Growing the Russia-China New Relationship | New Eastern Outlook

While the Obama Administration is preoccupied with keeping an increasingly unhappy EU firm on further economic sanctions against Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Putin is busy outflanking an increasingly desperate Washington. Rather than fixate on the deliberate US and NATO provocations in Ukraine, Russia is deepening its strategic ties with the other Great Eurasian land-power, the Peoples’ Republic of China. Far from Putin going begging to Beijing for money, the two powers are weaving a closer strategic counterweight to an Anglo-American elite gone bonkers as its empire slips from its hands.

Unimportant are all diplomatic declarations by Chinese deputy Prime Ministers and others in recent weeks about how China so deeply respects the unique role of the United States as sole superpower. The reality on the ground speaks of a tectonic and well-thought-through change in the geopolitical world order is underway. Not only are Russia and China signing gigantic oil and gas agreements that insulate Russia from the negative effects of a potential loss of the EU energy markets in coming months.

Now the two powers have agreed on one of the world’s largest-ever infrastructure projects that will create huge new markets across Eurasia.

Transforming Eurasia

Russia and China have agreed to build a 7,000-kilometer high-speed rail link from Beijing to Moscow, at a cost of $242 billion, almost a quarter trillion dollars, according to the Beijing city government. The journey from Beijing to Moscow would take two days on a route passing through Kazakhstan. It will take take eight to 10 years to build. The rail project is the most ambitious rail infrastructure project in the Eurasian history, even surpassing the Trans-Siberian Railway project across Russia.

The new Beijing-Moscow highspeed rail corridor shown in yellow will transform the economic space of Eurasia

In October, 2014, China and Russia signed an agreement to build the first leg of the Beijing-Moscow high-speed rail link. That specified that Chinese firms and their Russian partners will construct a 770-km high-speed line connecting Moscow and Kazan, an important metropolis on the Volga River, en route to Beiing.

Then last November as US sanctions and the US-engineered oil price collapse added a new urgency to the project, Alexander Misharin, vice-president at state-owned OAO Russian Railways, said a section would cost $60 billion to reach Russia’s border, and would cut the Beijing-Moscow journey from five days to 30 hours. Misharin at the time compared the new transport network to the Suez Canal “in terms of scale and significance.” In reality, it has the potential to far exceed the Suez Canal as it serves to unify a high-speed transport network integration vast new markets across Eurasia from Beijing to Moscow that draw in some 4.4 billion of the world population.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/31/growing-the-russia-china-new-relationship/

Complete story at - Growing the Russia-China New Relationship | New Eastern Outlook

Go West, Young Han — RT Op-Edge

November 18, 2014: it’s a day that should live forever in history.

On that day, in the city of Yiwu in China’s Zhejiang province, 300 kilometers south of Shanghai, the first train carrying 82 containers of export goods weighing more than 1,000 tons left a massive warehouse complex heading for Madrid. It arrived on December 9th.

Welcome to the new trans-Eurasia choo-choo train. At over 13,000 kilometers, it will regularly traverse the longest freight train route in the world, 40% farther than the legendary Trans-Siberian Railway. Its cargo will cross China from East to West, then Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany, France, and finally Spain.

You may not have the faintest idea where Yiwu is, but businessmen plying their trades across Eurasia, especially from the Arab world, are already hooked on the city “where amazing happens!” We're talking about the largest wholesale center for small-sized consumer goods - from clothes to toys - possibly anywhere on Earth.

The Yiwu-Madrid route across Eurasia represents the beginning of a set of game-changing developments. It will be an efficient logistics channel of incredible length. It will represent geopolitics with a human touch, knitting together small traders and huge markets across a vast landmass. It’s already a graphic example of Eurasian integration on the go. And most of all, it’s the first building block on China’s “New Silk Road,” conceivably the project of the new century and undoubtedly the greatest trade story in the world for the next decade.

Go west, young Han. One day, if everything happens according to plan (and according to the dreams of China’s leaders), all this will be yours - via high-speed rail, no less. The trip from China to Europe will be a two-day affair, not the 21 days of the present moment. In fact, as that freight train left Yiwu, the D8602 bullet train was leaving Urumqi in Xinjiang Province, heading for Hami in China’s far west. That’s the first high-speed railway built in Xinjiang, and more like it will be coming soon across China at what is likely to prove dizzying speed.

Today, 90% of the global container trade still travels by ocean, and that’s what Beijing plans to change. Its embryonic, still relatively slow New Silk Road represents its first breakthrough in what is bound to be an overland trans-continental container trade revolution.

Complete story at - Go West, Young Han — RT Op-Edge

Beijing $40 billion offer to revive the historic Silk Road, starts Central-Asia geostrategic competition

Beijing says it will spend $40 billion to revive the historic Silk Road and connect China with Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Chinese President Xi Jinping said the ambitious project is designed to "break the connectivity bottleneck" in Asia.

The "Silk Road Economic Belt" initiative, announced by Xi Jinping in 2013, is designed to allow capabilities of Chinese state-controlled construction companies to further expand its already booming trade with central Asia and Europe by diversification of Chinese trade routes, lowering transportation costs, opening up new markets, and an expansion of the Chinese sphere of influence beyond Asia. It will also secure the supply of Uranium and rare metals from Central Asia.

The land route will begin in Xi'an, in central China, before stretching to the border with Kazakhstan. The Silk Road, then heads southwest to Iran before passing through Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The new Silk Road, then crosses the Bosphorus and heads through Europe, traversing Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, Germany and Rotterdam in the Netherlands – from which the path runs south to Venice where it converges with the planned maritime route.

The Chinese Silk Road plans, however, compete with other Central Asian strategies, especially the Russia-initiated the Eurasian Economic Union and the U.S.-initiated New Silk Road Initiative.

Complete story at - Beijing $40 billion offer to revive the historic Silk Road, starts Central-Asia geostrategic competition

Russian Nationalism and Eurasianism: The Ideology of Russian Regional Power and the Rejection of Western Values | Center For Syncretic Studies

The recent flurry of writing on Russian politics, nationalism and Alexander Dugin shows the contemptible inability of western savants to apprehend any idea beyond the cliche’s of stagnant neo-liberalism. Worse, “Russia specialists” in academia are now tripping over themselves trying to “analyze” Dugin and the Eurasianist idea. Bereft of the vocabulary to understand the concept, they merely apply fashionable labels from western political thought onto Russia in a pathetic and pretentious attempt to show how “dangerous” such ideas are to “European values.”

Reading A. Toynbee, especially Volumes IV-VI of his Study of History, lead one to question both the “civilizational” fundament and, later, his “higher religion.” The problems are not that, at such a level of analysis, he is inaccurate. Such an epic level of perspective cannot be held to the sharp standards of accuracy that a study of, say, the state of New Hampshire might be subject. The very nature of such a sweeping history means that, in the main, he might be seen as “more or less” on the right track. That is as far as one can go. However, that begs the question, since the very concept of such an epic orientation is open to doubt.

Equally sweeping is the general criticism of P. Sorokin and others, namely, that such a view of history is problematic because it isolates a few variables from the rest, making them extremely important. This means that others are minimized. This criticism gains force to the extent that one sees the knowledge required for any epic vista of history to work at all. One cannot know that much about global history to come to such conclusions. Those specializing in an element of a civilization (such as Hellenistic aesthetics) will easily annihilate sweeping generalizations. Hegel’s desire to label entire epochs of history with one word means that such an approach cannot be true; unless one is willing to reduce epochs of civilization to slogans about them.

In the case of this present author, the concern has been to refuse such grand historical panoramas and focus instead on a single nation, or elements within a nation that lend themselves to detailed study. There, the actual living conditions of real people can be analyzed. The sweep of Toynbee, Hegel or Marx is interesting, but if the result is to then force all societies to follow that general model, then they should be left unread. Few deny the ability of Eric Voegelin, but again, outside of specialized studies on Plato or Marx, Voegelin’s sweep is such as to make it interesting, but a fatal temptation to the study of actual historical life.

This preface is needed because the Eurasians fall into the same problem. They too, deal in civilizational norms, though their interest is very specific: defining the Atlantian civilization as against the Russian one. At the level of elite society, this is useful. Western elites, generally speaking, are of one mind in their commitment to science, secularism, individualism (in theory), capitalism, positivism and empire. There is nothing strange about this. Toynbee, in areas in which he is well schooled (such as Greek antiquity), becomes extremely important. When he generalizes this experience to medieval Hindustan, however, he becomes less tenable.

Complete story at - Russian Nationalism and Eurasianism: The Ideology of Russian Regional Power and the Rejection of Western Values | Center For Syncretic Studies

Twenty-first-century energy wars - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

8 JULY, by Michael Klare

Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, South Sudan, Ukraine, the East and South China Seas: wherever you look, the world is aflame with new or intensifying conflicts. At first glance, these upheavals appear to be independent events, driven by their own unique and idiosyncratic circumstances. But look more closely and they share several key characteristics — notably, a witch’s brew of ethnic, religious, and national antagonisms that have been stirred to the boiling point by a fixation on energy.

In each of these conflicts, the fighting is driven in large part by the eruption of long-standing historic antagonisms among neighboring (often intermingled) tribes, sects, and peoples. In Iraq and Syria, it is a clash among Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Turkmen, and others; in Nigeria, among Muslims, Christians, and assorted tribal groupings; in South Sudan, between the Dinka and Nuer; in Ukraine, between Ukrainian loyalists and Russian-speakers aligned with Moscow; in the East and South China Sea, among the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and others. It would be easy to attribute all this to age-old hatreds, as suggested by many analysts; but while such hostilities do help drive these conflicts, they are fueled by a most modern impulse as well: the desire to control valuable oil and natural gas assets. Make no mistake about it, these are twenty-first-century energy wars.

It should surprise no one that energy plays such a significant role in these conflicts. Oil and gas are, after all, the world’s most important and valuable commodities and constitute a major source of income for the governments and corporations that control their production and distribution. Indeed, the governments of Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, South Sudan, and Syria derive the great bulk of their revenues from oil sales, while the major energy firms (many state-owned) exercise immense power in these and the other countries involved. Whoever controls these states, or the oil- and gas-producing areas within them, also controls the collection and allocation of crucial revenues. Despite the patina of historical enmities, many of these conflicts, then, are really struggles for control over the principal source of national income.

Moreover, we live in an energy-centric world where control over oil and gas resources (and their means of delivery) translates into geopolitical clout for some and economic vulnerability for others. Because so many countries are dependent on energy imports, nations with surpluses to export — including Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, and South Sudan — often exercise disproportionate influence on the world stage. What happens in these countries sometimes matters as much to the rest of us as to the people living in them, and so the risk of external involvement in their conflicts — whether in the form of direct intervention, arms transfers, the sending in of military advisers, or economic assistance — is greater than almost anywhere else.

The struggle over energy resources has been a conspicuous factor in many recent conflicts, including the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, the Gulf War of 1990-1991, and the Sudanese Civil War of 1983-2005. On first glance, the fossil-fuel factor in the most recent outbreaks of tension and fighting may seem less evident. But look more closely and you’ll see that each of these conflicts is, at heart, an energy war.

Complete story at - Twenty-first-century energy wars - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

The Reverse Brzezinski: The Ultimate Eurasian Dilemma (II) | Oriental Review

Towards the Lead From Behind Strategy and Its Official Acceptance:

Conventional (forceful) regime change strategies (Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq) were possible in a unipolar world, but with the unipolar moment fading, the US has been compelled to revive the Lead From Behind template first flirted with during the Soviet-Afghan War. The first official indication that the US was moving towards this strategy was its behavior during the 2011 Libyan War, the first-ever use of the Lead From Behind moniker. This was followed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ final speech that summer, in which he implored NATO allies to do more to assist the US in tackling global challenges. It thus became clear that the US was no longer as enthusiastic about “going it alone” as it had been before, nor does it seem willing to pose the ultimatum of “you are either with us or against us.”

The indication that American power is relatively slipping vis-à-vis the other Great Powers was formally seconded by the National Intelligence Council in late 2012. In its “Global Trends 2030” publication, it writes about how the US will be “first among equals” because “the ‘unipolar moment’ is over, and ‘Pax Americana’ — the era of American ascendancy in international politics that began in 1945 — is fast winding down.” Clearly, under such a competitive environment, aggressive unilateralism will be more difficult to deploy without risking collateral consequences. This further gave an added impulse to the Lead Form Behind strategy’s implementation into mainstream American military planning.

Finally, President Obama institutionalized the Lead From Behind template when he spoke at West Point at the end of May. In his speech, he notable said that “America must lead on the world stage… but U.S. military action cannot be the only — or even primary — component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.” This has been interpreted as the US formally abandoning the unilateral ‘go it alone’ doctrine except under exceptional circumstances. At this point, it is evident that the US has definitively displayed its intention to trade the world policeman post for the Lead From Behind mastermind mantle. Further illustrating this point, the theater-wide social and political transformation that the US envisioned with the Arab Spring could not have succeeded with unilateral action. Therefore, the year 2011 represents the official end of the unipolar moment and the beginning of the Lead From Behind era, which is in and of itself the US military’s adaptation to a multipolar world.

Complete story at - The Reverse Brzezinski: The Ultimate Eurasian Dilemma (II) | Oriental Review

The Reverse Brzezinski: The Ultimate Eurasian Dilemma (I) | Oriental Review

By Andrew KORYBKO (USA)

Introduction:

A global shift in US strategy is currently underway, with America transitioning from the ‘world policeman’ to the Lead From Behind mastermind. This fundamental shift essentially entails the US moving from a majority forward-operating military to a defensive stay-behind force. Part of this transformation is the reduction of the conventional military and its replacement with special forces and intelligence recruits. Private military companies (PMCs) are also occupying a higher role in the US’ grand strategy. Of course, it is not to say that the US no longer has the capability or will to forward advance – not at all – but that the evolving US strategy prefers more indirect and nefarious approaches towards projecting power besides massive invasions and bombing runs. In this manner, it is following the advice of Sun Tzu who wrote that “supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” The outcome is a mixture of Color Revolutions, unconventional warfare, and mercenary interventions that avoids the direct use of US combat troops while relying heavily on regional allies’ proxy involvement. This results in the promotion of American policy via oblique methods and the retention of relative plausible deniability. Importantly, the absence of conventional forces is thought to reduce the risk of a direct confrontation between the US and Russia, China, and Iran, the primary targets of these proxy wars.

The Eurasian-wide plan of strategic destabilization and state fracturing owes its genesis to Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Eurasian Balkans concept. The US is flexible in practicing this concept, and it does not meet a dead end if the destabilization encounters an obstacle and cannot be advanced. Should this occur, as it has in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, and possibly soon in the South China Sea, the stratagem evolves into maximizing the chaos within the launch pad states that are positioned on the doorsteps of the Eurasian Powers. The idea is to create ‘black holes’ of absolute disorder in which Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” intervene. Ideally, the US prefers that its intended targets are sucked into a quagmire that bleeds them dry and destabilizes them at home, per the example of the Soviet-Afghan War which Brzezinski conspired over 30 years ago. Moving away from the expansive Eurasian Balkans and reverting to the roots of ‘Afghan anarchy’ is the nature of the Reverse Brzezinski, and it poses the ultimate dilemma-like trap for the Eurasian Powers.

The Afghan Prototype:

The US’ experience in training and arming the Mujahideen to bring about and manage the Soviet-Afghan War can be seen as the first foray into the Lead From Behind strategy. The US worked hand-in-hand with Pakistan and other Muslim states to sow the seeds of chaos in Afghanistan (including the creation of the international mercenary organization Al Qaeda), thus creating a strategic destabilization so tempting that the Soviet Union could not resist the urge to intervene. This was the goal all along and it was a resounding success. It also the pinnacle of Cold War-era proxy warfare that meshed perfectly with the international balance of power at the time. It was so successful that it is credited as one of the contributing factors to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. This altered the global power balance and resulted in the US’ unipolar moment. During this period of time, the Afghan Lead From Behind prototype was no longer seen as necessary because the US now had the power, will, and opportunity to project power directly and forcefully all across the world.

Complete story at - The Reverse Brzezinski: The Ultimate Eurasian Dilemma (I) | Oriental Review

The Birth of a Eurasian Century - Truthdig

By Pepe Escobar

HONG KONG—A specter is haunting Washington, an unnerving vision of a Sino-Russian alliance wedded to an expansive symbiosis of trade and commerce across much of the Eurasian land mass—at the expense of the United States.

And no wonder Washington is anxious. That alliance is already a done deal in a variety of ways: through the BRICS group of emerging powers (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asian counterweight to NATO; inside the G20; and via the 120-member-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Trade and commerce are just part of the future bargain. Synergies in the development of new military technologies beckon as well. After Russia’s Star Wars-style, ultra-sophisticated S-500 air defense anti-missile system comes online in 2018, Beijing is sure to want a version of it. Meanwhile, Russia is about to sell dozens of state-of-the-art Sukhoi Su-35 jet fighters to the Chinese as Beijing and Moscow move to seal an aviation-industrial partnership.

This week should provide the first real fireworks in the celebration of a new Eurasian century-in-the-making when Russian President Vladimir Putin drops in on Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. You remember “Pipelineistan,” all those crucial oil and gas pipelines crisscrossing Eurasia that make up the true circulatory system for the life of the region. Now, it looks like the ultimate Pipelineistan deal, worth $1 trillion and 10 years in the making, will be inked as well. In it, the giant, state-controlled Russian energy giant Gazprom will agree to supply the giant state-controlled China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) with 3.75 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas a day for no less than 30 years, starting in 2018. That’s the equivalent of a quarter of Russia’s massive gas exports to all of Europe. China’s current daily gas demand is around 16 billion cubic feet a day, and imports account for 31.6% of total consumption.

Gazprom may still collect the bulk of its profits from Europe, but Asia could turn out to be its Everest. The company will use this mega-deal to boost investment in Eastern Siberia and the whole region will be reconfigured as a privileged gas hub for Japan and South Korea as well. If you want to know why no key country in Asia has been willing to “isolate” Russia in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis—and in defiance of the Obama administration—look no further than Pipelineistan.

Complete story at - The Birth of a Eurasian Century - Truthdig