The emperor has lost his clothes..

Note that Twitter, Facebook and Google are censoring the NEO journal, for no reason other than trying to avoid us accidentally seeing the other side’s views or voices. Audiatur et altera pars! Which is why I’m posting these here.
America’s Inability to Compete, or Even Cheat; China’s Technological Rise is Driven by Forces the US Cannot Contain; #China vs #USA
These banning/blocking attempts are pure totalitarian dictatorial fascism by our so-called democratic governments. So, here’s my advice: Stop making yourself dependent on US State owned media. Install Telegram, subscribe to the channels and info sources you want to see there, don’t let others decide for you what you’re ‘allowed’ to know or not know about. Do your research.

===========================================================================================

( the following is originally written by Brian Berletic, a Bangkok-based independent journalist and published in NEO )

Tensions continued to build between the United States and China with the recent trip of US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan against Beijing’s warnings. The unfolding row is depicted with immense ambiguity by the Western media in what is otherwise a clear-cut case of America violating China’s sovereignty. US publication Newsweek in its article, “China Military Says It Won’t ‘Sit Back’ If Nancy Pelosi Visits Taiwan,” would first claim:

The Chinese military has threatened an unspecified response if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—second in line to the presidency—goes ahead with reported plans to visit Taiwan.
Following a week of diplomatic barb-trading, during which Beijing said it was “fully prepared for any eventuality” and Washington continued to downplay the potential fallout of the as-yet-unconfirmed trip, China’s defense ministry weighed in on the topic for the first time.

The Western media surely would not cover such events if it were China or Russia infringing on the sovereignty of another state as seen clearly throughout Western coverage of Russian military operations in Ukraine.
Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Tan Kefei stated that the trip would “violate China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and would “seriously undermine the political foundation of China-US relations,” according to Newsweek.
What is a reasonable statement regarding the deliberate provocation stands in contrast to the reaction of several current and former US representatives including former US Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who claimed:

What is the Pentagon thinking when it publicly warns against Speaker Pelosi going to Taiwan? If we are so intimidated by the Chinese Communists we can’t even protect an American Speaker of the House why should Beijing believe we can help Taiwan survive. Timidity is dangerous.

US Representative Ro Khanna who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, would be quoted by Newsweek as saying:

We’re not going to let the Chinese Communist Party dictate where the speaker of the House should go.

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would claim:

If she doesn’t go now, she’s handing China a sort of a victory of sort.

Yet at the heart of the issue is a rumored trip by a US representative to territory the US itself recognizes not as an independent nation but part of China under the “One China” policy. Comments like Representative Ro Kanna’s equate to a declaration of America’s ability to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, regardless of both agreements the US itself made bilaterally with Beijing and international law regarding the most basic principles laid out in the UN Charter.

The US is Breaking its own Agreements Over Taiwan

According to the US State Department itself in a fact sheet titled, “US Relations With Taiwan,” it is explicitly stated that, “we do not support Taiwan independence.”
To further illustrate the fact that Taiwan is not an independent nation, the US State Department does not maintain an embassy in Taiwan, nor does Taiwan maintain an embassy in the United States.
Instead, the US maintains what it calls a “nongovernmental organization,” the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) which serves as an unofficial embassy through which it maintains what the US State Department’s fact sheet calls, “unofficial relations with Taiwan.”
If Taiwan is not an independent country, it must therefore be the territory of another country, namely the People’s Republic of China (PRC) whether the US State Department wants to include this fact on its “fact sheet” or not.
The same fact sheet had a year earlier also said (emphasis added):

The United States and Taiwan enjoy a robust unofficial relationship. The 1979 US-PRC Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

That the US State Department removed this wording “acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China,” helps shed light on who is truly driving the growing tensions between the United States and China over Taiwan. The US is slowly, incrementally, and very deliberately attempting to pivot away from its own agreements with Beijing, and toward an increasingly public policy encouraging separatism in Taiwan.

Washington’s Decades-Long Policy of Containing China

Since the conclusion of World War 2, the US has held an enduring policy of encircling, containing, and ultimately reasserting control over China just as the US and its European allies did leading up to the war.
In a document featured on the US State Department’s own website dated 1965 and titled, “Courses of Action in Vietnam,” the then US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara would state:

The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China.

Secretary McNamara would go on to explain:

China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30’s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us. The long-run US policy is based upon an instinctive understanding in our country that the peoples and resources of Asia could be effectively mobilized against us by China or by a Chinese coalition and that the potential weight of such a coalition could throw us on the defensive and threaten our security.

The memorandum would also claim:

Our ends cannot be achieved and our leadership role cannot be played if some powerful and virulent nation—whether Germany, Japan, Russia or China—is allowed to organize their part of the world according to a philosophy contrary to ours.

Such sentiments are just as easily found in the speeches and policies put forth by current US leadership. As recently as last March, a Reuters article, “Biden says China won’t surpass US as global leader on his watch,” would claim:

US President Joe Biden on Thursday said he would prevent China from passing the United States to become the most powerful country in the world, vowing to invest heavily to ensure America prevails in the race between the world’s two largest economies.

The article also reported:

“China has an overall goal … to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world,” he told reporters at the White House. “That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States is going to continue to grow.”

The issue of America’s global “leadership” and how to maintain it by containing peer and near-peer rivals has transcended decades of US foreign policy regardless of who sits in the White House or in Congress, yet at the most fundamental levels this policy is dangerously flawed and wholly unethical.

America Has Neither the Right Nor the Ability to Stop China’s Rise
China is a nation with over four times the population of the US. It graduates millions more in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics than the US. In addition to its immense human resources, it has access to abundant natural resources, and a massive industrial base with which to utilize both. This has translated not only into world class infrastructure within China’s borders but also into China’s continued rise as a global economic superpower with corresponding military might.
The US policy of “containing” China’s rise makes an all-but-stated assumption that despite all of China’s advantages in terms of population, natural resources, infrastructure, and industrial capacity, the Chinese are still somehow inferior to Americans, thus justifying the continued primacy of America. It is the same underlying justification used by generations of Western imperialism over Latin America, Africa, and Asia including China up until the 20th century.

Because the United States cannot demonstrate its perceived superiority over China through economic metrics including through terms of industrial capacity or infrastructure development at home and abroad, it is doing so by asserting itself militarily and politically, reaching into China’s internal political affairs, attempting to dictate to Beijing what happens within its own borders (including Taiwan) and even who can and cannot travel within these borders.

Were the situation reversed, were Chinese representatives attempting to cross into American territory without Washington’s invitation, it would almost certainly result in the use of force.

The age-old maxim of “might makes right” has allowed the United States and other Western nations to indulge in exceptionalism through the eager enforcement of rules and norms alongside the simultaneous and flagrant violation of both. Yet as China continues to rise, the reality of who is “mightiest” is slowly shifting and will continue to do so until the United States finds itself on the losing side of its own ill-conceived game.
Only time can tell whether China’s rise will continue until this inflection point is reached and what the consequences of this will be for Washington and the current circles of special interests shaping policy there.

What were Russia and ‘the West’ arguing about?

The main point of contention seems to be the concept of the ‘indivisibility of security’ in Europe. Russia often points to the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security, which says that each country “has an equal right to security,” and countries “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states.” This formula was affirmed in the OSCE’s declaration at the 2010 summit in Astana (now Nur-Sultan), Kazakhstan. Russia says that this means NATO and the US cannot expand their military infrastructure eastward without Russia’s consent. Which, in handshakes, was also promised to Gorbachev way back in the 90s.

Washington said it was ready to discuss “Russia’s interpretations” of indivisibility of security. This caveat stems from NATO’s insistence that it is a purely defensive alliance that does not pose any threat to Russia, contrary to what Russia itself says.
In a letter to the US and its allies, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western countries of ignoring the concept of indivisibility of security altogether in favor of cherry-picking “elements that suit them” from international documents, namely those guaranteeing the freedom of individual states to choose their alliances. He highlighted that the West’s written responses demonstrated “serious differences” in the understanding of the issue. Speaking on Russian TV, Lavrov argued that it was “difficult” to view NATO as a defensive alliance, considering its interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya.

NATO presented a laundry list of demands, including the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, which implies that Moscow must return Crimea to Kiev. The citizen of Crimea, like those in the DonBass region, and in Odessa, who are majority Russian speaking, by a huge majority voted to be(come) Russian, rather than Ukrainian. Russia therefore repeatedly stated that Crimea’s reunification with the country in 2014 is irreversible.

It is unlikely that Russia will remove its peacekeepers from Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region, where they have been stationed since the early 1990s, until the frozen conflict there is resolved. It is similarly hard to see Russian peacekeepers being removed from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose independence from Georgia was recognized by Russia in 2008. The US has allegedly written it stands ready to talk about “reciprocal commitments” not to deploy offensive ground-launched missile systems and permanent combat troops in Ukraine, which also implies that Russia must abandon Crimea. Which is constitutionally impossible, under amendments voted on in 2020.

Russia’s demand for NATO to publicly abandon its so-called ‘open-door policy’ of accepting new member states seems equally unrealistic at this point, after the US and NATO reaffirmed the right of any country to seek membership in the bloc.

As early as February 16 2022, Joe Biden knew that the Ukrainians had begun firing shells (containers full of explosives) at the civilian population of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: Help Donbass militarily and create an international problem, or stand by and watch the Russian-speaking people of Donbass being crushed (again). The OSCE has monitored the bombing (and thus ceasefire violations) by Ukraine carefully;
If Putin would decide to intervene, Putin could invoke the international obligation of “Responsibility To Protect” (R2P). But he knew that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention would trigger a storm of sanctions. Therefore, whether Russian intervention was limited to the Donbass or went further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to pay would be the same. This is what he explained in his speech on February 21. On that day, he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics and, at the same time, he signed friendship and assistance treaties with them.

The illegal Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on February 23, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On February 24, Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention illegal in the eyes of the public, NATO deliberately hid the fact that this war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass (once more) as early as 2021, as Russian and European intelligence services were well aware. All this is documented by these intelligence services and factually irrefutable. Time will tell, but I think future jurists will judge this military operation to have been a fully legal undertaking..

Still, one wonders what changed in the media’s eyes from before 2022:

* Note that all info provided above can be found on the websites, reports and press memo’s of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, the UN, NATO, Whitehouse/Pentagon and the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Either side has confirmed validity of the other side’s statements. It’s not ‘propaganda’. Just sayin’..

Twitter is banning the following URLs (shadow-banning):
https://www.brighteon.com/channels/pursuitoftruth
https://journal-neo.org/2020/09/18/natos-slow-motion-blitzkrieg-eastward/
https://ukr-leaks.org/en/News
If you try post them anyway, they make it look like a technical problem; you get to see bullshit like “too many failed login attempts” or similar fake reasons. All lies of course, twitter is clearly #censoring and #banning information the US State affiliated twitter does not want you to know about.. Note that inside Russia, you can still freely access ALL Western media, unlike what many Western media try to make of press freedom in Russia.

Putin had asked to join NATO and was turned down

Isn’t it hilarious that it’s been “controversial” to say there’s a US proxy war in a country where the US is sending weapons to be used by CIA-trained fighters backed by US intelligence against a longtime US rival in a conflict the US knowingly provoked?
Just an FYI here. Putin asked to join NATO because (as he said in Russian, but nobody dared translate, let alone publish) he hoped and expected they could and would help destroy the nuclear arms arsenal both sides are abusing for imaginary stability between former enemies, and (yes, he actually said this) “all this is, is a weapons arsenal from days when leaders were suicidal emotional maniacs”, andwe are above that now, we have existential problems to solve, like a warming planet and pollution”.
There’s another Putin for you.

Right after NATO turned down his third proposal to have Russia join, he noted that the naziaffiliated groups in Ukraine, who were murdering thousands of innocent russian speaking people in Ukraine (mainly in Donbass), were a big problem for NATO. Adding that he “does not understand why NATO even still exists”, and that his “quest to join NATO was merely a way to prove NATO is a useless cold war relic, a museum piece that should be rendered useless for a globally united humanity”, after all; More than half of the uranium being used by US nuclear power plants today has been imported from Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. And the US is purchasing over 100000 barrels of crude oil from Russia PER DAY, still.
--
I know you all want to hate Putin, but he had his reasons, and he’s not stupid. Vladimir Putin’s yearly score of war-victims (both domestic and abroad) is not even approaching that of the average US president. Ask yourself: Why was Edward Snowden not welcomed/protected in NATO-territory? Why is Julian Assange still in jail in the UK? Didn’t he help show you some war-criminals? Are you really sure that what you’re being told about this war is so important that you want to risk global nuclear annihilation for it? Because the way this is going, this is exactly what NATO is doing by pushing its ridiculous cancel-culture onto 144 million Russians.

An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind...
Both my parents are of Dutch origin, they met while studying Slavic languages (among others), in fact, that is why I was born in Belgrade. My mother was a Russian language teacher for a long time, a special option that existed on the ThijCollege in Oldenzaal (in The Netherlands). When I turned 18, I refused to join the army back when they wanted me to join. Like many others, I saw this war coming from a mile away. The almost fanatical drive to provoke it from Washington was nothing short of disturbing. The glee with which NATO countries have embraced this manufactured crisis is frightening. The media propaganda nothing short of dystopian. The world is sleep walking over the knife’s edge of oblivion with madmen and psychopaths at the wheel. War is for power-hungry money-hungry idiots;
Only the autocrats and politicians who dream of empire and global hegemony profit from war, by wielding armies, warplanes, and fleets, along with the merchants of death, whose business floods countries with weapons. The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe has earned Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Analytic Services, Huntington Ingalls, Humana, BAE Systems, and L3Harris billions in profits. The stoking of conflict in Ukraine will earn them billions more. The European Union has allocated hundreds of millions of euros to purchase weapons for Ukraine. Germany will almost triple its own defense budget for 2022. The Biden administration has asked Congress to provide $6.4 billion in funding to assist Ukraine, supplementing the $650 million in military aid to Ukraine over the past year. The permanent war economy operates outside the laws of supply and demand. It is the root of the two-decade-long quagmire in the Middle East. It is the root of the conflict with Moscow. The more corpses they produce, the more their bank accounts swell. They will cash in on this conflict, one that now flirts with the nuclear holocaust that would terminate life on earth as we know it. (<- borrowed bits from Chris Hedges here)

It seems that Nazis are running the country you’re so concerned about, because they threaten the lives of the people running the government and the people in government are credibly afraid of them. Nazis have an entire battalion in the Ukraine military plus a substantial presence in the rest of the military, and there are Nazis in high places in their government, such as their head of National Police. Nazis last week assassinated a Ukraine negotiator because he offered Russia something that the Nazis didn’t want him to offer, and the head of a Nazi group in Ukraine claims that the 2014 coup would never have happened if not for the Nazis, because they were the only ones willing to fight for it. So yeah, great side that you picked. My side, you ask? I stand with traditional indigenous people, with the innocent animal-world, with the Earth, the land, the air, the water, the sky, the plants and trees.

The mere fact that air-travel now has to avoid flying over Ukraine and/or Russia will cause a bonus CO2 rise far outweighing any and all local global warming mitigation. If any political leader was ever serious about keeping our habitat alive, about human survival, about the future of ecosystems, they would end all wars tomorrow. Obviously they’re not, they’re a bunch of primitive idiots, or as Putin put it so eloquently “suicidal emotional maniacs”, who have no idea what they are doing to their habitat. One wonders if they even went to school. And I hate them for it. You go explain nuclear arms to your offspring, good luck when they start realizing what a complete fucked up system you’ve created for them to grow up in. I see nothing but anarchy in store for our children, and rightfully so.

Oh, and Sergey Mikhailovich Brin, you jewish russian you, I know you’re reading this since you’re chief google; I’m so disappointed in you, deciding to join the mass media blob bandwagon to block RT on your YouTube for us in Europe. Why do this, you censoring fascist you, why? Where are your crocodile tears for the victims of U.S. invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to name just the most recent U.S. war- and human rights-crimes? Russia is not a nation full of evildoers, because it violently decided to save the victims of 8 years of abuse. Nobody I know condones the destruction of Ukraine, but
1) The U.S. and NATO are the root cause of it;
2) If you’re an American, you should be fighting U.S. transgressions, like the current genocide in Yemen it’s committing by arming Saudi Arabia, its occupation of 1/3 of Syria and theft of its oil, and the current bombing of Somalia. Considering what the U.S. is currently doing, obsessing over Russia like most of you do is utter hypocrisy.
3) Many of you obviously can’t keep contradictory thought in your head; The fact that people point out that the root of this problem is the U.S. (and NATO) does not mean that we don’t also oppose Russia possibly committing war-crimes. But after almost 3 months, I tend to lean towards more war-crimes being committed by Ukraine, rather than by the Russians, just like the latest UN findings prove.
Besides, if Russia did not have nuclear weapons, the US/NATO would have Yugoslavianized it a long time ago. Don’t flatter yourselves.

Independent sources I recommend:

  • Jacques Baud
  • Laurent Brayard
  • Bruce K. Gagnon
  • Pepe Escobar in 2015
  • award winning journalist Eva K. Bartlett
  • Ray McGovern
  • John Mearsheimer’s 2022 analysis
  • Which nations do not distance themselves from nazism and which do.. (UN vote results) <- quite telling indeed!