Wednesday 27th of November 2024

with a genocide, as supported by every one of these people....

That Group of 7 gathering on the coast of the Adriatic June 13–15 was truly a doozy, I have to say. Readers might think it a waste of column inches to devote any linage to it, as many will surely have forgotten about it by now—not to mention those many others who did not know of it in the first place and so could not get as far as forgetting it. But this just is my point: The seven people claiming to be the world’s most powerful assemble for a summit and it is not worth our attention? Say whaaa? 

 

Patrick Lawrence: “Falling Gently Away:” The G–7 in Italy 

 

The significance of this year’s G–7, I mean to say, lies in its insignificance. Considering the mess these very folk have made of the world, this bears consideration. 

Giorgia Meloni seems to have given some thought to the “non–” aspect of the event she hosted at the Borgo Egnazia, a resort hotel in the town of Savelletri di Fasano, “where the hills of the Itria Valley fall gently away to the Adriatic Sea.” Prominent among the diversions the Italian premier arranged was a squad of hang-gliders who descended on the group, each trailing the flag of a G–7 member. Is this gravitas or what, 21st century statecraft at its most elevated—especially with a genocide, as supported by every one of these people, proceeding exactly 1,147 miles across the Mediterranean?   

The lasting image of the G–7 2024 summit has to be that viral video of President Biden wandering away from the others with, per usual at this point, the demeanor of a sleepwalker (which seems to me about right). No! the Democratic machine and its clerks in the media protested. That video was unfairly cut. Biden wasn’t drifting into nowhere: He went to talk to one of the hang-gliders as he, the hang-glider, packed up his harness and airframe. 

That changes everything. Conversing with a hang-glider rather than the French president, the German chancellor, or the British prime minister is just what “the leader of the free world” should get up to at a G–7 summit. It was, of course, more worthwhile than talking to Justin Trudeau, I will give Biden this.

One of the oddities of this year’s G–7, remarked upon here and there in the media coverage, is the low standing the seven had among their electorates. Axios had a wonderful headline on this, “World losers gather at G–7 summit.” Meloni was the enviable star, with a 40 percent approval rate, but Meloni was the odd one out: She has populist tendencies in a group of neoliberal authoritarians. Biden was second, with 37 percent, but this puts him behind Donald Trump in the American polls. 

The rest we can count among the walking wounded: Trudeau arrived at Savelletri with a 30 percent approval rate, Olaf Scholz with 25 percent, and then the hanging-by-fingernails group: Rishi Sunak (25 percent, about to be turned out of office), Emmanuel Macron (21 percent, tipped to lose in snap elections), Fumio Kishida (13 percent).

These people are by dint of the offices they hold the leaders of “the West.” If many of us have worried for some time that no one seems to be driving the bus, maybe we can take cold comfort now in the thought that not many seem to be on it.

Can what remains of the West now fit into an Italian resort? I pose this as a serious question. Those ever-courteous but mercilessly direct Chinese went straight at this in their official comment on the summit. “The G–7 does not represent the world,” Lin Jian, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, remarked after the group issued its communiqué. Lin referred to the G–7’s share of global gross domestic product: It is now roughly 10 percent and declining as the non–West’s rises. But, viewed from the Atlantic world’s perspective, it is just as significant, I would say, that those purporting to lead the West enjoy a similarly declining share of their population’s support. 

The New York Times had an entertainingly contorted take on all this. Shared political weakness, along with high anxiety as the West’s major investments go bad—the proxy war in Ukraine, the Israelis’ savagery in Gaza, the attempt to isolate Russia—combined to make this year’s summit “unexpectedly smooth,” as Steve Erlanger wrote from Savelletri—“another example of unchallenged American leadership of the West.” Leave it to The Times, ever ready to find roses in the desert if it makes the imperium seem a good and welcome thing.

Various things got done at the Borgo Egnazia, these almost exclusively to do with China and Ukraine. The People’s Republic now gets marked down as an adversary of the West roughly equivalent in malignancy to Russia. “This year, China and Russia were frequently discussed in the same breath, and in the same menacing terms,” David Sanger wrote in a June 15 analytic piece, “perhaps the natural outcome of their deepening partnership.”

In my surmise, the Biden regime forced this new animosity on the Europeans—it has been at this for many months, indeed—and we will have to see whether it is of much consequence beyond language in a communiqué. But, setting the Europeans aside, it appears to mark a decisive shift in American policy. Gone may be the days when Biden’s foreign policy inepts wanted some impossible combination of cooperation, competition, and confrontation in Washington’s relations with Beijing. 

We may have just watched as the last of these wins out. China’s very testy response to the communiqué strongly suggests this. “The G–7 is no longer on the right path of win-win cooperation,” Lin Jian, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in his statement. “Win-win” is a phrase Beijing has long used to characterize what it has seen as the potential for mutual benefit in Sino–U.S. relations. 

As to Ukraine, the G–7 signed on to a $50 billion “loan”—I have heard of no one who expects repayment—that will come primarily from the U.S. and be repaid by drawdowns on the interest accruing to Russians’ financial assets in the U.S. and Europe, estimated at $300 billion or so. Washington and Tokyo, ever-pliant in these kinds of cases, signed long-term security accords with the Kiev regime. Antony Blinken, Biden’s secretary of state, described this as part of a “bridge to membership” among the G–7 powers that will, when Ukraine crosses it, lead to acceptance in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

I see little new in this, honestly, and some inflating of the already-accomplished to make G–7 2024 look productive. Washington’s 10–year security pact simply puts on paper what has long been the Biden regime’s commitment—weapons, weapons, and more weapons—and Tokyo’ signature on a security agreement with Kiev I shall let speak for itself. The $50 billion “injection,” as The Times calls it to avoid the nonsense of “loan,” is simply more bad money after bad, but there are a couple of things to say about this. 

One, to intervene in Russia’s overseas accounts in this fashion is a flagrant breach of international law, which is why the Europeans have heretofore been highly reluctant to participate in this scheme. It is another of Treasury Secretary Yellen’s malign masterpieces, and there is a good chance this recklessness will bite the G–7’s central banks, first among them the Federal Reserve, hard on their backsides in years to come. 

Two, we had better step back and count the beans as an additional $50 billion goes to the crooks in Kiev. With the U.S. well in the lead, the G–7’s transfers to Ukraine since the Russian military intervention two years ago are well on the way to $200 billion. Ukraine’s GDP in 2022, the most recent year for which statistics are available—are last year’s too embarrassing?—was $160 billion. And that is nominal. Adjusted for inflation, which is customarily the figure economists and policy people take seriously, Ukraine’s GDP as last reported was $95 billion. 

Translation: The West has dumped something close to twice Ukraine’s economy into the nation over the past two years. Translation of the translation: This cannot be counted a serious, freestanding nation. It is a dependency that cannot survive on its own. (That makes two on the West’s books: Israel is in the same circumstance.)

Meloni did something interesting when she filled out her guest list. She included on it a number of prominent non–Western leaders: Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian PM, and three presidents: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates’ Prince Mohammed bin Zayed. They do not appear to have done much other than spectate, and none of the G–7 heads of state seem to have taken much interest in them, but Meloni’s gesture, which is what I count it, is interesting as a measure of the non–West’s rising importance as a global force. The world turns.

Of Gaza the Western leaders had little to say other than a limp-wristed expression of concern. This, a negative presence, a presence by way of an absence, did not go down well in non–Western circles, and certainly not among Middle Eastern nations. The world turns and the world watches. 

Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s chief political analyst, called the G–7’s statement on Gaza, “absolutely meaningless.” Then he brought some good historical perspective to the question. “Once upon a time, the G–7 used to stand for the Seven Great, the Seven Giants. They are the democratic powers in the world—the rich democracies,” Bishara wrote as the summit concluded. “Now they stand for the Seven Goofy, Grave, even Grotesque Powers when it comes to the question of Gaza.”

That sounds like searing anger where I come from. The larger lesson here: On no question now facing the West, the Gaza assault most pressing among them, can we expect any kind of dynamic response—not now, at no point in the future. Those leading the G–7 simply do not have this in them. To them it is all about what was and what is, no thought to what can be. 

I have to wonder why Signora Meloni chose the Borgo Egnazia for this year’s G–7. What went into that selection, given all those grand-beyond-grand hotels along the Lago Maggiore and other such places in the north? In its promotional lit, the Borgo Egnazia boasts of the grounds and how “little stone pathways transport you into the past.” Maybe this was it.

https://scheerpost.com/2024/06/23/patrick-lawrence-falling-gently-away-the-g-7-in-italy/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

G7 hate russia.....

 

View Manlio Dinucci

 

The mainstream presented the G7 Summit in Puglia, under Italian presidency, as a kind of great social event, ignoring the final communiqué: a document of around 40 pages with which the G7 - made up of the 6 greatest powers of the NATO plus Japan, NATO's main partner in East Asia - sets out their program. They denounce Russia for “its brutal and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine, and by the blatant violation of international law and the fundamental principles that underlie the international order».

They therefore announce that “The G7 will launch extraordinary borrowings, in order to make available approximately $50 billion in additional financing for Ukraine by the end of the year, and that these borrowings will be repaid by inflows deriving from the immobilization of sovereign assets Russians detained in the European Union". The G7 finally declares that “China's continued support for Russia's defense industrial base allows Russia to maintain its illegal war in Ukraine» and intimate to China of “stop the transfer of dual-use equipment to Russia».

At the same time the G7 accuses China of operating “non-market policies and practices that bring global spillovers and damaging overcapacity across a growing range of sectors, targeting our workers, our industries, our economic resilience and our security". These and other passages from the Summit Communiqué clearly show what is at stake in the wars and war preparations that the United States and other major Western powers are waging from Europe to the Middle East. Orient and Eastern Asia, from Africa to Latin America.

With this strategy the West is trying to maintain the predominance that it is losing in the face of the emergence of a multipolar world. It is enough to remember that the national debt of the United States has exceeded 34 billion dollars and that in the next ten years it will exceed 000 billion dollars. The Bulletin of the American Atomic Scientists warns, based on precise data, that we face “a massive reconstruction of the entire US nuclear arsenal, which also includes new long-range land-based missiles, new submarines, new long-range stealth bombers which will carry the new stealth cruise missiles and significant updates to missiles carried by submarines. The total cost of all this, retaining existing armaments, will be more than 1200 billion dollars».

Manlio Dinucci

 

Brief summary of the international press review Wide from Friday June 21, 2024 on the Italian TV channel Byoblu

translated from Italian by Marie-Ange Patrizio

 

https://en.reseauinternational.net/articles/faits-dactu/g7-italie-un-sommet-de-guerre/

 

READ FROM TOP

killing europe.....

View Lucas Leiroz

 

Since the start of NATO's proxy war against Russia, Europe still does not seem to have grasped its role in the conflict. By irrationally adhering to all measures imposed by the United States, such as unilateral sanctions and unlimited arms supplies to the Kiev regime, the EU seems ever closer to real collapse, given social difficulties and major security risks. Ultimately, the European bloc, like Ukraine, is just another proxy in this war.

For obvious reasons, Europe has always been dependent on good relations with Russia to maintain its economic and social well-being and the balance of its regional security architecture. However, European countries seem to have forgotten the basic principles of geopolitics, banking on a vain attempt to “isolate” Russia through irresponsible sanctions that only harm Europe itself – without generating any impact. on the Russian economy.

Without Russian gas, Europe rapidly deindustrialized, worsening conditions of poverty, unemployment and inflation. In such a situation, the most rational solution would be to renounce unnecessary spending and invest massively in economic recovery projects, but, apparently, rationality is not at the heart of the attitude of Europeans. Instead of acting strategically in pursuit of the best for their people, European decision-makers have engaged in a policy of systematically supplying weapons to the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime, spending billions of euros on the manufacture and export of weapons. weapons for the war against Russia.

This is why, during the last European elections, voters reacted by voting massively for right-wing politicians and parties, trying to find an alternative to the unpopular Russophobic madness of liberal regimes. In retaliation for popular will, liberal governments are already starting to take authoritarian measures, such as President Emmanuel Macron, who decided to dissolve the Assembly and call for new elections. It is possible that many more such dictatorial measures will be taken in the near future, risking further aggravating the serious legitimacy crisis of EU member countries.

To make matters worse, some of these European governments are even considering going further in their support for Ukraine, with advanced negotiations involving sending troops on the ground. Apparently, European nations are no longer afraid of the war expanding into a global nuclear conflict, during which they would be easy targets for Russia's powerful strategic weapons.

At the same time, in the United States, the electoral scenario is very unstable. Donald Trump promises to end the war, but the liberal establishment wants to stop him from running. Biden promises to continue the conflict with Russia, a course of action that the Republican candidate who replaces Trump will certainly follow. However, both domestic politics and the international context remain extremely complex for Washington. Facing a pre-Civil War atmosphere, social divide, Texas separatism, and mass migration, in addition to a severe economic crisis, the United States has many national priorities that make Ukraine a country which is gradually losing all interest.

Furthermore, in the Middle East, Israel finds itself in a delicate situation. After failing to achieve its objectives in Gaza - despite the genocide - Tel Aviv now sees a new front emerging in the north, where Hezbollah strikes increasingly distant targets, thus threatening the very existence of Israel as a than State. To ensure its survival, the Zionist project will need massive military support from the United States. This is why it is inevitable that the amount of weapons, equipment, funds and mercenaries sent to support Ukraine will decrease significantly.

In fact, whoever wins the US elections, the burden of supporting kyiv will inevitably be shifted to the US's European “partners”. Washington will force its “allies” to send ever more weapons to the Kiev regime, thus reducing the burden on the American defense industry, so that support for Israel remains viable. This is the only way for the United States to maintain its policy of unconditional support for the Zionist state.

It is obvious that Europe does not have the necessary means to finance a war against Russia on its own. But the EU voluntarily places itself in a posture of strategic submission to NATO, obeying all orders coming from the United States. The result is an unprecedented worsening of the current social and economic crisis, resulting in the collective collapse of European countries. In the worst case scenario, the situation could spill over from the economic framework and lead to direct military involvement by Europe in the conflict, as NATO bases in the EU are usually used for deep attacks against the Russian Federation. Russia, thus creating a casus belli and legitimizing any response from Moscow if Russian patience were to run dry.

For decades, experts have argued that World War III would bring about the end of the world, a certainly plausible possibility if the current proxy conflict enters an open phase. But, regardless of what happens to the “world”, Europe is undoubtedly already on the verge of a tragic end.

 

source: Strategic Culture Foundation via Spirit of Free Speech

https://en.reseauinternational.net/articles/faits-dactu-articles/ce-ne-sera-pas-la-fin-du-monde-mais-celle-de-leurope/

READ FROM TOP