the US global influence.

The New York Times’ advocacy of a yet another “trans-Atlantic Pact” between the US and Europe reflects essentially how the path for increasing Europe’s dependency on the US is being laid. The EU/NATO already largely depends on the US for its security, which is one reason why there was, until recently, a growing demand from within Europe to enhance its own strategic autonomy by developing weapon systems “independently of the US.”

These initiatives are unlikely to develop any time sooner, and even if they do develop, they will have no impact on Europe’s quest for strategic autonomy. It will only add to the US-led trans-Atlantic alliance.

It is important to understand that until very recently, Europe was seeking autonomy from the US, not from Russia. By manufacturing a crisis in Europe and by forcing the European nations to confront a war in their own continent, the US has been able to bring a sea-change in the European political discourse from seeking autonomy from Washington to reducing ‘dependence’ on Russia. From the US perspective, therefore, the war is already a major strategic victory – a victory that the European elite is either completely unaware of, or has been forced to shut its eyes to.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The crisis in Ukraine has spun the world backward on its axis. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s atypical military campaign, or denazification as some refer to it, has most western nations frantic for solutions. Unfortunately, the NATO and EU states don’t bother to ask the right questions, let alone propose the correct answers. Now, with Russia flexing to escape complete encirclement, borderlands like wealthy Azerbaijan are now being pulled into this orbit of conflict. The all-powerful geniuses from out west in Oz, have really made a mess this time.

A report by Fuad Shahbazov at World Political Review (WPR) tells of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev visiting Moscow at the invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 22nd, days before Russia launched the demilitarization campaign against Ukraine. Aliyev’s visit was to reframe the two countries’ relationship to one of “allied cooperation.” Shahbazov reported this way:

“The declaration expresses both sides’ intention of strengthening cooperation across a wide range of fields, including regional security issues, military ties, energy and trade, while calling for mutual consultations on joint efforts in international organizations, with the aim to protect the interests of Azerbaijan and Russia.”

Of course, everyone in geopolitics knows Azerbaijan has been teetering on the west-east fence since the Azerbaijan SSR days ended. Washington forged into the rich Caspian state with great enthusiasm, as soon as the Soviet Union dissolved. The atrocities and pogroms, tens of thousands dead, 800,000 Azerbaijanis and 300,000 Armenians displaced, and U.S. involvement is well documented via WikiLeaks and history books.

What most people do not see, is the current U.S. administration’s role in reopening old wounds. As an example, Joe Biden’s CIA Director William Burns was involved in the carnage in South Caucasus and the Karabakh conflict settlement. President Putin’s meeting with Aliyev is best understood by understanding America’s resurgent role on Russia’s borders. This report by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program (CIAC) Analyst Fariz Ismailzade puts everything in context:

“Over the past 30 years, Azerbaijan and the United States have developed a strategic partnership based on common interests and values. This partnership includes areas of cooperation such as energy security, counter-terrorism, joint economic opportunities, and trade, political and humanitarian efforts. Clinton and Bush administrations have pursued a bipartisan policy of deepening engagement with Azerbaijani to increase US national interests in the Caspian region.”

The complexity of this gaming of detente is circuitous, but what we are seeing is a renewal of the so-called Obama Doctrine, with crises being rekindled on Russia’s borders. This is why Mr. Putin met, symbolically, with Azerbaijan’s leader. I suspect the direct talks involved, “if this, then that” will happen. People simply do not understand how the situation between America and Russia has deteriorated, and how the Russians are prepared for all-out war.

Stepping sideways, a new set of discussions between Azerbaijan and Romania on energy cooperation bear scrutiny. Among the topics discussed, a project of laying an underwater cable underneath the Black Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Romania seems most pertinent. The short of this is, if the west cuts off Russian gas, Romanians will be the coldest nation of people in Europe come next winter, if the country’s leadership doesn’t find solutions. North American supplies cannot warm and power all of Europe, so we’ll be seeing NATO’s eastern flanks turned into a sort of new Iron Curtain, but fossil fuels scavengers as well. It’s pretty sad stuff if you know as many great Romanians as I do. They had such high hopes.

Meanwhile, the Bulgarian people, quite used to freezing to death in Winter, seem okay with being at the tail end of European comfort. The ministers there are scrambling to get connected via Greece, and support for the speedy integration of the Ukrainian electricity system into the European one. There only seems to be a slight problem, which involves Ukraine no longer being in the NATO-pact equation. Maybe the Bulgarians are just waiting for Ukraine to reopen gas pipes once the Russians have achieved their strategic goals? It seems unlikely the United States and allies will allow a trickle of Gazprom gas west of the Black Sea’s shores. The Greece-Bulgaria gas interconnector is scheduled to begin commercial operations in July. Unfortunately for the Bulgarians, 65% of Greece’s electrical power comes from natural gas. And since Greek electric bills doubled already this month, it seems unlikely most people in Bulgaria will be able to afford heat next year. Already my Greek neighbors here on Crete are wondering how they will pay their current bills. So you know, Greece’s natural gas comes from Algeria, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey.

I could continue, but the reader has already gotten the gist. Cold War 2, whoever is ultimately responsible, will be defined as unprecedented hardship, fear, uncertainty, and eventually the loss of life and liberty worldwide. In the coming months, unless an all-out nuclear war envelops our planet, many experts will be questioning the reasoning behind ignoring Russia’s security concerns over NATO. While the demilitarization of Ukraine was not the ideal solution to the problem, history will show that Putin had few choices given NATO expansion plans. Recent reports suggest the Russians simply preempted a NATO-backed plan for Kyiv to retake the Donbass region by force. In the end, none of this will matter when half of Europe learns to be more “Russian” next winter.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On February 7, 2022, US Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel, in a video message posted on Twitter, expressed support for Japan on the issue of ownership of the Southern Kuril Islands, stating that “the United States supports Japan on the issue of the Northern Territories and has recognized Japanese sovereignty over the four disputed Islands since the 1950s”. It certainly does nothing to help normalize relations on the Kuril Islands between Russia and Japan, but only fuels anti-Russian sentiment in Japanese society.

But it cannot be said that the Japanese society fully supports Washington’s line: one commentator under the video appeal ironically suggested the placement of American bases in Hokkaido to better protect national interests, another asked whether the Americans are to blame for the story of the return of the two islands in Khrushchev times, a third asked a reasonable question: “What did the Yalta Conference participants say? Wasn’t the US behind the Soviet invasion?”, while another commentator pointed out that Okinawa was returned to Japan 50 years ago [in 1972], but there is a basic Japanese-American security problem, there is the issue of a status agreement. There is also a perception in Japan that it was the US that created the “Northern Territories” problem with the Soviet Union. There were reminders of the US nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as US military operations in the Middle East.

Despite Washington’s long-standing call on Tokyo to impose sanctions against Russia, which Rahm Emanuel touched on in his video message, the Japanese leadership is in no hurry to draft domestic laws that would allow international economic sanctions on the basis of human rights violations. On that occasion, Russian Ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzin said in an interview on February 10, 2022:

“As for the possible participation of this or that country in the anti-Russian sanctions once again being conceived by Washington and the Anglo-Saxons, of course this will not help our country’s relations with the state that has joined these sanctions. I am fully compelled to explain this to my Japanese colleagues and reiterate that joining the sanctions will not help to create a favorable atmosphere for the Russian-Japanese dialogue”.

The lack of a legal framework for international economic sanctions allows Japan to maintain even relations not only with Russia, but also with another nuclear neighbor and major trading partner in the region, China, where Washington says human rights are allegedly being violated in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

As for trade ties with Russia, Japan, for example, is the main buyer of liquefied natural gas from the Sakhalin-2 project, owning a 22.5 per cent stake in its operator, Sakhalin Energy. Negotiations are also under way to create opportunities for “mutually beneficial business cooperation in the Kuril Islands, including the southern part, in the context of a major initiative by Russia’s leadership to launch a preferential customs and tax regime in the region,” Russian Ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzin said, adding that “Japan does not and cannot have any exclusive rights to those territories. Any economic activity in the Kuril Islands, including its southern part, must be carried out strictly on general terms and solely within the framework of Russian law.” It is the latter statement that does not suit the Japanese side, causing the issue of establishing a special economic zone in the southern Kurils to stall.

As long as Tokyo listens to Washington’s rhetoric, no positive developments are likely in the Japanese-Russian diplomatic dialogue, which is aimed, among other things, at finding a way to sign a peace agreement between the two countries. Unfortunately, the information posted in Russian on the official website of Japan’s Office of Policy Planning and Coordination on Territory and Sovereignty leave little room for optimism in quick resolution: “The ‘Northern Territories’, consisting of Iturup, Kunashir Island, Shikotan Island and the Habomai Islands, were handed down from one generation of Japanese to another, they are the ancestral territory of Japan and have never been the territory of other states.”

But there is a bright side to Japan-Russia relations: under the rule of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a new impetus has been given to bilateral humanitarian exchanges in the field of education and the recruitment of graduates, including through the implementation of the Eight-Point Plan for Economic Cooperation between Russia and Japan, which Abe proposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a summit meeting. Putin during a summit meeting in 2016. As part of this Plan, the HaRP platform (Human Resource Development Platform for Japan-Russia Economic Cooperation and Personnel Exchange) was established in 2017, and inter-university relations were intensified: Hokkaido University and Niigata University are initiating educational projects on the Japanese side; Tokai University is actively working, concluding partnership agreements with five major Russian universities. At the same time, the project “Russian-Japanese youth exchanges”, which the Russian Ministry of Education and Science has been running since 1999, is gaining momentum. In 2018, the “Association of Russian and Japanese HEIs”, initiated in 2016, began its work with a total of 63 Japanese and Russian HEIs as of 2021.

In recent years, Japanese companies have been interested in hiring Russian graduates, especially in the field of IT: thanks to the digitalization of the global economy, they can work from home without having to leave the Russian Federation. Graduates from Russian HEIs are in high demand by Japanese employers after taking Japanese language courses provided by the Japanese side through agreements with Russian higher education institutions; Kazan Federal University and Astrakhan State University have been the most involved in this process.

The remote work offered by Japanese companies to Russian specialists is mutually beneficial to both Russia and Japan from an economic point of view. If Russian specialists are employed directly in Japan, they are expected to return home at the end of their employment contract, so there is no question of a “brain drain” from Russia.

By recruiting Russian employees to Japanese firms, Russia’s image is changing for the better in the eyes of the Japanese. The stereotype of the Russian man as “unfriendly and lazy” due to “old Western films” is gradually giving way to the fair view that the Russians “bear a great resemblance to the Japanese” in their serious attitude to work, humility and high capacity for learning, according to an extensive study conducted in 2021 by the government’s Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO).

Such high professional, intellectual and moral qualities, as restraint and modesty, especially important to Japanese culture, in fact, traditionally inherent in the Russian national character, are highly valued in the Japanese labor market, bringing the two cultures closer together.

It is hoped that in the future the difficult issue of Russian-Japanese relations will find a positive solution for the benefit of the two countries.

Petr Konovalov, a 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”.

Located fifty kilometers from Hindustan (i.e. from what is now one of the largest states, the “Republic of India”), the island country of Sri Lanka has never suffered from a lack of attention from the world’s leading players. This is due to the island’s critical strategic position in the Indian Ocean. Such a position always and for all such countries contains both positive and potentially dangerous aspects.

It all depends on the state of affairs in the system of relations between the main players at a given moment in history. If said players are not too suspicious of each other, quite a lot of benefits can be derived from the interest of each in influencing countries of Sri Lanka’s caliber. If the contradictions between the main players take a particularly acute form, it is possible for the smaller country, as they say, to “get heavy beating.” Most likely, from both sides. This is not “out of spite,” but simply because the “strategic environment” may require so. Something similar happened to Sri Lanka during World War II.

However, it was then a colony of the British Empire called “Ceylon.” The Imperial Japanese Navy Command decided in the spring of 1942 to destroy the British Eastern Fleet based in the main port of Ceylon, Colombo. British commanders became aware of this and began withdrawing ships to other bases. But Japan’s aircraft carrier forces still took a heavy toll, both on the British and (“in passing”) on the port and inhabitants of Colombo.

Nothing as bad is threatening the present Sri Lanka yet. On the contrary, there is a peak of “attention” to the country by the major players, which today include China, India and the US. Japan, for example, is increasingly asserting its presence in the Indian Ocean region.

It is fundamentally important to note that in the struggle for influence over the so-called “Third World countries” (i.e. the vast majority of humanity) the economic component of the “National Power” available to the main players is increasingly effective. This is most clearly demonstrated by the new world power represented by the People’s Republic of China. The global Beijing Belt and Road Initiative project already involves, in varying degrees, some 150 countries.

Accustomed to swinging a military club (or, for the Japanese, a katana) in said struggle, the former Western colonizers suddenly discovered that it was much more productive to follow the cowboy principle: “Why steal a pretty girl! She could just be persuaded!” It should be added that, more often than not, Beijing does not have to bother itself much with persuasion, because the differently colored “pretty girls” (of Asia, Africa, Latin America) are ready to accept much needed assistance in the development of transport and industrial infrastructure, agricultural facilities, education and healthcare, in the fight against chronic epidemics.

The process is not without its costs (“debt traps” sometimes arise), but so far nothing particularly dangerous for Beijing’s partners has arisen. Rumors of Uganda losing control of the only international airport Entebbe have not been confirmed. The new world power is engaged in far bigger games to have its image spoiled by all sorts of “trivialities.”

Too late to realize the real cause and source of threats to positions in the former colonies, the former metropolises rushed to compose their BRI, “but better.” On December 1, 2021, the European Commission, i.e. the de facto EU government, announced the launch of its own project called Global Gateway (GG), through which smart, transparent and secure connections with the outside world will be organized. This was a kind of European contribution to the global project of a generalized West, Build Back Better World (B3W), announced in June 2021 during a regular G7 summit in Cornwall, the United Kingdom.

Exclusively for the Indo-Pacific region, where the focus of the current stage of the “Great Game” is shifting, and consequently key US foreign policy interests, US President Joe Biden initiated the so-called “Economic Strategy Framework” at the end of October 2021 (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, IPEC).

In general, the generalized West has produced many words and beautiful acronyms in the direction of the “Third World” in recent months. So far, however, they have not led to any concrete results. Results similar to what Beijing can demonstrate, including in Sri Lanka. Because today the strategic importance of this country is determined by the fact that it is located on one of the world’s most important trade routes, acting as an intermediate hub on it. It is as important as Singapore.

But in order to fulfil this role properly, the available port facilities need to be state-of-the-art. And the upgrading of the same port of Colombo is being carried out by Chinese companies. Moreover, a new hub, Hambantota, is being built on the southern tip of the island, which was previously completely deserted. Western propaganda links the fact that Chinese companies received an order to build this port to Sri Lanka’s financial debts to the PRC.

These do exist, but they are not clearly linked to the fact that Beijing was given the right to build Hambantota and the subsequent 99-year lease on the port. Moreover, an undertaking has been obtained from China not to use Hambantota for military purposes. Beijing says it does not need to, as the Pakistani port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, which incidentally is the terminus of Pakistan’s (one of the most important) BRI land route, is sufficient for such purposes. The same role will not be ruled out for Hambantota as a crucial trans-shipment point for the BRI maritime portion.

Again, it is not surprising that the main geopolitical opponents of the PRC, above all the US, are paying close attention to Sri Lanka. In particular, the country was one of the points of visit for Mike Pompeo during his last (late 2020) trip abroad as US Secretary of State. Negotiations with the leadership of Sri Lanka and several other countries visited (above all Vietnam) have been exploratory as to the possibility of expanding the newly formed Quad configuration comprising the US, Japan, India and Australia. In Colombo, Pompeo made a number of amusing remarks, stating in particular the “partnership” nature of the US coming to a country, as opposed to the “predatory” policies of the CCP in the same countries.

But the main destination of Pompeo’s said tour was India, which is also the main opponent of China’s in the struggle for influence in Sri Lanka. It was the problems in Chinese-Indian relations that once again came to light during the struggle to win the order for the construction of the Hambantota port.

Unfortunately, the competition between the two Asian giants for influence in Sri Lanka and other crucial island states in the Indian Ocean (Maldives, Mauritius) has not abated since then. The visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to Sri Lanka in early January this year during his traditional annual tour of a number of countries in Africa and Indian Ocean island states was met with suspicion in New Delhi.

It is important to bear in mind the complexity of the situation in which the latter find themselves, as they have to maneuver in the field of tensions that are being shaped in the region by the world’s leading players. Each of them has its own interests to uphold. The main purpose of the visit to India in early February this year by Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Gamini Lakshman Peiris seems to have been to reassure New Delhi that the bilateral relationship was not threatened.

In a demonstration that India is always ready to help its southern neighbor in an emergency, India concluded an agreement in mid-February to supply Sri Lanka with 40,000 cubic meters of diesel and petrol, which proved to be an extremely timely step in the context of the growing energy crisis on the island.

However, once again, the situation around Sri Lanka is an important indication that the state of Chinese-Indian relations is becoming one of the major factors shaping developments not only in the Indian Ocean region, but also in the entire Indo-Pacific region.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

After keeping it under direct occupation, destroying the country for 20 years – and failing to militarily defeat the Taliban (banned in Russia) – Joe Biden’s executive order to simply seize half of Afghanistan’s little over US$7 billion to use it to pay to the victims of 9/11 is just a mockery of the “values” that the US always claims to hold. With the world’s richest country stealing from probably one of the poorest countries in the world where millions, including children, are starving, serious questions about the very war that the US fought for twenty years have arisen. If the US were to ultimately ‘compensate’ the victims by paying them – and not by defeating the perpetrators of 9/11 – why did the US stay in Afghanistan for two decades and kill hundreds of thousands of people, including innocent civilians? Besides the fact that the assets being seized include years of savings of common people of Afghanistan means that common Afghans – who played literally no role in 9/11 and who actually suffered immensely from the US invasion of Afghanistan for twenty years – will be paying out of their pockets for the loss that victims of 9/11 families faced, the very decision to seize Afghanistan’s assets means that the Joe Biden administration is bent upon inflicting as much damage to Afghanistan as possible even after formally withdrawing from the country. This, in practical terms, means that the US war on Afghanistan is not over.

A travesty of justice as it already is, the utter sense of injustice is further exacerbated by the fact that none of the 19 hijackers who blasted planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 actually came from Afghanistan or was of Afghan origin. Should the people of Afghanistan – who have suffered excruciatingly more than the victims of 9/11 collectively – be made to pay for a crime that they did not do in the first place, or conspired to do at all?

Even if the US administration believes that the Afghan Taliban supported al-Qaeda (terrorist organization ,banned in Russia), let’s not forget that it was the US itself that made a pact with the same Taliban to get out of Afghanistan. Yet, it has not recognised them as a legitimate government of Afghanistan. As John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said, “There’s a legitimate question to be asked as to how a country’s sovereign wealth can be used to satisfy the debt of an entity that is not recognised as the sovereign government.”

Besides it, the money does not belong, and has never belonged, to the Afghan Taliban. By making common Afghans pay for the Taliban’s support for al-Qaeda, the US administration – and its judicial system – has exposed its utter failure in being able to differentiate between declared terrorists and common people. Going by the US logic, every single person living in Afghanistan, many of whom were not even born when 9/11 happened 21 years ago, is a terrorist – a supporter of the Taliban and al-Qaeda and responsible for the loss that families of the victims of 9/11 suffered.

This prejudiced extension of responsibility to all the Afghans is a mockery of their own loses. As data compiled by Costs of War project of Watson Institute of Brown University shows, more than two-thirds of Afghans were suffering from serious mental health issues caused by the war as early as 2009.

What about the terrorist militias, accountable to no one in Afghanistan, that the CIA created in Afghanistan itself and the crimes they did? According to a 2019 report of Watson Institute,

“the militias reportedly have committed serious human rights abuses, including numerous extrajudicial killings of civilians. CIA sponsorship ensures that their operations are clouded in secrecy. There is virtually no public oversight of their activities or accountability for grave human rights abuses.”

Shouldn’t Afghans sue the CIA – and by extension the US government itself – for the crimes it did in Afghanistan?

What about the extent of abuse and mistreatment the US military extended to thousands of Afghans in its secret jails – including those at Bagram airbase – in its so-called ‘war on terror’? According to a 2010 report of Open Society Foundation, “confinement conditions” in the US military run jails included systematic – and utterly inhuman techniques – of torture, including “exposure to excessive cold”, “exposure to excessive light”, “sleep deprivation”, “denial of religious duties”, “nudity upon arrival”, and, among other things, “lack of transparency.”

These methods, as the report further shows, contradict the very “field manuals” the US military officially uses to conduct its war. The abuse extended to the detainees is, thus, not only systematic, but also criminal. However, given the fact that these crimes were committed by the US military, rather than Afghans, means that there will be no repercussions here, nor would Afghan victims of these crimes be offered anything from the US taxpayers’ money.

At the same time, by not allowing Afghans to use their own money to tackle the extremely poor economic conditions, the US is condemning Afghanistan, even after formally withdrawing from Afghanistan, to a very long term dependence on foreign aid, assistance and charity.

While some in the US believe that not giving the money back to Afghanistan’s Central Bank will starve the Taliban regime and force them to change their ways of rule, it remains that the ultimate burden will be felt by the common Afghans. The question, therefore, is:

If, in the wake of the disaster that looms large over Afghanistan, millions perish due to the lack of resources, would somebody in the US still file a case in any court of law to hold the Biden administration accountable for directly condemning via am executive order millions to death? This is unlikely to happen, given that US democracy is always seen righteous and perfectly judicious.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Chinese companies have secured a major contract to begin building the first phase of a new inter-city railway across the Philippine island of Luzon. The railway will connect the capital city, Manila, to cities and ports across the island.

China’s Xinhua in an article titled, “Chinese contractors to build Philippines’ fastest, longest railway: ambassador,” would report:

The Philippine government has signed a commercial contract worth 2.8 billion US dollars with Chinese contractors to build the “fastest and longest railway” in the country that connects southern Luzon provinces.

The article also reported:

The first 380 km stretch of the PNR Bicol project, spanning Calamba town in Laguna province to Legazpi town in Albay province, is one of the flagship projects under the Build, Build, Build program launched by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to promote infrastructure development in the Southeast Asian country.

It is estimated that the project will cut up to 8 hours off of current journeys and serve up to nearly 15 million travelers annually. Passenger trains will travel up to 160 kph while freight trains will run at approximately 100 kph.

Chinese Building versus US Blustering

The infrastructure project represents a major leap forward in relations between China and the Philippines. China already constitutes the Philippines’ largest trade partner making up nearly 21% of all Philippine exports and accounting for up to 31% of all imports.

The project also helps illustrate how detached from reality Washington’s policy across the Indo-Pacific region is – one in which the US continues attempting to recruit the region’s nations into a unified front against China. Rather than improve American competitiveness in trade or offering alternatives to Chinese-built infrastructure projects, the US has focused on generating animosity between China and its partners by cultivating anti-China opposition groups, militarizing various points of tension in the region, and the selling of copious amounts of weapons.

The Diplomat in a mid-2021 article titled, “US Clears F-16 Sale to Philippines as South China Sea Tensions Brew,” would claim:

The U.S State Department last week cleared billions of dollars in potential arms sales to the Philippines, the latest indication that Washington is ready to back its treaty ally against Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. 

The proposed deal includes the transfer of 12 F-16 Block 70/72 fighter jets, along with Sidewinder air-to-air and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The Philippines has been seeking multirole fighters to help bolster its presence in the contested South China Sea.

Bolstering the Philippine presence in the South China Sea and receiving “backing” from Washington against “Chinese aggression” emerges from a narrative that stands in stark contrast to a China that serves as the Philippines’ largest trade partner who will now be building an extensive modern railway stretching out from the Philippine capital.

The Philippines, like many nations across Southeast Asia, seeks to balance its relations between East and West, enjoying access to markets worldwide. Siding with either the US or China decisively in any sort of regional confrontation remains strictly out of the question for governments pursuing their nations’ best interests.

Much of the disputes the Philippines or any other claimant in the South China Sea have with China, are also had with each other as well. These disputes, while heated at times or leveraged as political distractions amid domestic politics, are minor and easily remedied through bilateral talks.

Yet the Diplomat would claim:

The United States sees the Philippines as crucial to combating Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Duterte, however, has been heavily criticized for taking a stance seen as too soft on China.

A report last week by the USintelligence firm Simularity said more than 100 additional ships were spotted in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Philippines in the South China Sea. These were “likely Chinese ships,” the report said.

The US seeks to insert itself into these disputes and escalate them into a regional or even global flashpoint, much in the same way the US has done in Eastern Europe.

Just as the US does regarding “security concerns” in Europe, the US is intent on having Manila interpret minor disputes in the South China Sea as instead, “major threats” and “aggression,” all to help justify Washington’s growing desire to militarize the region toward encircling and containing China.

Rather than engage in bilateral talks with Beijing, Washington would have Manila turn to the United States and “international” mechanisms the US can use to single out and isolate China on the global stage.

The likelihood of the Philippines jeopardizing its economic prosperity owed to its close and growing ties with China over claims in the South China Sea are extremely remote as long as Philippine leadership can prevent the levers of power from being seized by US-sponsored opposition groups and their corresponding political parties.

Upcoming elections offer the United States another opportunity to put into power political circles that will represent and pursue Washington’s interests at the cost of the Philippines. It is clear that provocations will be sought in such a scenario to serve as an excuse to cancel the rail project and leave the Philippines without modern infrastructure and instead with US missiles pointed at Manila’s largest trade partner, China.

China has already demonstrated in recent years that cooperation between itself and nations throughout the region can be mutually beneficial and spur development denied to the region by generations of first European and then American domination. This upcoming rail project represents the potential future that awaits both the Philippines and the region amid growing ties with China. Conversely, the US has left three nations in the region covered in unexploded ordnance, serving as an enduring reminder of what uncontested US influence over the region has to offer.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.