Archive for the ‘GEOPOLITICS’ Category


December 7, 2019

Hur är det egentligen med nazismens rötter i socialismen? Frågan har debatterats under årtionden och vänstern anstränger sig oavbrutet med försök till brunsmetning av den frihetliga borgerligheten.

I verkligheten var ursprunget socialistiskt. Det var i Muenchen som den järnvägsanställde Anton Drexler i restaurangen ”Fuerstenfelder Hof” för hundra år sedan bildade det Tyska Arbetarpartiet. Enlig Drexler var det en socialistisk organisation och det var först i september samma år som beteckningen ”nationell socialism” tillkom.
Men den socialistiska ideologin förblev en grundstomme. I det nya programmet bidrog ingenjören Gottfried Feder med krav på förstatligande av företagen. De stora varuhusen skulle bli kommunägda.

Det socialistiska arvet vårdades senare av bröderna Gregor och Otto Strasser. Otto hade tidigare varit aktiv i marxistiska organisationer och lett en socialistisk röd brigad under det tyska inbördeskriget under 1920-talet. Detta av vänstern initierade krig hade inletts av kommunistiska kuppmakare till vänster. Otto Strasser hade 1925 i uppdrag att bygga upp en nazistisk partiorganisation i norra Tyskland. I den av Strasser startade Berliner Arbeiterzeitung propagerades socialitisk ideologi. Man var förbunden med de kommunistiska lärofäderna Karl Marx och Friedrich Engels. Nazistiska riksdagsmän förklarade i den tyska riksdagen att man egentligen ville samma sak som det socialdemokratiska partiet nämligen skapandet av en socialistisk republik.

Nazistpartiets vänsterflygel ökade sitt inflytande under slutet av 1920-talet. Den kontrollerade partiapparaten i norra och västra Tyskland. Sachsen och Thueringen var röda delstater och många trodde att Strasser skulle kunna utmanövrera Hitler. NSDAP:s likheter med KPD, det tyska tyska kommunistpartiet, var slående.

Stormtrupperna oroades över att Hitler kanske skulle överge partiets socialistiska linje. Organisationen hotade med strejker om det socialistiska arvet från 1919 övergavs.

Vänsterns brunsmetning av konservativa politiker och konservativt tänkande har pågått länge. En akademiker vid Karlstads universitet har spelat en ledande roll i Sverige i denna smutskastning under senare år. En viktig fråga är hur mycket ideologiskt inflytande den sovjetiska kommunismen och staten hade på utvecklingen under 1920- och 1930-talen. En ledande före detta Kominternagent, Karl Wittfogel, och senare antikommunistisk Kinaexpert har i sina memoarer dokumenterat Stalins förhoppningar att Hitler skulle ta makten i Tyskland. Då skulle Hitler, enligt Stalin, inleda ett inbördeskrig mellan de ”kapitalistiska” staterna i Europa. När Västeuropa var försvagat efter detta krig skulle Stalin med lätthet kunna bli ”den mäktigaste tsaren av alla” i hela Europa från Atlanten till Ural.


November 26, 2019

National Interest on November 25, 2019 published an article on the possibility that Iran may collapse in the future because it is investing heavily in the military. Excerpts below:

Iran’s military is switching from unconventional warfare to more conventional weapons.

That means more ballistic missiles to hit its enemies, as well as mines and other naval weapons to close the Persian Gulf to oil tankers, according to a new report on Iranian military power by the Defense Intelligence Agency…

That means more ballistic missiles to hit its enemies, as well as mines and other naval weapons to close the Persian Gulf to oil tankers, according to a new report on Iranian
“Tehran will improve its conventional forces and seek new capabilities. Iran’s latest 5-year development plan continues priority for missiles, naval forces, and air defenses, but it also adds new emphasis on combat air power and EW capabilities. Iran probably will continue to focus on domestic development of increasingly capable missiles, naval platforms and weapons, and air defenses, while it attempts to upgrade some of its deteriorating air and ground capabilities primarily through foreign purchases.”

Yet Pentagon analysts also point out the price tag for this ambitious program may be too high.

“Despite these goals, ongoing financial constraints and sanctions will challenge Iran’s military modernization efforts,” DIA says. “Tehran will be unable to meet all of its acquisition priorities and requirements in this environment. The complex security situation of the Middle East—with the continued presence of U.S. forces, the superior force projection capabilities of Israel, and the growing military means of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states—will further complicate Iran’s efforts to build its conventional force.”

The report, dated as of August 2019, does not include the September 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities by a massed salvo of drones and low-flying cruise missiles. Ostensibly launched by Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen, though very likely with Iranian participation, the strike damaged oil installations despite Saudi Arabia’s six battalions of U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles. And in June 2019, an Iranian surface-to-air missile downed a high-flying U.S. Global Hawk surveillance drone. The Saudis – and the Israelis and Americans – have not failed to take note of Iran’s missile drone capabilities.

Which raises the question of whether Iran will turn out to be another Soviet Union, which drove itself into collapse by waging a costly arms race with the United States. While Iran’s rulers have no aspirations to be a superpower, they do seem to covet being a regional hegemon as the Persian Empire was. So far, Iran has waged war on the cheap by using proxies rather than massive troop commitments as the U.S. did in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. But as Hezbollah has discovered when its Iranian subsidies were slashed, even war on the cheap can be expensive.


October 25, 2019

National Interest on October 20, 2019, published a highly interesting review of a new important book of the importance of oceans in the geopolitical sense. Excerpts below:

David Abulafia, The Boundless Sea: A Human History of the Oceans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 912 pp., $39.95.

Of all the fields of human progress, none owes more to unintended consequences than global exploration. The great American naval historian and Columbus biographer, Samuel Eliot Morison, summed it up admirably when he wrote—half in earnest, half in jest—that:

America was discovered accidentally by a great seaman who was looking for something else; when discovered, it was not wanted; and most of the exploration for the next fifty years was done in the hope of getting through or around it. America was named after a man who discovered no part of the New World. History is like that, very chancy.

In The Boundless Sea: A Human History of the Oceans, Cambridge historian David Abulafia offers a majestic narrative of mankind’s incredible, sea-born drive toward global discovery and interconnection, a voyage beginning in prehistoric times and lasting all the way up to the twenty-first century. From the beginning, the very seas that separate us have also served as a liquid bridge, first between neighboring islands but ultimately between continents and hemispheres, as mankind mastered navigation and gradually discovered the Earth’s true size and shape.

…in the age of jet transport and space exploration, the seas are still the broadest thoroughfare for global commerce, and naval strength still plays a critical part in the international balance of power. In a globalized age, mastery of the seas is, if anything, more important than ever. America’s place as a superpower is more reliant than ever on its ability to keep seaways open and to use its naval power to deploy air and land forces wherever and whenever needed.

Alfred Thayer Mahan’s description of the role of the Royal Navy in stopping Napoleon from dominating the rest of Europe could be updated to describe the role of American naval power in helping to topple Hitler and then containing Soviet influence on the European continent and around the globe: “The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon its history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which [Napoleon’s] Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world.”

As so often in the past, what happens at sea will determine what happens ashore. This is one of the underlying lessons that runs through Abulafia’s exhaustive survey. “In the making of connections between human societies, the role of the sea is particularly fascinating,” he writes in his preface.

Here Abulafia draws an important distinction between contacts made overland and those made by sea. “…[O]verland they were mediated by the cultures that lay along the routes being followed, whereas links across the sea could tie together very different worlds, as far apart as Portugal and Japan or Sweden and China.” In his justly acclaimed 2011 work, The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean, Abulafia concentrated on the rich history of a relatively small body of seawater and the regions it influenced during the rise and interaction of ancient civilizations and the emergence of Western civilization. For this reason, the Mediterranean is treated marginally in The Boundless Sea since the latter work is intended to serve as a companion volume, but with this important distinction:

Whereas the Mediterranean accounts for 0.8 per cent of the maritime surface of the globe, seas as a whole account for about 70 per cent of the world’s surface, and most of this watery space consists of the vast open areas we call oceans. From outer space, the Earth is mainly blue. The oceans have distinct but gigantic wind systems, generated by the movement of air over vast masses of both warm and cold water: one has only to think of the seasonal monsoons in the Indian Ocean. The Roaring Forties that would helpfully sweep sailing vessels from the Atlantic into the Indian Ocean were the same winds that made entry into the Pacific from the southern Atlantic, around Cape Horn, so frightening. Currents such as the Gulf Stream, which keeps the British Isles relatively warm, or the not dissimilar Kuroshio or Japan current, stretch across thousands of miles.


October 23, 2019

Fox News on October 22, 2019 reported that House Speaker Newt Gingrich in his new book on China vs Trump recommends strengthening the EXIM Bank. Excerpts below:

In the age of Huawei, the Belt and Road Initiative, and China’s state-sponsored companies, we need the United States Export-Import Bank more than ever.

The EXIM Bank, an independent agency, provides government-backed financing for those looking to export goods and services from the United States. Since the 1930s, it has helped grow the U.S. economy and foil unfairly aggressive foreign competitors. However, due mostly to recent politics, it hasn’t been fully functioning since 2014. This needs to change — for many reasons.

First, according to Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe, the country’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is absolutely a part of its military plans. This comes after years of the Chinese Communist Party insisting the worldwide infrastructure scheme is only focused on economics and international cooperation. Wei plainly said future Chinese military cooperation would fit “within the framework of BRI.”

This is a big deal. According to Ex-Im Bank reports, the BRI system includes about 30 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and impacts more than 66 percent of the world’s population. China’s Export-Import Bank alone has participated in more than 1,800 projects with a loan value in excess of $149 billion. If China links the economic might of the BRI with its military (the Communist Party-controlled People’s Liberation Army boasts 2 million troops) U.S. national security would be seriously threatened.

As I discuss in my upcoming book, “Trump vs China: Facing America’s Greatest Threat,” one way that the Chinese Communist Party imposes its will through the BRI is through so-called “debt-trap diplomacy.” It is a clear strategy to gain leverage and influence over countries that owe China for massive infrastructure loans.

This is how it works: China offers large loans to smaller, poorer countries in exchange for the country’s bolstering of Beijing’s strategic interests. Then, China takes control of the assets built with the money — ports, airfields, etc. — when the smaller countries can’t cover the debt.

…China uses its export credit agencies (ECAs) as a strategic arm for its “debt-trap diplomacy” — and the U.S. is not maintaining pace to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s influence. In 2018, China’s official ECAs outpaced the Ex-Im Bank by more than 100 fold (in terms of the amount of medium- to long-term credit it extended).

President Trump’s National Security Strategy rightly identifies economic security as national security. Clearly, the Chinese Communist Party is eroding U.S. economic influence abroad. The Ex-Im is one of our best tools to prevent this and keep America strong.

Congress should reauthorize the Ex-Im bank, so we can compete against the Chinese Communist Party’s economic strategy of world domination.

Without EXIM, there is no practical, clear way to compete against the ever-expanding Chinese economic-military machine. If we do nothing, the Chinese Communist Party’s power will grow, our economic and national security interests will diminish, and our very way of life could be consumed by a totalitarian system.

This is not an acceptable outcome if the U.S. wish to remain the strongest, freest, most prosperous country on the planet.


October 7, 2019

The Diplomat on May 26, 2019, published an interview by Ankit Panda of Diplomat Risk Intelligence with Jonathan Ward, author of ”China’s Vision of Victory”. Ward is the founder of Atlas Organization, a consultancy focused on the rise of India and China, and on US-China global competition. Excerpts of Wards answers can be found below:

Jonathan Ward: The U.S.-China contest will be a unique and original competition. Unlike the Cold War which was predominantly an ideological contest, this competition is likely to be an economic contest with military and ideological dimensions coming close behind.

The goals of the Chinese Communist Party, as described in ”China’s Vision of Victory”, may be even more ambitious than those of the USSR – the CCP envisions a future in which China ascends to the top of every major industry and technology, in which most of the world’s continents and markets are linked together with China as the economic and strategic center, and in which China has built a military that “can effectively secure China’s overseas interests

The goals of the Chinese Communist Party present a clear and open challenge for U.S. global leadership

This is an economic contest – China’s goal is essentially to surpass the U.S. economically and from there to build long-term advantages over the United States and other nations. On some level decoupling is inevitable, particularly where it can help preserve a competitive edge in critical technologies and industries that are needed for long-term competition. China’s program of harvesting technology from the developed world during the last 20 years of integration has yielded major results, but China still depends on economic engagement in order to build its technological and industrial advantages.

CCP initiatives such as civil-military fusion also show us how the Party is exploiting innovation in the private sector for military means, and this gives an entirely new meaning to doing business in China. Providing the Chinese Communist Party with any further advantages through economic integration seems unwise in a long-term competition. Additionally, China’s surveillance state and human rights abuses, especially in Xinjiang, present reputational risks for American investors and corporates that are seeking opportunities in China, and given the role of Chinese companies in creating the surveillance state, human rights abuses will also impact economic engagement with China as long-term competition sets in.

There are three major strategies that support the end goal of “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” – that is China’s goal of becoming the world’s de facto dominant power, by restoring the wealth and power it once held relative to other nations before its “Century of Humiliation.”

First, the Belt and Road Initiative, which shows us the geographical ambitions of global Chinese wealth and power – that is an integrated Asian, European, African, Australian continental superstructure with China as the economic and strategic center.

Second is “Made in China 2025,” which envisions Chinese dominance in a series of strategic industries from robotics to next generation information technology to high-tech shipping, and also refers, for example, to striving to “transform China into the global manufacturing leader before the centennial of the founding of the New China,” that is 2049.

Third is military modernization, which ultimately envisions a Chinese military “second to none” that is able to “effectively secure China’s overseas interests.” CCP goals in space, oceans and emerging technologies are also important pieces of the picture. We have seen what it looks like for China to pursue these goals during a period of open globalization – the question becomes, how successful will the Communist Party be if the world begins to push back, not only the U.S. alone, but in concert with allies around the world.

In today’s global contest, however, we will need our allies to think and act globally…

Chairman Xi’s goal is to convert China’s wealth into military power, and to build and consolidate China’s role as a global player. We see this in the scope and scale of China’s major strategies, many of which were underway before him, but which now have come together as global grand strategy that we can all observe.

I believe that we would do best to focus on winning the economic competition, working together to integrate our democratic friends and allies around the world, and maintaining our military and technological edge over both China and Russia. We should focus on our own vision of the future, and on beginning to rebuild a world that is less dependent on authoritarian China – a place which economic engagement has failed to change…we must work to build our own strengths if we are going to win the long-term competition.

Comment: The CCP in the fight for global dominance is guided by the most murderous ideology in human history. After initial setbacks the party has now established a near perfect authoritarian system. There is limitless state power, revolutionary digital totalitarianism, and a vast re-education camp archipelago into which millions have disappeared. CCP now believes this system can be exported worldwide starting with domination of Eurasia. Such a domination can probably only work with Russia as partner. In the end this means that Europe and the European Union will be faced with the choice between the United States and the China-Russia system. A full decoupling of the economies of USA and China could result in the build up of the economies of the whole Western Hemisphere with the USMCA (United States, Mexico, and Canada) as base. With much untapped economic potential in North and South America this could be a success story for the 21st century.

There is a strong both rational and realist case for why America should not allow China’s global vision to come to pass. This means that it is important for America and its allies to show that China is not like any other empire. It is a truly evil empire.


September 27, 2019

Fox News on September 9, 2019 published an article by Harry J. Kazianis, the director of Korean Studies at the Center for the National Interest (USA). Below are excerpts from that article:

The Trump administration, despite constant criticism at home and overseas, has made the right decision in taking on China. And yet, very few pundits and so-called experts understand Trump’s strategy, the stakes involved and how America will implement it.

I can sum up Trump’s China strategy in one word: containment. And considering it brought down Soviet communism for good, Beijing should be shaking in its boots.

…China is a much more cunning and sinister opponent [than the Soviet Union]. An oppressor at home and a bully abroad, Beijing, now at the height of its economic power with a GDP worth more than $12 trillion and a military budget as high as $250 billion, possesses a one-two punch that the old Soviet Union could only dream of possessing. Beijing threatens America’s economic livelihood through mercantilist policies while also building weapons systems designed to attack and destroy our aircraft carriers, cyber infrastructure and more.

The good news is that Trump is clearly borrowing the playbook [of Ronald Reagan]…

You shouldn’t be surprised. If you consider how Reagan took on the Soviets and compare it to Trump’s approach on China, the similarities are shocking.

Consider the times in which both men inherited the great power challenge in front of them and how both responded. First, just like Reagan, Trump inherited a crumbling U.S. military that was in desperate need of rebuilding thanks to progressive policies that damaged its ability to deter our enemies. Both Trump and Reagan passed large defense budgets focused on taking on their principal rivals, making key investments that were sorely needed to not only stay ahead of the threat curve, but ensure military dominance. And just like Reagan, Trump seeks to ensure that if a conflict were to break out, America would have the tools to fight — and to win.

We also can’t forget the way each man uniquely communicates the dangers posed by the threats of their era — with great impact, done in a way that America’s foes can’t easily rebut.

…Trump’s use of Twitter to constantly convey the state of trade negotiations, to call out China’s president — both positively and negatively — or to convey his anger at Beijing is, just like Reagan, using his own unique style of communication to box his opponent in and force it to respond to something it can hardly refute. Unless Chinese President Xi Jinping gets on Twitter to rebut Trump — technically he cannot as Twitter is not allowed in China — China has no effective means to respond.

Next, both Reagan and Trump realized that the core foundation of any nation is economic strength, with both doing all they could to ensure that America’s financial foundation is as strong and as vibrant as ever.

…[but]Reagan and Trump diverge — and for good reason. Soviet Russia was not tied into the global economy like Communist China. With Beijing stealing trillions of dollars in U.S. intellectual property, closing off markets and providing illegal subsidies to domestic industries to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, Trump confronts an economic juggernaut that Reagan did not.

Thankfully, the administration has made leveling the playing field its mission, slapping hundreds of billions of dollars of potential tariffs on Chinese goods unless Beijing not only abides by its obligations under international law but also stops taking advantage of America’s open markets and consumers. Trump is determined to ensure that no more factories or blue-collar jobs leave for China, a practice that essentially transfers economic wealth to our top geopolitical foe.

…in the case of China, nothing could be worse than a rogue state with an economy someday larger than America’s that has the military prowess to defeat Washington both economically and militarily.

America must continue to ensure China’s vision for the 21st century, with a totalitarian Beijing atop the global pecking order, does not come to pass.

Comment: Containment was a doubtful strategy of the West during the Cold War as long as it was not offensive. The Reagan administration starting in 1981 changed containment to economic warfare against the Soviet Union. The American response to the unfair economic practice of China mainly since 2001 is a form of economic warfare. It would however be more exact to describe it as decoupling. That is decoupling the American economy from the Chinese and based on the USMCA Treaty develop the economy of the Western Hemisphere as a framework. Already today Canada and Mexico are larger US partners in trade than China.


September 26, 2019

On September 22, 2019, Washington Times published a commentary by Dennis Lennox, a public affairs consultant, on the growing interest in China concerning the Indo Pacific. Excerpts below:

…China eyes Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, [and] even American Samoa is faced with challenges.

In addition to the long-ignored U.S. territories, there are three island-republics — the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau — that have relied upon the grace and favor of the United States since the postwar years. The relationship between these freely associated states and Washington is governed through an instrument called the Compact of Free Association.

Together, the territories and island-republics are geographically situated between Hawaii and the Philippines…in a vast swath of the Indo-Pacific informally called the American Lake. The nickname reflects what was an exclusive U.S. sphere of influence. Until the rise of China, the only other power exercising postwar clout here was Australia, which is also struggling to confront Chinese influence.

Despite its so-called Pivot to Asia, the Obama administration did little to assert itself on these islands.

Not only do American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianas have elected governors, legislatures and even delegates to Congress, but each also has a Republican Party that sends a full delegation to the national convention.

Beijing’s targets in the Indo-Pacific and closer to home in the Caribbean and Latin America generally share the same characteristics: Poor when compared to the GDP of the 50 states, underdeveloped and generally forgotten. All sorts of basic infrastructure and other improvements are built or promised. Think hospitals, schools, highways, ports and airports. Some are freebies; others involve loans that will never be repaid. Moreover, as independent countries they have full voting privileges at the United Nations. This in and of itself is worth every yuan.

The Solomon Islands…ended diplomatic recognition of Taiwan after China promised $500 million in funding.

In addition to tariffs against China the president has also dispatched senior administration officials, including cabinet secretaries, and military leaders to the territories and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific. Mr. Trump even hosted a historic White House summit with heads of state from the island-republics.

Washington must up its game. It should start with a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. There also needs to be a re-examining of the relationship with the islands and their individual political status or lack thereof. This should include statehood.

Ryan Zinke, President Trump’s former Interior secretary, visited each territory within the administration’s first year. Not only was that a remarkable feat given the significant travel distances, but it could be a new record since it took eight years for his predecessor in the Obama administration to do the same. Just recently, Assistant Secretary of Interior Doug Domenech flew halfway across the world to pay homage to island leaders and …[provide] $9 million for “improvements” in Palau.

The islands should be the bailiwick of a standalone agency with cabinet rank. The natural choice to head such an agency is former two-term Republican Gov. Eddie Calvo of Guam.

Not only does the institutionalized benign neglect only cement the second-class status of the territories, but it pushes the island-republics closer to China.

Then there is the question of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

They should be given the option of becoming either territories or joining Guam and the Northern Marianas to form the 51st state.

Beyond equal citizenship and political equality, the overarching need for a revived Monroe Doctrine in the Indo-Pacific, Caribbean and Latin America cannot be said enough. Without it, China will supplant the United States.

Comment: Recent events in the Pacific is a further sign for the need of increased American concern. Taiwan recently lost another ally in the Pacific after the island nation of Kiribati decided to switch diplomatic recognition to Beijing. The decision came a few days after Tiwan severed diplomatic ties with the Solomon Islands. Taipei is now left with only 15 allies around the world.

In a comment the Taiwanese foreign minister blamed Kiribati President Taneti Mamau and some members of the ruling party for entertaining “highly unrealistic expectations regarding China”, saying that since Mamau took office in 2016, he and those members had frequent exchanges with Beijing.

He further stated that Beijing had taken advantage of fisheries and other commercial investments to establish a presence and extend its influence in Kiribati. Seven diplomatic allies, including Kiribati, have switched allegiance to Beijing during the last three years. Taiwan has warned that Beijing’s influence in the strategically important Solomon Islands would have a “serious impact” on the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy.

After the Kiribati decision the American Institute in Taipei said that countries that establish closer ties to China primarily hope or expect that such a step will stimulate economic growth and infrastructure development often find themselves worse off in the long run.

President Tsai of Taiwan said that China has attempted to tell people in Taiwan that we cannot buy fighter jets [from the US], nor can we support Hong Kong’s [anti-government movement]. Beijing has since Tsai was elected president in 2016 increased its pressure on Taipei, stepping up military drills and lobbying its diplomatic allies to switch allegiance. A meeting between US Vice-President Mike Pence and Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare was cancelled after Washington said it was “disappointed” by the Solomons’ decision to change diplomatic recognition to Beijing.

The new developments mentioned above are signs that the revival of the Monroe Doctrine is urgently needed.


September 25, 2019

Fox News on September 24, 2019 in an article commented on Donald Trumps 2019 UN speech. Excerpts below:

President Trump [delivered] his most robust defense yet of his nationalist philosophy.

“Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: Your policies are not just, your policies are cruel and evil,” he said, accusing them of promoting human smuggling and the “erasure of national borders.”

He delivered the broadside as part of a message promoting border security, in the U.S. and around the world.

“Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their country first. The future does not belong to globalists, the future belongs to patriots,” he said earlier in the speech. “The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.”

He advised member states, “If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. If you want peace, love your nation.”

Trump…said that he wants to avoid “endless wars” but also promised to defend America militarily, if needed.

He used that message to pivot to Iran, urging the Islamic regime to put its people first and to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons and support of terror in the region. He told delegates that the U.S. does not seek conflict with other nations but that “I will never fail to defend America’s interests.”

He accused Iran’s leaders of “fueling the tragic wars in both Syria and Yemen,” and of “squandering their nation’s wealth in a fanatical quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.”
“We must never allow this to happen,” he said.

He was given a boost on his hardline stance with Iran on [September 23] when Britain, France and Germany joined the U.S. in blaming Iran for attacks earlier this month on key oil facilities in Saudi Arabia.

“All nations have a duty to act, no responsible government should subsidize Iran’s bloodlust,” he said, promising to tighten sanctions if Iran continued its aggression.

On September 24, he also used the speech to address the ongoing trade war with China, saying that at the heart of his vision is “an ambitious campaign to reform international trade.”

“For decades, the international trading system has been easily exploited by nations acting in very bad faith,” he said. “As jobs were outsourced, a small handful grew wealthy at the expense of the middle class.”

In his criticism of other leaders, he also appeared to take a swipe at former U.S. leaders who let China gain international dominance.

“Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests, but as far as America is concerned, those days are over,” he said.

Comment: Another important part of the speech was devoted to the Western Hemisphere. Trump said:

…we are working closely with our friends in the region, including Mexico, Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama, to uphold the integrity of borders and ensure safety and prosperity for our people. I would like to thank President Lopez Obrador of Mexico for the great cooperation we are receiving, and for right now putting 27,000 troops on our Southern Border. Mexico is showing us great respect, and I respect them in return.

For all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere, our goal is to help people invest in the bright futures of their own nation. Our region is full of such incredible promise, dreams waiting to be built, and national destinies for all. And they are waiting also to be pursued. Throughout the hemisphere there are millions of hard-working, patriotic young people, eager to build, innovate and achieve.

The Western Hemisphere, in the view of Världsinbördeskriget, has a promising future. As part of the decoupling of US economy from that of China America’s largest trade partners are now Canada and Mexico. A strong economy in all countries of the two American continents could be an alternative to China. Remaining socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela will have a bright future if they choose free enterprise instead of socialism.


September 9, 2019

Spalding’s new book ”Stealth War” will be punlished in October 2019. It reveals the shocking success China has had infiltrating American institutions and compromising America’s national security.

Media often suggest that Russia poses the greatest threat to America’s national security, but the real danger lies farther east – in China. While the United States slept China has waged a six-front war on America’s economy, military, diplomacy, technology, education, and infrastructure–and they’re winning. It’s almost too late to undo the shocking, though nearly invisible, victories of the Chinese.

In his book, retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Spalding reveals China’s motives and secret attacks on the West. Chronicling how our leaders have failed to protect us over recent decades, he provides shocking evidence of some of China’s most brilliant ploys, including:

Offering enormous sums to American experts who create investment funds that funnel technology to China.

Signing a thirty-year agreement with the US that allows China to share peaceful nuclear technology, ensuring that they have access to American nuclear know-how.

Placing Confucius Institutes in universities across the United States that serve to monitor and control Chinese students on campus and spread communist narratives to unsuspecting American students.

Spalding’s concern isn’t merely that America could lose its position on the world stage. More urgently, the Chinese Communist Party has a fundamental loathing of the legal protections America grants its people and seeks to create a world without those rights.

Despite all the damage done so far, Spalding shows how it’s still possible for the U.S. and the rest of the free world to combat–and win–China’s stealth war.

”Stealth War” is a must read for all who care about the security of the United States and the rest of the West.


September 7, 2019

Ret. USAF Brigadier General Robert Spalding in a June 2019 interview on radio warned that the geopolitical China threat to the United States had not been adressed strategically. Spalding has served at the White House as the Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council, Washington D.C.:

China wages economic warfare against the U.S, said Spalding. It supports — and enriches itself off of — America’s competitors in Asia and the Middle East.

To approach this effectively the United States must work with its allies. In the Middle East with the Saudis and other Arab states and in Asia with mainly Japan and South Korea.

Spalding further said that in each of these regions, the partners there have to step up. America must reinvest in the country and grow the economy.

The focus has to be on deterrence and the growth of economy. Don’t spend all your money on weapons and focus on growing your economy. Military capacity cannot be separated from economic capacity, the brigadier general continued.

The United States must build and rebuild in the field of infrastructure and things that are actually growing the economy. If you don’t have a strong economy, it doesn’t matter, because you’re not going to be able to pay for the things you need to secure yourself.

When China entered the WTO, America closed 78,000 factories. 5.4 million people were put out of work. We closed ship-building facilities. We closed so much of our manufacturing capability that today we’re heavily reliant on the Chinese to provide the things we need to fight.

Spalding also said that the Chinese have managed to buy global ports and buying most of the global shipping — control the logistics. So think about that $800 billion defense budget we spend, and then all the money we’re spending to move and ship personnel and supplies all over the world, and you realize that the Chinese are making enormous sums out of what we do on a day-to-day basis. This is what they’ve built.

Spalding further highlighted China’s procurement of influence via financial relationship with America’s academia, businesses, entertainment and news media companies, non-profits and think tanks, and politicians.

The Chinese have studied the United States and the competition we had with the Soviet Union. They realized that if we ever became focused on their activities, then that would be tough for them because they relied on our openness in order to go after us. So they were essentially slowly eroding our personal freedoms through their economic and financial interaction with the country.

A large part of America’s elites have essentially aligned themselves — corporate interests, academia, politics, law firms, think tanks — with the Chinese Communist Party. The party knew that if it could go on to pursue that they could continue to slowly erode our competitive edge.

In essence, they want us to spend as much money as we can on defense, because that is not the area where they want to compete with us, Spalding warned. “They want us to bankrupt ourselves. That’s the goal.

President Donald Trump had in Spalding’s view reversed the status quo of America’s approach towards China set by his presidential predecessors. In 2017, the president basically said, ‘Enough is enough.’

They use the profits they make off the dealings with America to help the Iranians, to help the North Koreans, to help the Russians, both in a technological sense and economic sense,” concluded Spalding. He described Trump’s “decoupling” of America from dependence on Chinese exports and logistic as a means to reinforce America’s global positioning. China is aiding and abetting the countries that we try to put sanctions on. Whether or not they’re directly involved in the Iranians placing mines on tankers in the Persian Gulf, they’re complicit in that they’re enabling the Iranians to have the resources that enable them to do these things.