Podcast appearances and mentions of andrew korybko

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.Der dritte Weltkrieg hat längst begonnen. Spätestens mit Beginn des Wirtschaftskrieges gegen Russland und etwas verhaltener gegen China hätte das jeder verstehen sollen. Nun wurde dieser Krieg zu einem voll entwickelten Bombenkrieg an zwei Stellen, in der Ukraine und in Gaza. Und die Medien unternehmen alles, um zu erklären, dass sich der Westen „nur verteidigt“, gegen den „Aggressor“ Russland, so wie die israelische Besatzungsmacht ja „ein Recht auf Verteidigung“ habe gegen die palästinensischen „Terroristen“, unbeachtet der Tatsache, dass Letztere durch die UN-Generalversammlung mehrmals zum bewaffneten Kampf gegen den Besatzer legitimiert worden waren. Beginnen wir daher mit einer Erklärung des jüngsten Versuchs, die „Aggressivität“ Russlands, seinen angeblichen „Imperialismus“ zu behaupten.Russlands „Imperialismus“Da waren in den letzten Wochen Bilder aufgetaucht, welche den ehemaligen russischen Präsidenten und amtierenden stellvertretenden Vorsitzende des Sicherheitsrates, Dmitri Medwedew, vor einer Karte Ost-Europas sah, die beweisen sollte, was Russland angeblich erobern wolle. Was war wirklich geschehen?Er hatte am 4. März auf dem Weltjugendfestival über den seiner Meinung nach bestehendem Unterschied zwischen geografischen und strategischen Grenzen gesprochen. Er betrachtet die ersten als international anerkannte Linien, während die zweiten Gebiete seien, in denen Länder die Entwicklung in der Nähe der eigenen Grenzen zur Sicherung der international anerkannten Linien kontrollieren.Andrew Korybko schreibt dazu:„Zur Erklärung: ‚Strategische Grenzen‘ sind im Wesentlichen ‚Pufferzonen‘, in denen ein Land seinen Einfluss geltend macht, um sicherzustellen, dass seine legitimen Sicherheitsinteressen nicht gefährdet werden, was nicht dasselbe ist wie eine ‚Einflusssphäre‘ ...“ (1)Wer nun „strategisch Grenzen“, also Pufferzonen mit der imperialistischen Großmachtpolitik der USA vergleicht, wie sie z.B. mit der Monroe-Doktrin zum Ausdruck kamen, der irrt sich. Mit der „Roosevelt Corollary“ von 1904 beanspruchten die USA für sich das Recht, in Lateinamerika und der gesamten westlichen Hemisphäre eine Polizistenrolle zu spielen. Die Karibik wurde im Verständnis der Amerikaner zum „Hinterhof“ der USA. Und nach der Selbstauflösung der Sowjetunion, wurde der Anspruch auf die ganze Welt ausgedehnt...... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/der-3-weltkrieg-findet-bereits-statt-von-jochen-mitschka+++Bildquelle: Oleksii Synelnykov/ shutterstock+++Apolut ist auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommen Sie zu den Stores von Apple und Huawei. Hier der Link: https://apolut.net/app/Die apolut-App steht auch zum Download (als sogenannte Standalone- oder APK-App) auf unserer Homepage zur Verfügung. Mit diesem Link können Sie die App auf Ihr Smartphone herunterladen: https://apolut.net/apolut_app.apk+++Abonnieren Sie jetzt den apolut-Newsletter: https://apolut.net/newsletter/+++Ihnen gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/unterstuetzen/+++Unterstützung für apolut kann auch als Kleidung getragen werden! Hier der Link zu unserem Fan-Shop: https://harlekinshop.com/pages/apolut Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.Es geht mal wieder um Hintergründe und Grundsätze, aufgehangen an aktuellen Themen. Wenn jemand zu geopolitischen Fragen eine Meinung äußert, ist die nicht immer zutreffend, egal wie oft er vorher den Nagel auf den Kopf getroffen hat. Jeder Kommentator, und ich schließe mich nicht aus, machen auch Fehler, schätzen Situationen falsch ein, vertrauen falschen Quellen oder sind einfach übereifrig und machen deshalb Fehler. Das sagt nichts über die generelle Vertrauenswürdigkeit aus, sondern zeigt nur, dass niemand ohne Fehler sein kann. Ich will darüber berichten, nicht weil ich Unsicherheit verbreiten will, sondern das Gegenteil. Man sollte immer versuchen Informationen auch mit eigenen Augen zu sehen und „zweite Meinungen“ einholen. Heute will ich Beispiele bringen, in denen ich meine, dass von mir ansonsten geschätzte Analysten eben einmal falsch liegen. Weshalb ich sie aber nicht grundsätzlich als Quelle ablehne. Beginnen wir mit dem US-Amerikaner Andrew Korybko, der in Russland lebt, und die Welt stark durch die russische Brille sieht.ÄthiopienDer Premierminister Äthiopiens, Abiy Ahmed hatte angekündigt, allerdings nur in seiner lokalen Sprache, dass er auch notfalls mit Gewalt, für sein Binnenland einen Zugang zum Meer erzwingen wolle. Dabei bevorzugte er wohl ein Gebiet in Eritrea, Asseb.Andrew Korybko stellt nun den Plan für eine Pipeline vom Südsudan über Äthiopien bis Dschibuti als Meereszugang vor(1). Er erklärt, dass er damit den Druck von Eritrea nehmen wolle. Aber er erwähnt nicht, dass der äthiopische Ministerpräsident ganz andere Töne anschlägt. Und das, obwohl eine Gemeinschaft aus Eritrea darüber mit Videos und Übersetzungen informiert hatte. Wobei man allerdings wissen muss, dass solche Mitteilungen aus Eritrea meist sehr polemisch und erregt formuliert werden.Korybko erklärt das aus einer russisch geopolitischen Sicht. Er schreibt, dass Ägypten und Äthiopien schon lange strategische Partnerschaften mit Russland pflegen, und sich gegenseitiges Vertrauen dadurch gebildet habe. Das eritreisch-russisch-äthiopische Dreieck sei viel heikler, da die russisch eritreischen Beziehungen erst seit kurzer Zeit einen Aufschwung erleben.„Dies wäre kein Problem, wenn die eritreisch-äthiopischen Beziehungen auf dem positiven Weg bleiben würden, den Präsident Isaias Afwerki (PIA) und Premierminister Abiy Ahmed im Sommer 2018 gemeinsam eingeschlagen haben, aber das frühere Sicherheitsdilemma ist im vergangenen Jahr leider wieder aufgetreten. Wie in dieser Analyse erläutert, wurde das Abkommen zur Einstellung der Feindseligkeiten (Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, COHA) zwischen Premierminister Abiy und der TPLF von PIA wahrscheinlich als Verrat empfunden, nachdem er von diesem Abkommen mit dem bisherigen gemeinsamen Feind überrascht worden war.“(1)D.h. er lässt indirekt den Eindruck entstehen, Äthiopien habe mehr oder weniger hinter dem Rücken des Nachbarn Frieden mit Rebellen in Eritrea geschlossen. Wodurch logischerweise wieder Misstrauen zwischen den Ländern aufgebaut würde. Korybko erklärt dann, dass Premierminister Abiy angeblich nur „friedliche“ Hafenpläne habe, Eritrea aber fälschlicherweise dahinter territoriale Ansprüche vermute. Während einige Äthiopier den Verdacht hegen, dass Eritrea insgeheim seine angebliche frühere Politik der Unterstützung nicht näher benannter bewaffneter regierungsfeindlicher Gruppen in ihrem Land wieder aufgenommen haben könnte. Das habe alte Wunden wieder aufgerissen...... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/eine-quelle-kann-auch-irren-von-jochen-mitschka Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.In den letzten Wochen gab es einen 48-stündigen Krieg Aserbaidschans gegen die abtrünnige Provinz Bergkarabach, die jedoch schnell durch die Kapitulation mit weniger als einem dutzend zivilen Kollateralschäden beendet wurden. Aserbaidschan war insofern, auch mit der Unterstützung westlicher Länder und der Türkei, glücklicher mit der Wiedereingliederung der Gebiete als Kiew mit seinen östlichen Provinzen. Allerdings waren die Vorzeichen der verhinderten Selbständigkeit nicht vergleichbar. Aserbaidschan und Armenien werfen sich gegenseitig vor, im Laufe der versuchten Selbständigkeit Kriegsverbrechen begangen zu haben, ich will jedoch in diesem PodCast nur über Gegenwart und eine mögliche Zukunft sprechen. Der schnelle Frieden und die Wiederherstellung der Aserbaidschanischen Souveränität über das Gebiet scheint maßgeblich durch die Vermittlung russischer Friedenstruppen zustande gekommen zu sein. Was aber nicht bedeutet, dass Russland über diese Lösung glücklich ist. Die Situation ist äußerst komplex. Versuchen wir, etwas Licht in die Angelegenheit zu bringen.Der „Blitzkrieg“- die Vereinbarung am 20. SeptemberDer Krieg ist vorbei. Bergkarabach hat kapituliert. Worauf sich die Parteien einigten:Die armenischen bewaffneten Verbände legen ihre Waffen nieder, verlassen ihre Kampfstellungen und Militärposten und rüsten vollständig ab. Die Einheiten der armenischen Streitkräfte verlassen das aserbaidschanische Hoheitsgebiet, d.h. Bergkarabach.Gleichzeitig werden alle Waffen und schweres Gerät abgegeben.Die Wiedereingliederung der Karabach-Armenier in die aserbaidschanische Gesellschaft beginnt.Die Durchführung der oben genannten Prozesse wird in Abstimmung mit dem russischen Friedenskontingent sichergestellt.Was kann man daraus lernen?Ein schlimmeres Blutvergießen, insbesondere unter der Zivilbevölkerung konnte vermieden werden.Zwar wurde der Selbstbestimmungswunsch der aus Armenien stammenden Menschen in Bergkarabach nicht realisiert, aber das ist dem Völkerrecht zuzurechnen, das Bergkarabach Aserbaidschan zuschlägt, auch wenn es einmal eine willkürliche Zuweisung während der Sowjetzeit war. Außerdem waren viele Armenier erst nach der Flucht der Aserbaidschaner während der Erklärung der nicht anerkannten Selbständigkeit zugewandert.Russische Friedenstruppen werden von Aserbaidschan respektiert.Russische Friedenstruppen werden für die Zeit der Wiedereingliederung sicher stellen, dass es keine ethnischen Säuberungen oder Morde gibt. Aserbaidschan hat Medien eingeladen, den Prozess zu begleiten.Russische und iranische Warnungen, kein Gebiet anzugreifen, das völkerrechtlich zu Armenien gehört, wurde bisher respektiert.Andrew Korybko scheint begeistert von der Lösung zu sein, denn er sieht nur positive Seiten in der Entwicklung, wie er am 21. September feststellte. Er meint, dass endlich die vertriebenen Aserbaidschaner zurück kehren könnten, dass es keine Rache geben würde, dass diejenigen, welche Verbrechen begannen haben, zur Rechenschaft gezogen würden, dass Armenien nun Reparationen wird zahlen müssen wegen der jahrzehntelangen Besatzung, und endlich vollumfänglich die Bedingungen des Waffenstillstandsabkommens aus 2020 erfüllen muss, und dass der „Sangesur-Korridor“, der laut Vereinbarung von 2020 Aserbaidschan mit seiner Exklave Nachitschewan verbinden soll, die große Hoffnung für Armeniens Wirtschaft sei. Und schließlich sei Russland nun bemüht, einen dauerhaften Frieden zwischen Armenien und Aserbaidschan zu vermitteln...... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/armenien-und-aserbaidschan-was-steckt-dahinter-von-jochen-mitschka+++Bildquelle: sameer madhukar chogale / shutterstock Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.Die USA hatten zuletzt eine erfolgreiche RegimeChange-Operation in Pakistan durchgeführt, als der mit großer Zustimmung der Bevölkerung agierende gewählte Präsident eine zu große Nähe zu Russland zeigte, und dort, ähnlich wie Indien, billiges Öl für die Entwicklung der pakistanischen Industrialisierung bestellen wollte. Nach dem Putsch, der stattfand, indem einige Abgeordnete das Lager wechselten, wurde Imran Khan außerdem mit zahllosen Anklagen überhäuft, um zu verhindern, dass er, wie die Umfragen ergaben, mit einem Erdrutschsieg die nächsten Wahlen gewinnen würde. Nächste logische Folge: Die USA erpressen Pakistan, auch auf billiges Gas aus dem Iran zu verzichten, indem Pakistan einen bestehenden Vertrag brechen muss und vermutlich Milliarden Schadenersatz zahlen muss, um nicht unter die zerstörerischen Sanktionen der USA zu geraten. Durch diese Maßnahmen bleibt Pakistan unterentwickelt und ein Vasall der USA für längere Zeit, fällt für die multipolare Welt zunächst aus. Wie es außerhalb Pakistans aussieht, soll dieser PodCast beleuchten.Offensichtlich hatten Viele, mich eingeschlossen, die Fähigkeiten der USA, erfolgreiche RegimeChange-Projekte durchzuführen, unterschätzt. Das nächste Projekt scheint nun Kirgistan zu betreffen. Andrew Korybko beschreibt in einem Artikel(1), dass der Vorsitzende des Ausschusses für auswärtige Beziehungen des US-Senats, Bob Menendez, die Absichten seines Landes übermittelte, die kirgisische Regierung zu stürzen. Dies habe er in einem Brief, den er letzte Woche an Präsident Sadyr Japarov schickte, erklärt. Kirgistan und KasachstanDieser Brief sei dem zunächst vereitelten Putschversuch in Kirgisistan Anfang Juni gefolgt, über den die Washington Post (WaPo) berichtet hatte. Gleich zu Beginn habe der US-Politiker in dem Brief erklärt: "Ich schreibe Ihnen mit großer Besorgnis über die Behauptungen, die Regierung der Kirgisischen Republik unterstütze die Russische Föderation oder ihre Stellvertreter bei der Umgehung internationaler Sanktionen, die im Zusammenhang mit Russlands unrechtmäßigem Einmarsch in die Ukraine verhängt wurden. Darüber hinaus befürchte ich, dass Kirgisistans Versäumnis, die internationalen Sanktionen gegen Russland aufrechtzuerhalten, lediglich ein Symptom für seinen anhaltenden demokratischen Rückschritt und die weit verbreiteten Menschenrechtsverletzungen ist. Ihre Regierung hat die Institutionen geschwächt, wiederholt die Rechte von Journalisten und unabhängigen Medien verletzt, Menschenrechtsaktivisten schikaniert und zivilgesellschaftlichen Akteuren Einschränkungen auferlegt. Die Kirgisische Republik, einst ein leuchtendes Beispiel für Demokratie in Zentralasien, befindet sich auf einem gefährlichen Weg in Richtung Autokratie. Ich fordere Sie dringend auf, alle Beschränkungen für unabhängige Medien und Journalisten aufzuheben, inhaftierte Menschenrechtsverteidiger freizulassen und Maßnahmen aufzuheben, die Grundfreiheiten wie die Vereinigungsfreiheit einschränken."(1)Dies sei de facto eine Erklärung des Hybriden Krieges, meint Korybko. Was Menendez fordere, sei nichts Geringeres als ein sanfter Staatsstreich, der dadurch herbeigeführt wird, dass Kirgisistan die jüngsten Erfolge im Bereich der "demokratischen Sicherheit" freiwillig rückgängig macht und sich dem Damoklesschwert der "sicherheitspolitischen und wirtschaftlichen" Konsequenzen aussetzt, wenn es sich zu weigern wagt. Der vorstehende Begriff beziehe sich auf das breite Spektrum an Taktiken und Strategien zur Bekämpfung der hybriden Kriegsführung, die Präsident Japarow eingesetzt hat, um das nationale Demokratiemodell seines Landes vor den damit verbundenen Bedrohungen zu schützen...... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/multipolarismus-im-jahr-2023-von-jochen-mitschka+++ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Man muss anerkennen, dass weder Washington noch Peking Informationen über den Besuch Henry Kissingers in China im Voraus preisgegeben haben. Das deutet darauf hin, dass beide Seiten befürchtet haben, dass der Besuch entgleisen könnte. Eine Analyse von Andrew Korybko

The New Indian Editor-in-Chief Aarti Tikoo and US-Russia relations expert Andrew Korybko discuss the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict in this episode, analyzing the pace of events and its impact on current geo-politics. #geopolitics #RussiaUkraineConflict

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.Es ist wirklich schwer, bei den vielen fundamentalen Ereignissen in der Politik dieser Tage, über etwas zu schreiben, das eher Hintergrund als aktuell ist. Wie gerne würde ich über den Haftbefehl des IStGH gegen Putin berichten. Aber nein, ich habe versprochen meine Meinung über Lula zu überdenken. Also hier ist sie: Schon vor der Wahl von Brasiliens neuen Präsidenten, hatten Stimmen gewarnt, dass Lula die Seiten gewechselt habe, und er nicht mehr der vehemente Vertreter des Multipolarismus sei, der er einmal war. Ich hatte das als Propaganda angesehen, um Lulas Wahl zu verhindern. Nun wird die Vermutung immer drängender, dass Lula im Gefängnis nicht wie Nelson Mandela seinen Gefängniswärter bekehrte, sondern selbst eingenordet wurde, zukünftig besser mit den USA zu kooperieren. Zwar, so scheint es, darf er seine Politik der Unterstützung der armen Schichten des Landes weiterführen, und auch hinsichtlich der BRICS-Teilhabe hat sich noch kein Anzeichen ergeben, dass Lula Brasilien aus dem Multipolarismus zugunsten eines Vasallentums zurückziehen könnte. Aber es gibt zweifellos eine größere Nähe zur Politik der Partei von US-Präsident Biden, als vor seinem Gefängnisaufenthalt. Dieser Beitrag will versuchen zu erklären, was an Lulas Politik für den Globalen Süden so verstörend ist, und welche Folgen für die Geopolitik von BRICS+ zu erwarten sind. Die VorgeschichteIn einem Grundsatzartikel vom 23. Februar (1) hat Andrew Korybko die Entwicklung der causa Lula aus seiner, einer sehr russischen Sicht, zusammengefasst. Es sind insgesamt 17 Artikel, beginnend am 31. Oktober 2022 bis zum 21. Februar 2023. (LESEN: LINK ZU DIESEM TEXT FINDEN SIE IM SCHRIFTARTIKEL). Eine beeindruckende Liste, die erklärt, warum die Partei Lulas versuchte, den Autor medial anzugreifen....... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/lulas-neuausrichtung-von-jochen-mitschka+++Apolut ist auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommen Sie zu den Stores von Apple und Huawei. Hier der Link: https://apolut.net/app/Die apolut-App steht auch zum Download (als sogenannte Standalone- oder APK-App) auf unserer Homepage zur Verfügung. Mit diesem Link können Sie die App auf Ihr Smartphone herunterladen: https://apolut.net/apolut_app.apk+++Abonnieren Sie jetzt den apolut-Newsletter: https://apolut.net/newsletter/+++Ihnen gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/unterstuetzen/+++Unterstützung für apolut kann auch als Kleidung getragen werden! Hier der Link zu unserem Fan-Shop: https://harlekinshop.com/pages/apolut+++Website und Social Media:Website: https://apolut.netOdysee: https://odysee.com/@apolut:aRumble: https://rumble.com/ApolutTwitter: https://twitter.com/apolut_netInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/apolut_net/Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/apolut_netTelegram: https://t.me/s/apolutFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/apolut/Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/apolut Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.In vorherigen PodCasts berichtete ich über den vorläufig erfolgreichen RegimeChange der USA in Pakistan, dem Mordversuch am gestürzten Premierminister Imran Khan, dessen Partei seitdem Erdrutschsiege in Nachwahlen erzielt, und Demonstrationen von Millionen gegen den Putsch. Nachdem Pakistan wieder zu einem „US-freundlichen“ Staat wurde, erhofft sich Washington das Land im Sinne von „teile und herrsche“ gegen Afghanistan einsetzen zu können. Und so befürchtet nicht nur Andrew Korybko (1), dass es bald zum Krieg Pakistans gegen Afghanistan kommen könnte. Es folgen dann noch Ergänzungen zu vorherigen PodCasts über Brasiliens und Indiens Rolle in BRICS.PakistanKorybko meint, dass das pakistanisch-talibanische Sicherheitsdilemma unhaltbar sei und sich rasch der Bruchstelle nähere, weshalb Islamabad bald die Initiative ergreifen könnte, um sich gegen die von Afghanistan ausgehende terroristische Bedrohung zu verteidigen, wobei jedoch nicht bekannt sei, wie weit Pakistan in dieser Hinsicht gehen könnte. In jedem Fall sei davon auszugehen, dass die USA ihren kürzlich wiederhergestellten regionalen Stellvertreter unterstützen werden, da sie hofften, diesen potenziellen Feldzug zum Zwecke von „teile und herrsche“ ausnutzen zu können, um ihre schwindende unipolare Hegemonie über Südasien wieder zu stabilisieren.Pakistan habe in letzter Zeit sehr deutliche Signale ausgesandt, dass es ernsthaft eine "spezielle Militäroperation" in Afghanistan gegen die TTP-Terroristen ("pakistanische Taliban") in Erwägung ziehe. Das Nationale Sicherheitskomitee des Landes warnte kürzlich, dass "Pakistans Sicherheit unantastbar ist und die volle Staatsgewalt auf jedem Zentimeter des pakistanischen Territoriums aufrechterhalten werden wird".Der Artikel führt weiter aus, dass die Außenministerin Hina Rabbani Kar, dieses Szenario untermauert habe, indem sie kurz darauf bestätigte, dass Pakistans Sicherheitsbedenken im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus die rote Linie in den Beziehungen zu Afghanistan darstellen.Hintergrund dieses rhetorischen Aufbaus im Vorfeld einer möglichen pakistanischen Sonderoperation in Afghanistan sei das gefährliche Sicherheitsdilemma zwischen diesen beiden, das dadurch entstehe, dass das postmoderne Putschregime Pakistans de facto die traditionelle Allianz des Landes mit Amerika wiederherstelle, während die andere Seite, also Afghanistan, der ideologisch verbündeten TTP weiterhin Zuflucht gewähre. Diese direkten Dynamiken setzten wiederum die indirekten Dynamiken gegenüber den USA und der TTP in Gang, auf die der Autor dann weiter einging...... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/pakistan-vs-afghanistan-und-lula-vs-modi-von-jochen-mitschka+++Apolut ist auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommen Sie zu den Stores von Apple und Huawei. Hier der Link: https://apolut.net/app/Die apolut-App steht auch zum Download (als sogenannte Standalone- oder APK-App) auf unserer Homepage zur Verfügung. Mit diesem Link können Sie die App auf Ihr Smartphone herunterladen: https://apolut.net/apolut_app.apk+++Abonnieren Sie jetzt den apolut-Newsletter: https://apolut.net/newsletter/+++Ihnen gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/unterstuetzen/+++Unterstützung für apolut kann auch als Kleidung getragen werden! Hier der Link zu unserem Fan-Shop: https://harlekinshop.com/pages/apolut Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Der Trend geht unbestreitbar in eine Richtung, bei der Deutschland "grüne" Vorhaben als Waffe einsetzt. So zwingt die BRD zum Beispiel Südafrika dazu, seine gesamte geförderte Kohle in die EU zu exportieren, statt es diesem Land zu ermöglichen, sich auf die eigenen fossilen Ressourcen zu verlassen, um die südafrikanische Industrialisierung voranzutreiben.  Ein Kommentar von Andrew Korybko

英语新闻∣佩洛西窜访台湾是“鲁莽、不负责任”的行为United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi'sprovocativevisit to Taiwan last week has undoubtedly heightened tensions in the China-US ties and cross-Straits relations, as Beijing hit back with strong countermeasures in response to her "reckless and irresponsible" move.美国国会众议长佩洛西窜访中国台湾地区，这一恶劣行径严重冲击中美关系政治基础，加剧台海紧张局势。中方针对佩洛西“鲁莽、不负责任”的行为坚决采取反制措施。However, analysts said that China's responses, including militarydrillsand sanctions are not just for the purpose of safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity, as Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory. More important, they help to uphold international law and the basic norms governing international relations, which are challenged by US hegemony.分析人士表示，台湾是中国领土不可分割的一部分，中方的回应，包括军事演习和制裁，并不仅仅是为了维护国家主权和领土完整，更重要的是有助于维护受到美国霸权挑战的国际法和国际关系基本准则。Speaking to international media on Friday, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China's position is "legitimate, reasonable and lawful" and its measures are "resolute, strong and proportionate".8月5日下午，国务委员兼外长王毅面向中外媒体举行记者会。王毅表示，中方的立场“正当、合理、合法”，中方的举措“坚定、有力、适度”。"We will firmly safeguard China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, resolutely deter the US from using Taiwan to contain China, and resolutely shatter the Taiwan authorities' illusion of seeking independence by relying on US support," he said."Meanwhile, we are also upholding international law and the basic norms governing international relations, especially the norm of noninterference, the most important international norm, as stipulated in the United Nations Charter."Wang stressed that if the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign states is ignored or abandoned, the world will be dragged back to the law of the jungle, and the United States will become even moreunscrupulousin bullying other countries, particularly small and medium-sized countries, from its so-called "position of strength.""We must not allow such things to happen, and all other countries should stand in unity to stop such things from happening and not allow human civilization to regress," he said.“我们将坚定维护中国的主权和领土完整，坚决遏阻美国‘以台制华'的图谋，坚决粉碎台湾当局‘倚美谋独'的幻想，同时，我们也是在维护国际法和国际关系基本准则，尤其是联合国宪章中规定的不干涉内政这一最为重要的国际法则。如果不干涉内政原则被无视、被抛弃，这个世界将重回丛林法则，美国将更加肆无忌惮地以所谓实力地位对待欺负其它国家，尤其是广大中小国家。我们不能允许这种事情发生，各国也应团结起来，不允许这种事情发生，不允许人类文明进程倒退。”That is why more than 100 countries have publicly stood up and reaffirmed their firm adherence to the one-China principle and their understanding of and support for China's legitimate position, Wang added.王毅说，正因为如此，已经有100多个国家公开站出来，重申坚定奉行一个中国政策，理解和支持中方的正当立场。Historically, Taiwan is part of China. It was separated from the mainland due to the civil war in the 1940s. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, adopted in October 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China in the United Nations.自古以来，台湾就是中国的一部分。1971年10月25日，联合国大会全体会议高票通过《恢复中华人民共和国在联合国的合法权利》的决议，即第2758号决议。该决议以联合国名义确认了一个中国原则，即世界上只有一个中国，台湾是中国的一部分，中华人民共和国政府是代表整个中国的唯一合法政府。In response to Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated the UN's support for the one-China principle on Wednesday. "Weabide byGeneral Assembly resolutions, by the one-China policy, and that is the orientation that we have in everything we do," he said.8月3日，联合国秘书长古特雷斯在被问及佩洛西窜访台湾一事时明确强调，联合国将继续坚持联大第2758号决议。“我们的立场十分明确。我们遵守联合国大会决议，遵守一个中国原则。我们所有的行动都以此为依据。”China maintains that the Taiwan question is purely China's internal affair, which allows no foreign interference. The one-China principle is the most important political foundation for all countries that would have diplomatic relations with China, including the United States.台湾问题纯属中国内政，不容外国干涉。一个中国原则是包括美国在内的所有同中国建交的国家最重要的政治基础。In the past four decades and more since China and the US established diplomatic ties, their relations have generally maintained stable development based on the three Sino-US joint communiques, in which the US committed to the principles that "there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" and it will not develop official ties with the Taiwan region. The one-China principle and the three joint communiques constitute the political foundation of the bilateral ties.中美建交40多年来，两国关系在中美三个联合公报的基础上总体保持稳定发展。1979年，美方在中美建交公报中明确承诺，“美利坚合众国承认中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府。在此范围内，美国人民将同台湾人民保持文化、商务和其他非官方关系。”美国国会作为美国政府的组成部分，理应严格遵守美国政府的一个中国政策，不与中国台湾地区进行任何官方往来。坚持一个中国政策和中美三个联合公报的原则是中美关系健康发展的政治基础。However, in recent years, the US has been distorting, altering, obscuring and hollowing out the one-China principle, has used all means of playing the "Taiwan card" to contain China, and has sought to upgrade exchanges with the island, intensify arms sales to Taiwan and embolden "Taiwan independence"separatistactivities.然而，近年来，美国歪曲、篡改、模糊、掏空一个中国原则，千方百计打“台湾牌”遏制中国，升级对台交往，加大对台军售力度，助长“台独”分裂活动。Mou Lin, a core member of the Cyberspace Strategy Think Tank, said Pelosi's visit to Taiwan was a blatant violation of Resolution 2758—one of many cases in which the US has trampled on international law in pursuit of its bullying and hegemony.“秦安战略智库”核心成员牟林表示，佩洛西的台湾之行是对2758号决议的公然违反——这是美国为追求霸凌和霸权而践踏国际法的众多案例之一。The US has been advocating "rules-based international order", but what it did has told the world the so-called "rules" are that it can arbitrarily interfere in other countries' internal affairs, topple other countries' governments, impose sanctions on others and plunder other countries' resources, yet during the process it may not be resisted, Mou said.牟林表示，美国一直倡导“以规则为基础的国际秩序”，但它的所作所为告诉世界，所谓的“规则”是，它可以任意干涉别国内政，推翻别国政府，对别国实施制裁，掠夺别国资源，而在这个过程中不会遭到抵制。He called on countries around the world to be fully aware of the nature of UShegemonyand work in unity to struggle against it in order to promote world peace and development.他呼吁世界各国认清美国霸权的本质，团结起来同美国霸权作斗争，共同促进世界和平与发展。China has criticized the "rules-based international order" claimed by the US and its allies as "house rules" for the purpose of maintaining the so-called "order" led by the US, and it has said that the US always puts its domestic law above international law and pragmaticallycherry-picks international rules as it sees fit.中国批评美国及其盟友所谓的“以规则为基础的国际秩序”是“内规”，目的是维护美国主导的所谓“秩序”，称美国一贯将国内法置于国际法之上，只挑选自己认为合适的国际规则。Andrew Korybko, a US political analyst based in Moscow, said that the overarching trend in international relations is that the US-led West has gone rogue and is openly violating principles that have ensured peace and stability for decades.美国政治分析人士安德鲁·科里布科表示，国际关系的总体趋势是以美国为首的西方国家已经变得不守规矩，公然违反几十年来确保和平与稳定的原则。"This is being done out of desperation to delay America's fading unipolar hegemony, but it carries with it the dangerous consequence of destabilizing the world," Korybko said in an opinion piece published on website of the China Global Television Network.科里布科在中国全球电视网网站（CGTN）上发表的一篇评论文章中说：“美国这样做是为了拖延衰落的单极霸权，但这也破坏了世界的稳定。”In a meeting with State Councilor Wang in Cambodia on Friday, on the sidelines of the ASEAN-plus Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said US hegemonic policies run counter to the international consensus and will have no future.8月5日，在柬埔寨金边举行的东盟外长会议期间，俄罗斯外长谢尔盖·拉夫罗夫在与王毅国务委员的会晤中表示，美国的霸权政策与国际共识背道而驰，不会有未来。Russia is ready to work with China to uphold international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, Lavrov said.拉夫罗夫表示，俄方愿与中方共同维护国际法以及《联合国宪章》的宗旨和原则。provocative英[prəˈvɒkətɪv]美[prəˈvɑːkətɪv]adj. 挑衅的; 刺激性的drill英[drɪl]美[drɪl]v. 钻孔，钻探; 培训; 操练unscrupulous英[ʌnˈskru:pjələs]美[ʌnˈskrupjələs]adj. 肆无忌惮的，不择手段的，无道德原则的abide by英[əˈbaɪd baɪ]美[əˈbaɪd baɪ]v. 遵守; 信守; 忠于（某人）; 接受separatist英[ˈseprətɪst]美[ˈsɛpərətɪst,ˈsɛprə-,ˈsɛpəˌre-] n. 分离主义者; 独立派hegemony英[hɪˈdʒeməni]美[hɪˈdʒemoʊni]n. 霸权; 霸权主义; 领导权cherry-pick英[ˈtʃeri: pik]美[ˈtʃɛri pɪk]vi. 最佳选择; 优选

英语新闻 | 佩洛西如赴台将致严重后果China warned on Monday that its military will "not sit idly by" should United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visit Taiwan.8月1日，中方正告美方称，美国众议院议长南希·佩洛西如赴台，中国人民解放军绝不会坐视不管。"The Chinese side is fully prepared for any eventuality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a regular news conference on Monday. "China will definitely take strong and resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity."中国外交部发言人赵立坚在8月1日的例行记者会上表示：“中方正严阵以待，必将采取坚决应对和有力反制措施，捍卫自身主权和领土完整。”When asked what measures China will take if Pelosi visits Taiwan, Zhao said: "If she dares to go, then let's wait and see."当被问及如果佩洛西赴台，中国军方会做出什么样的反应时，赵立坚说：“如果她敢去，那就让我们拭目以待。”The warning came as Pelosi arrived on Monday in Singapore, the first stop of her Asian trip, which will also take her to Malaysia, the Republic of Korea and Japan. Although Taiwan is not on her itinerary, international media such as CNN quoted unidentified Taiwan and US officials as saying that she might visit the island.我国外交部上述发言是在8月1日佩洛西抵达新加坡时发出的，新加坡是佩洛西亚洲之行的第一站，她还将前往马来西亚、韩国和日本。虽然台湾不在她的行程中，但美国有线电视新闻网等国际媒体援引一些台湾和美国官员的话报道称，佩洛西可能会赴台。China has expressed its strong opposition to the US to a potential visit by Pelosi to Taiwan.中方已多次向美方表明坚决反对佩洛西访台。During a phone conversation with US President Joe Biden last week, President Xi Jinping said that it is the firm will of the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people to resolutely safeguard China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.7月28日，国家主席习近平在同美国总统拜登通电话时表示，坚决维护中国国家主权和领土完整是14亿多中国人民的坚定意志。The will of the people cannot be defied and those who play with fire will perish by it, Xi said.习近平强调，民意不可违，玩火必自焚。Zhao said that "it is believed the US must have been fully aware of the strong and clear message sent out by the Chinese side".外交部发言人赵立坚表示，“相信美方已经充分了解中方传递的强烈、清晰信息。”If Pelosi, who is second in the line of succession to the US presidency, visits Taiwan, it would be a gross interference in China's internal affairs, severely undermine China's sovereignty and territorial integrity and trample on the one-China principle, Zhao said.赵立坚指出，作为美国政府第三号人物的佩洛西若访台，就是对中国内政的粗暴干涉，严重损害中国主权和领土完整，肆意践踏一个中国原则。The spokesman added that such a visit would severely threaten cross-Straits peace and stability and undermine China-US relations, thus leading to a very serious situation and consequences.赵立坚强调，如果佩洛西议长访问台湾，将严重威胁台海和平稳定，严重破坏中美关系，必将导致非常严重的事态和后果。China urged the US side to honor the commitment made by Biden of not supporting "Taiwan independence" and not to arrange for Pelosi to visit Taiwan, he said.中方再次正告美方，兑现拜登总统不支持“台独”的承诺，不得安排佩洛西众议长访台。Zhao also criticized the irresponsible remarks made by US National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby, who said at the White House on Friday that there's no reason for China and the US "to come to blows" should Pelosi visit Taiwan.赵立坚还对美国白宫国安会战略沟通协调员约翰·柯比的言论作出回应，柯比于7月29日在白宫表示，无论佩洛西是否访台，美中没有理由走到动手或加剧世纪紧张局势的地步。"Since the US has recently started to stress the need to uphold a country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, we hope the US will first honor its words on the Taiwan question and stop applying any double standard," Zhao said.赵立坚回应道：“由于美国最近开始强调要维护每一个国家的主权和领土完整，我们希望美方首先在台湾问题上言行一致，不要搞双重标准。”The People's Liberation Army's Eastern Theater Command posted a video on its social media platform on Monday, saying that the Chinese military is fully prepared for any eventuality, and will act upon the order to fight and bury all invaders. The military will fight to the end for victory, it said.8月1日，中国人民解放军东部战区发布视频称，中国人民解放军严阵以待，听令而战，埋葬一切来犯之敌，向着联战胜战前进。Also on Monday, China's Qinglan Maritime Safety Administration in Hainan province issued a statement saying that military training exercises would take place in designated waters of the South China Sea from Tuesday to Saturday and the passage of any vessel that is not associated with these activities will be prohibited.8月1日，中国海南清澜海事局发布航行警告称，8月2日0时至8月6日24时，南海部分海域将进行军事训练，任何与这些活动无关的船只禁止驶入。When meeting with Pelosi on Monday, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong highlighted the importance of stable US-China relations for regional peace and security.8月1日，新加坡总理李显龙向正在访问新加坡的美国国会众议院议长佩洛西强调了中美关系的稳定对于区域和平与安全的重要性。Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based analyst of US politics, said that there's no legitimate reason for any US representative, let alone one as prominent as Pelosi, to visit the Taiwan region.美国驻莫斯科的政治分析家安德鲁·科里布科表示，美国没有任何合法理由访问台湾，更不用说像佩洛西这样的知名人士访台了。"The vast majority of the international community, including the US, recognizes the island as an integral part of China. To continue talking about traveling to Taiwan is therefore extremely disrespectful to this major country and goes against basic diplomatic decorum," he said in an opinion piece published on the website of the China Global Television Network.他在一份发表在中国国际电视台的评论文章表示，“包括美国在内的绝大多数国际社会都承认台湾是中国不可分割的一部分。因此，继续谈论到台湾访问是对这个大国极为不尊重的行为，也有悖于基本的外交礼仪”。eventuality英[ɪˌventʃuˈæləti]；美[ɪˌvɛntʃuˈælɪti]n. 可能出现的结果sovereignty英[ˈsɒvrənti]；美[ˈsɑːvrənti]n. 国家的主权; 君权，最高统治权; 独立自主; 主权国家territorial integrity英[ˌterɪˈtɔ:ri:əl inˈteɡriti]；美[ˌtɛrɪˈtɔriəl ɪnˈtɛɡrɪti][法]领土的完整wait and see英[weit ænd si:]；美[wet ənd si]等着看（情况的发展）; 拭目以待; 观望; 走着瞧perish英[ˈperɪʃ]；美[ˈperɪʃ]vi. 死亡，丧生; 毁灭; 腐烂，枯萎; 老化vt. 使麻木; 使毁坏trample英[ˈtræmpl]；美[ˈtræmpl]vt. 践踏; 蹂躏; 无视，蔑视; 侵犯，伤害vi. 践踏，重重地踩; 脚步沉重地走invader英[ɪnˈveɪdə(r)]；美[ɪnˈveɪdər]n. 侵略者; 侵入者; 侵犯者; 侵入物prominent英[ˈprɒmɪnənt]；美[ˈprɑːmɪnənt]adj. 突出的，杰出的; 突起的; 著名的

On Russia's part, why is there frustration and resentment towards the post-Cold War security order in Europe? Will the Ukraine crisis make Europe even more dependent on US protection? Host Ding Heng is joined by Dr. Alexey Muraviev at Curtin University; Andrew Korybko, Moscow-based political analyst; Kamal Makili-Aliyev at Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law; Zhou Bo from Tsinghua University's Centre for International Security and Strategy.

PolicyWTF: Band-aids for Bullet WoundsThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen? - Pranay KotasthaneThe ongoing political crisis in Ukraine has a small sub-plot that links to India’s education policy self-goals. Before the current crisis unfolded, I had heard that Russia and Ukraine were popular destinations for aspiring medical students from India. What I didn’t know was how big this cohort is in Ukraine. Multiple news reports claim that there are nearly 18,000 of them in Ukraine alone. Apparently, Indian medical students are also opting to study in Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Kyrgyzstan besides Russia and Ukraine. Of course, these students are merely responding to incentives. Commonly understood reasons for students taking up courses outside India are the limited number of seats in government medical colleges, and higher costs in private medical colleges. Ask anyone about MBBS education in India, and they will launch into a tirade about how the “commercialisation” of medical education has turned it unaffordable.But as readers of this newsletter would know, price is just a signal of the underlying market conditions. And so, fixing prices cannot be done by price-fixing. In this particular case, higher prices are due to the low supply of undergraduate medical seats. Apparently, 88,120 seats are on offer every year. For reference, there were 2,86,000 undergraduate seats in China. A good 40 per cent of these seats are in government colleges where the fee is subsidised by the taxes Indian citizens pay, while the remaining 60 per cent are in private colleges where the fee can range from ₹18 lakhs to ₹30 lakhs a year. The demand outstrips the supply by quite a margin and hence the high prices. Had the market for seats been liquid, many more colleges should have sprung up and brought the prices down. Since there are nearly 600 colleges in India now, collusion by all of them can be ruled out. But clearly, this hasn’t happened, for two reasons.One, unreasonable restrictions for setting up medical colleges. Until 2019, the regulatory authority for this sector was the Medical Council of India (MCI), an organisation that regulated both medical education and practice. Run by doctors, increasing the supply of doctors wasn’t their highest priority. After all, which beneficiary wants to reduce the “elite-quality” of their professions? Setting up a college meant pleading with this regulator and complying with their conditions like owning 20 acres of land and running an attached hospital. Colleges had to justify their student intake and were evaluated on the basis of things like the size of the “auditorium-cum-examination” hall, classroom sizes, and of course the student fees. In short, all the perverse incentives dutifully put together to create a rent-seeking apparatus par excellence. Corruption rose. Only politicians who could stare down the regulator risked starting new colleges, and the rest stayed away. Two, the existing medical colleges are dwarfs. In recent times, the number of medical colleges per se has increased handsomely, albeit from a low base. In a Lok Sabha reply, the union health ministry said that 132 medical colleges in the government sector and 77 medical colleges in the private sector have been approved by the NMC/MCI since 2014, an increase of 72 per cent since 2013. However, the intakes of these colleges continue to remain low. While the number of undergraduate medical seats in China are nearly 3.5 times those in India, the former has far fewer medical colleges — 420 (2018 figure) as against India’s 596 (2021 figure). So, India now has the largest number of medical colleges in the world and yet isn’t producing nearly enough doctors. The private colleges that pick up the gauntlet prefer to stay small rather than grow. The reason: regulations disincentivise scale. If you were to visit the webpage for starting a new college, you will find five different compliance categories. Depending on whether you admit 50, 100, 150, 200, or 250 students, the regulatory requirements keep scaling up. All the rules mentioned in the previous point — such as hospital seats, number of examination halls — need to increase correspondingly for the student intake to increase. Those who can, set up another college instead. Those who don’t, are conservative with the student intake. And of course, what is regulation without a price cap! Fees for 50 per cent of the seats in private colleges are capped. There are only so many people in the other 50 per cent who will cross-subsidise the rest. Even 10 per cent of seats going vacant dents profits significantly. So, colleges prefer doing laghu-udyog.And so, we continue to regret that India falls way below the WHO-recommended target for doctor density. Despite the miserable status quo, the policy community in this sector is unable to confront the trade-offs. Most people think the solution is simple — the union government must establish more medical colleges. They discount the fact that the size of the problem goes beyond the capacity of the government — fiscal and administrative. Enlisting the support of the market is necessary for India to have a shot at meeting the doctor deficit. There are a few solutions that go against the grain. Dr Devi Shetty recommends introducing undergraduate medical education in private hospitals using a problem-based learning approach. The government has also suggested a two-year bridge course for AYUSH doctors. Whatever the merits or flaws with these solutions, it is difficult to budge the policy orthodoxy. Like for farming and defence services, debates on healthcare professionals acquire moralising undertones quickly — “commercialisation” becomes evil and economic reasoning is deemed inapplicable. The fear of a poorly trained doctor misdiagnosing patients is used to dead bat any solution for liberalising medical education. Addressing this concern requires strengthening the regulation of medical practice, not smothering medical education. And so, we continue to be stuck with the status quo. Second-order effects follow. The scarcity of seats generates a huge demand for coaching institutes that can help crack entrance exams, further increasing costs for students. Some states opt out of entrance exams unable to fix the underlying scarcity. The problem doesn’t go away.If we are serious about changing the status quo, a radical liberalisation of medical education in India is the only option. The problem of ‘bad’ commercialisation can only be solved by more liberalisation. All other solutions are akin to putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.(Thanks to three friends who understand the healthcare sector much better than me. Mistakes are all mine.)India Policy Watch: Public Ka PaisaInsights on burning policy issues in India— RSJPublic finance is complex to understand. How the government earns revenue, what principles it follows to allocate its funds among various constituents that are fair and productive, how it distributes its surpluses etc. The list is long. All sorts of frameworks are used to figure this out. Pranay has often written on this topic in previous editions.A more fundamental question on public finance that doesn’t get covered is this. Who does the money belong to? I mean, of course, it belongs to the government. But where did it get this money from, to begin with? I guess the simplistic answer is it earned money from providing services to its citizens and taxing them for it. Then it built up the surplus, invested the money in creating assets that generate good returns, improved the productivity of the citizens that in turn helped in increasing revenues and this continues nicely so long as it keeps its expenses below its revenues. As we see all around this isn’t as easy for any government. Over time it spends more than it earns and creates a deficit. Then it goes into debt to bridge this gap. If that isn’t forthcoming, it prints more money. All of which is like taking a loan from future generations. And this sort of a giant Ponzi scheme of borrowing fresh money to pay past debt continues. Someone will be left holding the can in distant future. But who cares. All this is quite intuitive. What’s the point of this preamble, you might ask? Well, the two topics I cover today are related to this. In one instance, there was quite surprisingly no “can” to hold for future generation for previous government’s excesses. Instead, there was a prize. So, if the future generations usually hold the can, do they also hold on to the prize in the rare event they get that? We’ll see how that goes. The other case is about where’s inflation in India? And how will the government meet its borrowing targets for the new fiscal?Your Friendly Neighborhood LIC Agent To begin, consider this. You live in a nice, middle-class neighbourhood (the real middle class, not the gated variety). One of these days a nice, dependable sort of young man arrives. He’s a do-gooder sort. He helps with community issues, plays with the kids, tutors them in his spare time - you get the picture. A couple of years later he claims he can help manage your savings. He is open and transparent on how he will do this in a prudent and conservative manner. He will take money from people in the neighbourhood, pool all the funds together and he will invest it. He will earn a 5 per cent commission on whatever surplus he generates for you. You have seen such charlatans before so you’re careful. But you know this nice man. You have come to trust him so all of you decide to give part with some of your savings. Turns out he is true to his word. He takes a small part of your savings and he keeps investing it every year. He is good at his job. He gives you a stable return. Not spectacular but you never lost any money. He’s a safe pair of hands who delivers. Every year. This goes on. Not for one, two or three years. But say for 60 years. He is that one dependable presence in your lives. Though much older now. He now has a huge pooled fund that he manages. He keeps distributing modest and stable returns every year. But after giving all of you those returns, there’s a large surplus that’s sitting with him. How did that happen? Well, there are reasons. He’s been conservative in how much return he gives you when the times are good because he thinks there might be tough times in future. Indeed, there were a few bad years in between. But they were never as bad as he had anticipated. So, over time that corpus gets built up. Also, many who invested at the beginning are no more. Their kids have left the country. They haven’t come back to claim the money. Others have left the neighbourhood and probably forgotten they made a small investment all those years ago. You get the picture. This old man is now sitting on a large amount that’s unclaimed by anyone. But he’s 85 now. He wants to sell this business to someone, hand over a tidy sum to his daughters and retire to the Himalayas. So, here’s the question: how should he treat that large unclaimed amount? Should he:a) distribute this unclaimed amount to all his current and past customers who have helped build his business over the years? After all, these customers took the risk of investing with him and the upside should be theirs. It is their money as a group. Or,b) add this unclaimed amount to the regular business that he’s selling to new owners. Why? Because this is the upside of him doing the hard work of running this business and giving steady returns over so many years. Nobody should grudge him this because he’s never defaulted on any of his promises. Whatever remains after that is his. So, he takes the sale proceeds for himself and retires.Or, c) keep the unclaimed amount as-is. Tell the new owner this is a separate amount and this has to be kept the same way for a rainy day in future. This is a conservative option but this doesn’t solve the problem of the unclaimed amount. It only kicks it down the road. Now, read this:“State-owned insurance company LIC filed its Draft Red-Herring Prospectus (DRHP) on Sunday. Noteworthy among the risk factors mentioned by the corporation was the splitting of the single ‘Life Fund’ into participatory and non-participatory funds. This will, however, have a positive impact on LIC’s valuations as it approaches the primary market.Let us start with participatory and non-participatory policies. Under a participatory policy, a policyholder can get a share of the profits of the company. This is received as a bonus. Examples of such products offered by LIC include Jeevan Labh and Bachat Plus. No such sharing of profits happens under non-participatory products, which under the LIC fold includes policies such as Saral Pension and  Nivesh Plus.As all insurance companies do, LIC also reinvests premium monies that policyholders pay. The profits or surplus that comes about as a result was till September last year held in one single fund. This was the Life Fund. The surplus was divided in the 95:5 ratio between policyholders (in the form of bonuses) and shareholders (which is the Government, in the form of dividends).”In summary, LIC is that dependable old man.It is a state-owned company that’s over 60 years old. It has been selling investment products (with a small insurance component) to its customers and it has built up a surplus pool. In one surplus pool (participatory policies), the profit is shared between the policyholders (customers) and LIC’s owner (Government of India) in the ratio of 95:5. In another pool (non-participatory policies), the surplus need not be shared between the shareholders and policyholders. Why? Because here LIC promises some kind of guarantees to customers on their investment and so long as that is met, the surplus belongs to shareholders. And in the same way, if the guarantees were not to be met, the government would have had to pay from its pocket to meet the obligations. So, the risk and rewards are symmetric. Through an amendment now the government (owner of LIC) has decided the entire accumulated surplus pool sitting with it can be transferred to this non-participatory pool. That’s one move. This move then enables the government as a shareholder of LIC to transfer that surplus to shareholders; current and future. And apart from this transfer, it appears LIC has valued the equity component of this surplus (that is the part that’s invested in shares of public companies) at the current market value. In finance speak, the equity component of the surplus has been marked-to-market.    How much is this surplus pool and where has it come from? Well, LIC has run for over 60 years. Customers have left without taking their money, some have died and no one has claimed the amount and LIC has been prudent in paying out annual returns to its customers and building a surplus for a rainy day ahead. How much is this amount that LIC has transferred to the book that’s now attributable to the shareholders? Around ₹4 trillion or ₹4 lakh crores. That’s what it looks like. Mind you, there’s nothing illegal here. There’s an amendment made and it is perfectly fine to then transfer the surplus to shareholders after that. And it is also fine to mark-to-market the equity component.But then we go back to the original set of three questions I raised about the old man’s business. Now ask them for LIC. Should it:a) distribute this unclaimed amount to all their customers who have helped build LIC’s business over the years? After all, the customers have taken the risk of investing with them and the upside should be theirs.b) claim this unclaimed amount to itself and its shareholders. It becomes a useful tool to sell its IPO as an attractive proposition. Nobody should grudge them this because they have never defaulted on any of their promises. This is the upside of them running the business and giving steady returns over so many years. c) keep the unclaimed amount as-is. Tell the new shareholders this is a separate amount and this has to be kept the same way. This is a safe option but this doesn’t solve the problem of the unclaimed amount. It only kicks it down the road. The answer based on the LIC IPO is b).I don’t know if there’s a right answer here. But I have a feeling many policyholders may ask why not a)? It goes back to that question that’s not often asked in public finance. Whose money is it to start with?That brings me to the other point I wanted to cover. Where Is Inflation? We had the inflation prints of January come for India and the US last week. For the first time in over 30 years, we now have five consecutive months where US consumer inflation is higher than that of India. The US reported a consumer price inflation (CPI) of 7.5 per cent for January ‘22 while the corresponding number for India was 6 per cent. It looks like this trend will continue for the entire year. So, what should we make of this? I mean leaving aside the usual chest-thumping in some quarters on how this shows the current government is managing the economy better than the Biden administration. There are five key points for us to consider.One, the US inflation is being driven by three factors. The huge fiscal stimulus they gave their economy during the pandemic. Broad estimates suggest the total stimulus was about 25 per cent of the US economy. This has meant significant liquidity in the system. That coupled with supply chain bottlenecks that still afflict the global trade system and an almost full employment scenario means there’s more money chasing fewer goods in the US. Housing prices are high, petrol prices have gone up and consumption is up by 10 per cent last year. So, inflation. The Fed (US central bank) has no option but to raise interest rates to make money ‘costlier’ and reduce the liquidity in the system. Not taming inflation will hurt the Biden government politically. And like we have often said before, inflation is the worst kind of tax on the poor.Two, the inflation outlook of the RBI in India is fairly benign. They expect it to be about 4.5 per cent next year. What explains this? Beyond all other rhetoric, the problem in India is demand. Private consumption which has been the primary driver of the Indian economy in the past decade is still at pre-pandemic levels. People aren’t spending enough. Maybe because their incomes aren’t growing and that’s because the economy isn’t really growing at a macro level. So, all the song and dance about stock markets, unicorns and wage inflation among techies aside, the aggregate numbers tell us we aren’t spending enough. And this despite the supply chain bottlenecks and higher liquidity environment that we are in which should lead to inflation in usual circumstances. Three, because of this the RBI doesn’t want to cut rates. The RBI came out with a very ‘dovish’ outlook in the MPC that concluded last week. Behind all the technical jargon, the message was this. We aren’t growing fast enough and we see the ‘recovery’ after the pandemic tapering off soon. The RBI spoke of the multiple indicators that suggest a slowing down of momentum in post-pandemic recovery - sale of automobiles, tractors, capital goods and fall in purchasing manager’s index (PMI) scores, all leading indicators of economic activity. So, RBI will continue to be as accommodating as possible to spur growth. RBI believes it is not behind the curve on this while most of the market thinks otherwise. The broader point about the recovery being weak and ‘k-shaped’ has been made in our past editions multiple times. There’s an underlying weakness in the economy that has to be addressed by first acknowledging and then working on it. Four, there’s a scenario in the next six months where the RBI will continue to hold interest rates in India while the US may have multiple rate hikes that could add up to between 75-100 bps (100 bps = 1 per cent). This means the gap between interest rates in India and the US will come down materially. Usually, this means spillover and volatility risks of the dollars flowing out of India and hurting the INR exchange rate. The RBI seems to be comfortable that it has healthy forex reserves, a narrow current account deficit and continued inbound investment flow that can cushion this risk. We will have to see how long this comfort lasts. Finally, the RBI has a task on its hand to manage this huge borrowing plan, remaining dovish to not scuttle even the weak recovery on hand while managing the risk of a narrower rate differential between India and the US. And the government has to find ways to service the ever-increasing interest burden of its debt while staying on course for the ambitious capex plan it has laid out. The borrowing programme based on the budget presented is to the tune of Rs. 15 lac crores in the coming year. Managing this requires a lot of skill. Whatever it does, there will be more debt in its books. That brings us back to that question again. Who is footing the bill for this? Whose money is it?Matsyanyaaya: Aap Hamaare Hain Kaun, Russia?Big fish eating small fish = Foreign Policy in action— Pranay KotasthaneAs Russia-Ukraine tensions threaten to reorder international arrangements, the question Aap Hamaare Hain Kaun, Russia? has gained renewed importance. “What does a worsening relationship between Russia and the West means for India’s strategic autonomy” has been a theme that’s dominated the mental bandwidth of India’s strategic community over the past month. The choice for India should be obvious. If it has to pick between the US and Russia, the convergence with the US on all three parameters — interests, values, and capacities — far outweighs Russia’s importance to India. Yet, three objections persist.The first argument is that a strong relationship with Russia is necessary for India’s strategic autonomy. Without this partnership, the fear is that India will become a mere pawn in the hands of the US. I vehemently disagree. Strategic autonomy is a function of power. And to gain more power, it's better to partner with a stronger partner who can build your capability. Even if it leads to a loss of tactical autonomy, it is better than betting on a weaker partner like Russia. To side with Russia just for the sake of proving one’s independent credentials is the precise opposite of ‘strategic’ thinking. Rajesh Rajagopalan puts it bluntly here.“The argument that India’s strategic autonomy requires it to maintain high levels of political and defence relations with Russia is particularly thoughtless. Strategic autonomy is an objective of foreign policy, not a doctrine. As an objective, the question to ask is — which policy helps increase India’s strategic autonomy? In a complex international environment, for a relatively weak power, the answer requires picking among bad, unappetising choices.A China-dominated Asian order, which will be the consequence of Moscow’s efforts to undermine the US, can hardly be conducive to India’s strategic autonomy. Refusing to deal with the deepening chasm in India-Russia relations will not make it go away, it will only make the fall that much harder.”The second objection is even more ideological. The old guard in the strategic community of India has a soft spot for Russia. Soviet Union helped India in the 1971 war while the US backed Pakistan, and Russia has been a reliable partner through thick and thin for India, while the US hasn’t, are the arguments put forward in support of this line of thinking.I again disagree. To explain why, consider this initial framework for assessing the reliability in international relations. This framework assigns reliability perceptions based on the impact of state X’s actions on India’s interests. Each quadrant assigns binary labels to the state based on its chosen strategy.The strictest condition for reliability is when a state takes a self-harming action in India’s interest (lower-right quadrant). For many, the Soviet Union met this criterion by deploying destroyers and submarines in the Bay of Bengal to ward off the US Task Force 74 during the 1971 war. What’s forgotten is that four months before the war, India and the USSR had signed an Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. India had effectively allied with the USSR. USSR’s actions were thus at best reliable in a much looser sense (upper-right and lower-left quadrants). We should get over this fiction of Russia being India’s super-reliable partner. Especially in today’s situation when it is a much weaker partner heavily dependent on India’s foremost adversary.The third objection is a realistic one. Since India is heavily dependent on Russia’s weapon systems, it cannot let the relationship worsen in the short term. I agree with this framing. While the short-term options are limited, the immediate implication is two-fold. One, diversify the trade relationship with Russia so that India can deter Russia’s denial of access to defence equipment by quid-pro-quo. Two, reduce dependence on Russia by buying from partners with whom India has a broader partnership. This is a point Nitin Pai has made for many years. In his words:The fundamental challenge remains that our relations with Russia are massively concentrated on defence trade. It is best to purchase defence equipment from a country with whom we have broad and deep trade relations; failing which, to try and build such relations with the country we’re buying arms from. Russia falls into the latter category. Yet, bilateral trade has remained around $10 billion for years, with the balance being in Russia’s favour. India trades more with Venezuela, Belgium and South Africa.In short, Russia is important to India for an instrumental purpose alone. No permanent friends, only permanent interests, and all that.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Video] Pavan Srinath on the need to liberalise medical education[Articles] Read these two opposing viewpoints in ThePrint on India-Russia relationship by Rajesh Rajagopalan and Andrew Korybko.[Article] How we fixed the Ozone Layer, by Hannah Ritchie for Works in Progress is fodder for a solutionist. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Dan Lazare, investigative journalist and author of "The Velvet Coup: The Constitution, the Supreme Court and the Decline of American Democracy," joins us to discuss US-German relations. President Biden revealed that he is in full control of Germany's economic policy when he declared that he has the power to shut down the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project.Dr. Ken Hammond, professor of East Asian and global history at New Mexico State University, joins us to discuss Asia. North Korea says they can shake the world with missiles that can strike the US. Also, China's Belt and Road Initiative will improve the Pakistan economy, according to some experts.Robert Fantina, journalist and Palestine activist, joins us to discuss Iran. Senate Republicans vow to block the Iran deal if President Biden skips Congressional review. Also, the US is again saying that they believe a deal with the Islamic republic is in sight.Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, joins us to discuss the Minsk agreement. Medea joins us to review her latest article in which she argues that the Minsk agreement is the key to resolving the Ukraine issue.Andrew Korybko, Moscow-based American journalist and analyst, joins us to discuss South Asia. Andrew argues that relations between Russia and India are countering the US empire's divide-and-rule ploy. Also, we discuss Russia's relations in South Asia, including Pakistan and India.National Director for Code Pink Ariel Gold joins us to discuss Israel. The Amnesty International report that named Israel as an apartheid state has sent shockwaves throughout the US empire and its Middle East protectorate states.Dr. Aisha Jumaan, founder and president of the Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation, joins us to discuss Yemen. The US military is joining the Saudi military in attacking the Ansarullah fighters in Yemen.Dan Kovalik, writer, author, and lawyer, joins us to discuss propaganda. Patrick Lawrence's latest Consortium News article examines the infamous Ned Price press conference debacle and argues that it is a sign that the wall of propaganda in the US empire is weakening.

Gerald Horne, professor of history at the University of Houston, author, historian, and researcher, joins us to discuss Ukraine. Russia accused the US of exhibiting a desire for an invasion of Ukraine during heated exchanges at a meeting of the UN Security Council. Also, observers are discussing the possibility of a US-inspired coup in Ukraine due to a number of significant policy disagreements between Washington neocons and Ukrainian leadership. George Koo, journalist, social activist, and international business consultant, joins us to discuss US foreign policy in Asia. Philippine Presidential hopeful Ferdinand Marcos, the son of the infamous late leader of the Pacific nation, has staked out a claim for close relations with China and secondary relations with the US empire. Also, China has again warned the US about close talks with Taiwan signaling that a military conflict is inevitable if this behavior continues.KJ Noh, activist, writer, and teacher, joins us to discuss China. Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping will be meeting in Beijing soon to discuss bilateral security issues. Also, Russia's strategic alliance with China is getting more difficult for the US empire to navigate. Netfa Freeman, host of Voices With Vision on WPFW 89.3 FM, Pan-Africanist and internationalist organizer, joins us to discuss Africa. The government of Mali has kicked out the French ambassador after he made derogatory comments about the nation's relationship with Russia. Also, the African Union has suspended Burkina Faso from all activities. Andrew Korybko, Moscow-based American journalist and analyst, joins us to discuss the US foreign policy crisis. Ukrainian authorities have arrested thousands of citizens, arguing that they were plotting an illegal coup. Many observers argue that the suspects were part of a legitimate protest movement. Also, President Zelenskyy's pushback against the Russian invasion narrative reveals serious political divisions between the US neocons and those whom they wish to sacrifice as cannon fodder. Scott Ritter, former UN weapon inspector in Iraq, joins us to discuss Iran. While the US says that there are only weeks left to renew the JCPOA, Iran argues that there are significant differences between the two sides.Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, joins us to discuss Honduras. Ending the nightmare of right-wing rule orchestrated by the US empire, the Central American nation of Honduras inaugurates its first female president who is viewed as a visionary socialist. Nicholas Davies, peace activist and author of "Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion of Iraq," joins us to discuss the Global South. A retired Venezuelan general has revealed that the US was aware of the coup plot against President Nicholas Maduro. Cliver Alcalá, facing charges in the US for narcotics trafficking, stated in a letter that “The efforts to overthrow the Maduro regime have been well known by the United States government.” Also, a large number of nations are joining Cuba in a demand that the US empire drop sanctions against the island nation.

Andrew Korybko, Moscow-based American journalist and analyst, joins us to discuss the NATO border crisis. The US State Department has announced that it is rejecting Russia's itemized list of security demands. Also, President Biden has announced that he will not send troops to Ukraine.KJ Noh, activist, writer, and teacher, joins us to discuss China. An F35C has crashed in the South China sea. Also, we discuss the Russia China strategic alliance.Dr. Aisha Jumaan, founder and president of the Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation, joins us to discuss Yemen. UN officials are warning of a record-shattering death toll for civilians in Yemen. Also, OXFAM is urging the UN security council to inject new urgency into the Yemen peace talks.Dan Kovalik, writer, author, and lawyer, joins us to discuss the Global South. President Biden has referred to Latin America as America's "front yard" in a continuance of Monroe doctrine imperialism. Also, Venezuela is challenging the impartiality of the UN.Laith Marouf, broadcaster and journalist based in Beirut, Lebanon, joins us to discuss the Middle East. Israel has been holding talks with Russia regarding backing off missile and bombing attacks on Syria. Also, Lebanese politician Saad Hariri is leaving the political scene.Gerald Horne, professor of history at the University of Houston, author, historian, and researcher, joins us to discuss Africa. There are reports that the Ethiopian government is open to diplomatic talks with Western-backed Tigray forces. Also, we discuss the coup in Sudan.Margaret Kimberly, editor and senior columnist at Black Agenda Report and author of "Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents," joins us to discuss President Biden's support in Black America. As President Biden's poll numbers sink among Black Americans. Margaret Kimberley argues that his record suggests that he was never their ally.Dee Knight, DSA International Committee's Anti-War Subcommittee member and author of My Whirlwind Lives: Navigating Decades of Storms, soon to be published by Guernica World Editions,) joins us to discuss Ukraine. Dee Knight joins us to discuss his article about the conflict. He provides a historical view of the conflict and argues that the US is to blame for the desperate economic and military situation in the war-torn nation. Also, we discuss recent polls that show most Americans have little taste for war over Ukraine.

Andrew Korybko, Moscow-based American journalist and analyst, joins us to discuss the crisis on Russia's border. Andrew argues that Russia does not need mediation with Kiev, as the Eurasian power is only interested in the implementation of the agreed-upon principles in the Minsk Accords. Also, we discuss President Biden's odd comment about "minor incursions" into Ukraine by the Russian military.Greg Palast, investigative reporter, joins us to discuss domestic politics. President Biden's voting rights legislation is dead, and many Democrats are blaming Senators Manchin and Sinema. Also, President Biden is downsizing his legislative agenda as it appears that he may get no political wins before the midterm elections.Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, joins us to discuss the Blinken-Lavrov meeting. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are meeting on Friday, indicating that, at least for the present moment, diplomacy between the two world powers continues.Robert Fantina, journalist and Palestine activist, joins us to discuss the Middle East. President Biden is courting with designating the Ansar Allah movement in Yemen as a terrorist group. Also, there are videos showing the US killing of 10 civilians in a drone strike.Laith Marouf, broadcaster and journalist based in Beirut, Lebanon, joins us to discuss the Sheikh Jarrah demolitions. Israel is receiving international condemnation for the demolition of civilian homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Dr. Ken Hammond, professor of East Asian and global history at New Mexico State University, joins us to discuss Asia. President Biden's rhetoric regarding North Korea does not seem to match the reality of the facts on the ground. Also, the US and Japan are jacking up the China threat and ignoring the other areas of mutual concern.Oscar Chacon, co-founder and executive director of Alianza Americas, and Maru Mora-Villapando, community organizer, political analyst, and consultant, join us to discuss immigration. President Biden is facing hurdles in yet another arena as immigration activists, furious over his failure to improve on President Trump's border policies, are abandoning him in droves.Nicholas Davies, peace activist and author of "Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion of Iraq," joins us to discuss President Biden's foreign policy. Nicholas reviews President Biden's foreign policy, and comes to the conclusion that he is continuing the failures of Donald Trump and adding many more dangerous elements.

Dr. David Oualaalou, author and international security analyst, joins us to discuss the NATO/Russia meeting in Geneva. Russian diplomats made their demands clear to NATO representatives as the two sides met for a round of negotiations in Geneva. NATO is again indicating that they will not exclude Ukraine and Georgia from membership.Andrew Korybko, Moscow-based American journalist and analyst, joins us to discuss Kazakhstan. After-action investigations are revealing that foreign intelligence services were likely involved in the weekend coup attempt in the Western Asian nation. Also, China and Russia are indicating that they will work together to ensure the political and territorial integrity of their neighbor.Ted Rall, political cartoonist and syndicated columnist, joins us to discuss Guantanamo Bay. The Biden administration is getting pressure to close Guantanamo Bay, but seems no closer to acting to eliminate the offshore internment camp. Also, President Biden has approved the release of five inmates, but many more languish with no hope of justice.Steve Poikonen, national organizer for Action4Assange, joins us to discuss social media censorship. Instagram has deleted numerous posts made by journalist and YouTuber Richard Medhurst commemorating the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The posts were deleted and Medhurst was warned that he could face a permanent ban. Medhurst reports that he has also been censored for posting about Hamas.Gerald Horne, professor of history at the University of Houston, author, historian, and researcher, joins us to discuss Haiti and Nicaragua. The former US special envoy to Haiti, Daniel Foote, argues that President Biden's approach to Haiti is a recipe for disaster. Also, Nicaragua is aligning with China as an integral part of the Belt and Road initiative.Leo Flores, Latin America coordinator for Code Pink, joins us to discuss Venezuela. Former Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba has announced that she is suing a right-wing Ecuadorian politician who accused her of having links to criminals. The allegations were related to kidnapped Venezuelan Alex Saab.Laith Marouf, broadcaster and journalist based in Beirut, Lebanon, joins us to discuss the Saudi assault on Yemen. The US media continues to paint an inaccurate picture in which they demonize Ansah-Allah and portray the Saudis as seeking peace. Dan Lazare, investigative journalist and author of "America's Undeclared War," joins us to discuss Antony Blinken. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has a record that indicates he will go along with whatever the powerful insiders in DC instruct him to do. His record in office thus far continues to support a history of intervention and gross incompetence.

No episódio dessa semana eu faço uma leitura comentada de um livro que eu li no começo desse mês. É um livro de um nacionalista russo que fala sobre guerras de quarta geração. 00:00​ – Assuntos diversos 25:00​ – Leitura comentada

In his annual address to the nation, Russian President Vladimir Putin reminded his citizens and the world, in fact, that Russia has red lines when it comes to foreign policy interests. And those red lines need to be taken seriously. And there lays the problem – the West refuses to acknowledge Russia has its own national interests. CrossTalking with Nebojsa Malic, Nicolai Petro, and Andrew Korybko.

Enrique Refoyo es politólogo y traductor especialista en la cultura rusa y la geopolítica euroasiática. Ha publicado como autor “Esbozos de historia política rusa” y traducido “Geopolítica y Teoría del Mundo Multipolar” de Aleksander Dugin y “Guerras híbridas: Aproximación adaptativa al cambio de régimen” de Andrew Korybko. Conocedor así de Rusia y especialmente de la… La entrada ¿Qué nos enseña la Rusia de Putin? aparece primero en El Aullido del Lobo.

EN - An interview with Dialogos Radio's Michael Nevradakis on Radio Sputnik's Trendstorm with Andrew Korybko, on Greek-Russian relations and the Macedonia name dispute. In English. Recorded August 16, 2018 and aired August 18, 2018.

EN - Michael Nevradakis of Dialogos Radio interviewed on Radio Sputnik's "Trendstorm" program with Andrew Korybko, on the Macedonia issue and the geopolitical implications of the Prespa Agreement for Greece and the Balkans. In English. Aired Jan 25, 2019.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, professor of American foreign policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and most famously National Security Adviser under US President Jimmy Carter passed away on Friday May 26th in a Falls Church, Virginia Hospital. He was 89. [2][3]Brzezinski, though hardly a household name, enjoyed an influence over international politics that few intellectuals outside elected office can hope to attain. In addition to his numerous academic treatises, and the role he played in the Carter administration, he was active in the secretive and influential Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group. Additionally, he co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.[4]As investigative journalist Daniel Estulin exposes in his 2009 book, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, all of these bodies convene business and political leaders alongside select members of the press behind closed doors with the aim of undermining sovereign democracies and imposing a policy framework favouring a privileged few. Estulin’s analysis reveals that membership in one or more of these bodies functions as a kind of rite of passage for aspiring presidential candidates in both major US political parties.It could be posited therefore, that Brzezinski, given his influential role in these organizations, may be more powerful in a sense than elected presidents. [5]The application of Brzezinski’s theories on utilizing ethnic national struggles as a cudgel against the Soviet Union, was supportive in securing the collapse of the USSR. However, as he would concede in his later writings, this approach has proved to be a spectacular failure in terms of attaining what he called US “global primacy” on the world stage forcing a rethink of his earlier 90s era imperial framework.More importantly, Zbig’s strategy has left a trail of bloodshed and mayhem throughout Eurasia, extending into the Middle East, North Africa and even ‘coming home to roost’ in major American and European centres.Zbigniew Brzezinski is the author of several pivotal works, including Between Two Ages : America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970), The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), and Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.Given the ultimate breadth of his influence, this week’s Global Research News Hour commemorates the passing of this controversial figure with an overview of his life and legacy, through the eyes of four observers.In the first half hour, writer, author and commentator Jay Dyer analyzes Brzezinski’s core beliefs and activities in the pre-Carter era, and the role of the Trilateral Commission in advancing his influence over Carter and successive presidential administrations. We later replay part of an October 2016 interview with Andrew Korybko, in which he described Brzezinski’s important role in the development of ‘hybrid warfare’ in the modern era. We get the perspective of John Helmer, who was a White House staffer in the Carter era. Finally, University of San Francisco Professor and scholar Filip Kovacevic examines the impacts of Brzezinski’s strategies in the post 9/11 era, his later rethink of the idea of “US Primacy,” and the prospects of neoconservative decision-makers in Washington following his lead.Jay Dyer is a contributor to 21st Century Wire and author of Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film. He is a public speaker, lecturer and comedian, and has authored hundreds of articles. His website is jaysanalysis.comAndrew Korybko is a geopolitical analyst and an American commentator based in Moscow. He is the author of Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change. He currently studies at the Moscow State University of International Relations and is a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He works for Sputnik.

Andrew Korybko of Sputnik, Russia-Insider, Oriental Review, and Katehon joins me to discuss his book Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change. We cover the western geopolitical machinations of regime change, color revolutions and manufactured coups in relation to recent events in Syria and the Ukraine. Beyond that, we discuss the history of this same "technology" of manipulation in the older Balkan crises and Putin's role in bringing stability. Andrew's book is a must-have for understanding the modern geopolitical landscape.Andrew's bio:"Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to several online journals, as well as a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He specializes in Russian affairs and geopolitics, specifically the US strategy in Eurasia. His other areas of focus include tactics of regime change, color revolutions and unconventional warfare used across the world. His book, “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change”, extensively analyzes the situations in Syria and Ukraine and claims to prove that they represent a new model of strategic warfare being waged by the US."