All posts by Geopolitics101

Multipolar World

Southeast Asia in a Multipolar World

Leave a comment

The 15th Asian Conference, held in Kuala Lumpur on December 9-10, 2024, brought together over 100 experts and high-ranking diplomats from Malaysia and Russia. The event, organized by multiple foundations, took place against the backdrop of Malaysia’s upcoming ASEAN chairmanship and recent BRICS partnership.

Continue reading Southeast Asia in a Multipolar World →
Hybrid WW3

Trump’s Dollar Threat Against BRICS Shows The US Hasn’t Learned Anything

1 Comment

President-elect Trump’s crude attempt to scare away de-dollarization is based on an illusion of Washington’s omnipotence.

Donald Trump still has it, that old magic: Long known for using social media to great – or devastating – effect, the former and incoming US president has mightily stirred the bubble again. This time the target of his ire is BRICS+ (at this point an informal but commonly used label), an association of, in essence, non-Western states that dare organize and cooperate without Washington’s permission and outside its control. 

In particular, Trump has threatened that any attempt to “move away from the Dollar” will lead to massive US punishment, specifically, “100% tariffs.” 

“There is no chance that the BRICS will replace the U.S. Dollar in International Trade,” the president-elect thinks he knows, and any country daring to challenge “the mighty US Dollar” – in the original over-capitalized, thundering Trumpese – “should wave goodbye to America.” Those who don’t want to fall from the good graces of the US, Trump demands, must not only abstain from abandoning the dollar but make a special commitment to not even try.

Let’s not dwell on the obvious: To be honest, who would not want to wave the US goodbye, if only we could? And for something that has “no chance” of happening, the idea of replacing or abandoning the dollar is getting Trump pretty worked up. Why so prickly about what he says is a non-starter anyhow?

Part of the answer – but only part – is psychological. Especially during America’s ongoing decline, its late-imperial elites, whether Democratic or Republican, are bound to be hyper-sensitive about anything that looks like defiance. Because they are still cultivating a delusion that they are “indispensable” and that we, the other almost 8 billion people on this planet outside the US, must accept their “leadership.”

But that complex explains only so much. Because what is special about BRICS is not what it has been trying to do but how successful it is, posing a challenge in the real world of power and geopolitics. Emerging barely two decades ago, just this year BRICS has doubled in size, and further expansion is certain. While it is a complex and evolving organization, one of its prominent concerns has been the escalating American abuse of the dollar as a geopolitical weapon. Hence, BRICS has been a platform for initiatives and discussions under the catch-all label “de-dollarization.” Indeed, according to Bloomberg, members of BRICS have been “leading the global debate over dollar exposure.”

That is what has triggered Trump, and not for the first time. Months before he won his comeback election, Bloombergreported that he and his advisers were thinking about and issuing threats against de-dollarization. In principle, it is not surprising that they are concerned. What a French finance minister once called “the exorbitant privilege” of the global dollar domination that emerged out of World War II has allowed the US to be profligate with debt. The basis of this anomaly is that, currently, almost 60% of all central bank reserves in the world are held in dollars, and nearly 90% of all foreign-exchange transactions are conducted in the US currency.

As a result, Washington has also been able to avail itself of what The Economist recently labelled “an enormous lever of power” by surveilling and obstructing global financial flows as well as imposing outright almost-confiscation (euphemized as “freezing”), as has happened to almost 300 billion dollars of Russia’s national reserves. In short, the dollar-as-it-still-is allows the US to live beyond its means at the cost of other nations and to make their lives miserable by the financial equivalent of blackmail, strangulation and, quite simply, robbery.

What is special this time is Trump’s hyperbolic tone and his explicit and public singling out of BRICS.

He has leveled his threat at an association that brings together two global powers, Russia and China, as well as several regional heavyweights, such as Iran and Brazil. It already represents at least 45% of the world’s population, and, in terms of the global economy, BRICS is a rising force that has already overtaken the G7, the declining club of Western/Global North rich countries. According to geopolitical analyst Kishore Mahbubani, at the end of the Cold War, more than a third of a century ago, the combined GDP of the G7 was the equivalent of 66% of global GDP. While BRICS did not exist yet, its future members were far from even getting close to matching the G7. By now, however, the G7 share stands at 45% and that of BRICS+ at 24%. That is, as long as you stick to the crude metric of nominal GDP. Once you adjust, more realistically, for purchasing power, the BRICS+ economies – with 34% of global GDP – have already beaten the G7’s 29%. 

Trump’s tweet, in other words, looks as if he were spoiling for an economic fight against two great powers – one of which is in the process of defeating the West in Ukraine – and a grouping of states that represents almost half of humanity and is powerful already while growing dynamically. What does Trump’s threat actually mean in that context?

To state the obvious, the president-elect’s sally squarely stands in the bipartisan US tradition of breathtakingly arrogant over-reach. Between sovereign states, to threaten other countries for potentially not using your currency, including in trades amongst themselves, is absurd. To demand that they promise not to even try makes you look like Tony Soprano on ecstasy, a weird mix between a bully and a crank.

But then, don’t blame Trump personally. This is not merely about him being his uncouth self. It’s a whole political culture – for want of a better term – speaking. The extraordinarily boorish pestering comes from the one, “exceptional” state on Earth that has got used to the idea that it can interfere in anyone’s business all the time and wherever it pleases. Be it by “secondary sanctions,” that is economic warfare designed to interfere with commercial relationships the US is not even involved in. Or the judicial insanity weaponized against Australian citizen and journalist Julian Assange, who was persecuted outside the US as if he had to obey American laws, while explicitly not granted even the meager protections that those same laws offer, at least formally, to Americans.  

No surprise there, really. Trump may think he’s very different from the US establishment, but he appears steeped in its self-damaging and shortsighted routine hubris. Yet does his demand even make sense on its own, inappropriate terms? No, not at all, for three reasons.

First, Trump seems to underestimate the sophistication of current de-dollarization discussions centered on BRICS. They are not aiming at the introduction of a new currency akin to the dollar or euro. Indeed, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been explicit about the fact that the euro can only serve as an example of how not to do things. Instead, Russia aims at a more intelligent approach by setting up an international payments system, clearinghouse-style, taking full advantage of cutting-edge digitalization. China, importantly, agrees that it is modern technology that will allow for a gradual recasting of payments around the globe. Whatever will emerge from these initiatives, it will simply be too complex and smart to be amenable to the ham-fisted repression that Trump is trying to threaten.

Secondly, Trump’s tweet is self-defeating because the “100% tariffs” he waves about like a caveman cudgel are simply not believable as a threat – except, that is, the president-elect is prepared to inflict massive pain on the American economy and its consumers. Even his other tariff threats, against China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU, especially in conjunction with his unrealistic promises of tax cuts, imply rising prices and inflation in the US. And inflation played an important role in the defeat of the Democrats.

Finally, Trump’s approach is also self-defeating because it offers further incentives to de-dollarize, as even some Western experts acknowledge. The president-elect has illustrated exactly the kind of brutal and dumb overreach and, to put it simply, flagrant disrespect of other countries’ financial sovereignty that has antagonized the world in the first place. This kind of backfiring is precisely what the Russian presidency’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov has just warned the US about.

But perhaps, to be fair to Trump, there is another way to understand his threats against reducing dollar dependency: namely as a perversely misguided attempt to repair the enormous damage done by US economic warfare under previous administrations, including those of his two Democratic predecessors, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and his own as well.

Most of that damage was done in Washington’s gargantuan yet failing campaign against Russia. Before exiting the White House in 2017, Obama had already increased sanctions against Russia “substantially.” Subsequently, there was a relative lull during the first Trump administration. Where Obama had added 458 sanction targets, Trump still added more – 273 – but at a “much lower rate”: In the US, moderation is doing the same bad thing but more slowly. Congress, meanwhile, made sure that the president would have found it hard to reduce sanctions, even if he had wanted to, by passing the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). 

During Biden’s rule after 2021, then, US sanctions against Russia went from bad to worse: After the 2022 escalation, Biden boasted that his sanctions were “the toughest ever imposed on a major economy.” And, as before, the US was leading an international assault, including the EU and other American clients, such as Canada and Japan. By February of 2024, together they had ramped up the total of sanctions launched with the explicit intent to destroy Russia economically to 16,500.

This historically unprecedented economic warfare attack has not only failed but backfired, as is well known. Western speculators, especially in the US, have enriched themselves (again) through a number of perverse side effects – or were they main effects maybe? – as a recent Jacobin article shows. The inflation backlash triggered may well have contributed to the Democrats smashing defeat in the presidential elections, as noted before. The poor of the world have certainly suffered. And so have major economies as well, especially in a EU-NATO Europe, whose elites have consistently sacrificed the interests and well-being of their own countries, as Russian president Putin has repeatedly and correctly pointed out.  So bad has the fall-out been that even the British Telegraph, as NATO-bellicist as can be, has long noticed.

Trump, facing this total fiasco, you could say, is now desperately attempting to contain one aspect of its continuing fall-out, namely the drive toward de-dollarization. But the tragedy – or irony – is that he is trying to do so by applying even more of the same stupid highhandedness that got us into this mess in the first place. Instead of doing what is obviously needed – drop sanctions and economic warfare in general, including via weaponizing the dollar – he is adding more crude threats. 

Ultimately, it seems, Trump not only has but obstinately cultivates the same mental blind spot as virtually everyone else in the current US elite: He implicitly believes that American power has no limits, and certainly none set by the power of other states. Trump does believe that Washington can make mistakes, because otherwise he could not claim to correct them and “make America great again.” But he cannot grasp that repairing America’s place in the world would take genuine cooperation with others outside the US. Instead, he is betting on yet more bullying. Good luck with that.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian and expert on international politics. He has a BA in Modern History from Oxford University, an MSc in International History from the LSE, and a PhD in History from Princeton University. He has held scholarships at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and directed the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally from Germany, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the USA, and Turkey.

Hybrid WW3

Trump Threatens BRICS with Massive Tariffs

1 Comment

The US president-elect has told BRICS to uphold dollar dominance, promising a 100% tariff if they refuse.

US President-elect Donald Trump has fired a warning shot at the BRICS group of nations, which have been outspoken on confronting the dominance of the dollar in global trade. If the idea gains traction, Trump has promised to impose “100% tariffs,” cutting them off from the “wonderful US economy.” Which country will feel the heat the most? RT explores the economic ties and dependencies to uncover which nations are in the line of fire.

The threat

“We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty US Dollar, or they will face 100% Tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US Economy,” Trump said in a post on Saturday on Truth Social. 

“They can go find another ‘sucker.’ There is no chance that the BRICS will replace the US Dollar in International Trade, and any country that tries should wave goodbye to America,” he added.

The warning came just days after Trump, whose inauguration is set to take place on January 20, 2025, vowed to slap tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China upon taking office. China has already been the target of his rhetoric. Trump previously threatened to impose from 60% to 100% tariffs on imports from the country – however, this burden would have to be carried by American companies and consumers that buy from China, as they would have to pay the new costs.

China was an original member of the BRICS bloc, which also initially included Brazil, Russia, India, and later South Africa, but has since expanded to include Egypt, UAE, Ethiopia, and Iran. Türkiye, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia have submitted applications to join BRICS, and several other nations have also expressed interest in joining.

Some members are eager to reduce their reliance on the US dollar, which has dominated global finance as the world’s reserve currency since after World War II, powering over 80% of international trade.

In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin advocated countering the US ability to wield the dollar as a political weapon. He appeared on the stage of this year’s BRICS Summit holding what looked like a prototype of the bloc’s own banknote. However, he stressed that BRICS’ goal is not to abandon the dollar-dominated SWIFT system completely, but rather to build an alternative.

“We are not refusing, not fighting the dollar, but if they don’t let us work with it, what can we do? We then have to look for other alternatives, which is happening,” Putin said.

In 2023, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva openly questioned why global trade should revolve around the dollar. At the same time, a top Russian official hinted that BRICS nations were actively exploring the creation of their own currency – potentially rewriting the rules of international commerce.

Trump, fresh off an electoral victory fueled in part by his pledge to impose strict tariffs on foreign imports, doubled down on his tough stance by threatening the entire BRICS bloc with 100% tariffs if they proceed with their currency plans. Who’s taking the biggest risk?

The risks for BRICS

Iran

  • Exports to the US: Minimal, due to existing sanctions.
  • The US as export destination: Not a significant partner.
  • Risk assessment: Low. Existing sanctions have already curtailed trade, so additional tariffs would have a negligible impact.

Ethiopia

  • Exports to the US: Limited, primarily agricultural products.
  • The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
  • Risk assessment: Low. The US is a market for Ethiopian goods, but the overall trade volume is modest, reducing the potential impact.

Russia

  • Exports to the US: Focused on mineral fuels and precious metals.
  • The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
  • Risk assessment: Low to moderate. Although the US is a significant market, Russia has a diversified export portfolio and the current geopolitical landscape doesn’t allow Moscow to engage in trade with the US as much as it used to before the flare-up in Ukraine in 2022, which may soften additional tariff impacts.

Egypt

  • Exports to the US: Mainly textiles and agricultural products.
  • The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
  • Risk assessment: Moderate. The US is a key market for Egyptian textiles, so tariffs could negatively affect this sector.

South Africa

  • Exports to the US: Vehicles and minerals are top exports.
  • The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
  • Risk assessment: Moderate to High. The automotive sector, a major part of South Africa’s economy, could face significant challenges due to tariffs.

United Arab Emirates

  • Exports to the US: Mainly petroleum products, aluminum and precious metals.
  • The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
  • Risk assessment: Moderate to High. Key export sectors like aluminum could take a big blow, disrupting the UAE’s trade balance.

India

  • Exports to the US: Exports include pharmaceuticals, textiles, and machinery.
  • The US as export destination: Top export partner.
  • Risk assessment: High. The US is a major market for Indian goods. Tariffs could disrupt multiple industries, especially IT services and textiles.

Brazil

  • Exports to the US: Crude petroleum and aircraft are leading exports.
  • The US as export destination: Second-largest export partner.
  • Risk assessment: High. The country has a significant reliance on the US market, especially for high-value goods like aircraft. This makes Brazil highly vulnerable to tariffs.

China

  • Exports to the US: Exports encompass electronics, machinery, and textiles.
  • The US as export destination: Largest export partner.
  • Risk assessment: Very High. As the largest exporter to the US, China would face substantial economic repercussions from a 100% tariff, affecting numerous sectors. Outside the BRICS context, Trump has already threatened China with tariffs, so Beijing may already be considering its options, with or without a dollar alternative.

While BRICS nations are mulling challenging US economic dominance, they should tread carefully, since the US holds a formidable trade position, especially under the assertive policies of President-elect Trump. The US remains a top export destination for key BRICS members – China, India and Brazil. Those countries rely heavily on US markets. America’s strong economic leverage, combined with Trump’s history of aggressive trade tactics, positions Washington to exert significant pressure on individual members of the group.

The risks for the US

If imposed, Trump’s tariffs would not only affect certain BRICS economies, but also the US itself. Here’s how it could play out:

Higher costs for US consumers

  • China: As the largest exporter to the US, a 100% tariff on Chinese goods (electronics, machinery, textiles) would lead to serious price hikes.
  • Impact: Higher costs for essential consumer goods would contribute to inflation. The cost of living for Americans would rise, which would disproportionately affect low- and middle-income households.

Supply chain disruptions

  • India and Brazil: India is a key supplier of pharmaceuticals, and Brazil exports crude oil, agricultural products, and aircraft components.
  • Impact: 100% tariffs would lead to shortages or increased costs in critical industries like healthcare and aviation. US manufacturers might find it quite tough to replace these imports quickly.

Retaliatory tariffs

  • BRICS+ nations are likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US exports, including agricultural products, machinery, and technology.
  • Impact: US farmers and manufacturers would have to face a decrease in access to key international markets. This would reduce their competitiveness and lead to potential job losses in these sectors.

Geopolitical consequences

  • Economic Isolation: By targeting BRICS+, the US risks accelerating their efforts to de-dollarize the global economy, which would in time reduce the dollar’s power.
  • Impact: This could erode the US position in global finance, diminishing its ability to use economic weight to influence geopolitics.

Stock market volatility

  • The combination of inflation, supply chain disruptions, and declining international trade would likely send financial markets into chaos.
  • Impact: Investors may pull back, leading to volatility in stock prices and potentially dampening business investment.

The US industries which would feel the heat the most are the following:

Electronics and technology

  • Main source: China
  • Impact: China accounts for a significant share of electronics imports (such as smartphones, computers, and semiconductors), and a 100% tariff would dramatically increase costs. Domestic technology companies would struggle to source affordable components, leading to higher consumer prices and slowed innovation.

Pharmaceuticals

  • Main source: India
  • Impact: India is a major supplier of generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients to the US. Tariffs would raise healthcare costs, potentially creating shortages and increasing reliance on expensive alternatives.

Automotive

  • Main source: South Africa and Brazil
  • Impact: South Africa exports vehicles and parts, while Brazil supplies steel and aluminum. Tariffs would disrupt supply chains, raising manufacturing costs for cars and trucks and pushing prices higher for consumers.

Aerospace

  • Main source: Brazil
  • Impact: Brazil’s aircraft industry, particularly Embraer, provides parts and planes to US companies. Tariffs would disrupt this collaboration, increasing costs for airlines and aerospace manufacturers.

Agriculture and food

  • Main source: BRICS countries
  • Impact: Imports like coffee (Brazil), tea (India), fruits, and seafood from BRICS countries would face sharp price increases, making these staples more expensive for US consumers and disrupting food supply chains.

Even though imposing 100% tariffs might align with Trump’s ‘America First’ policy and may even give a short-term boost to the domestic industries, the long-term risks outweigh the benefits significantly. Prices for consumers would be higher, supply chains would be disrupted, and BRICS could retaliate – all of which could hamper US economic growth, increase inflation, and weaken the dollar’s dominance.

The prospects

Could BRICS counter the tariffs?

Yes, and there are several strategies they might use. Firstly, they could strengthen trade ties within the bloc, reducing reliance on US markets. Additionally, they could explore deeper trade relationships with non-aligned nations. The use of local currencies in trade could further push BRICS to pursue the creation of a payment system outside of the dollar. Countries that rely the most on US imports could try to subsidize the affected industries to maintain their competitiveness while they transition to alternative markets. On top of that, BRICS members could increase their global economic weight by framing the US tariffs as poisonous to global trade stability.

Is de-dollarization actually possible?

The idea of reducing reliance on the dollar in international trade and finance is gaining momentum. However, even if the BRICS countries try to move forward with that strategy, it is not going to be easy, as US dollar dominance is deeply rooted in trust, liquidity, and the widespread use of dollar-denominated assets. Its replacement, or even the reduction of its use in world trade, requires not just new technical infrastructure, but also widespread agreement to adopt it by global trading partners. Recent developments – increased trade in local currencies and BRICS currency discussions – reflect serious intent, but the road ahead will likely be a slow one. For now, the group can prioritize small steps, such as creating and implementing independent digital payment platforms.

A mathematical model published in 2023 in ‘Applied Network Science’ predicts that BRICS has strong potential to establish dominance in international trade through a unified currency. According to this study, based purely on trade flows and excluding political factors, about 58% of countries would already prefer a BRICS-backed currency over the US dollar (19%) or euro (23%).

Could Trump actually introduce tariffs?

It seems moderately possible. Protectionist policies align with his campaign promises, and his previous term showed that he was willing to use tariffs to achieve his political and economic goals – for example, a trade war with China. However, the potential price hikes may lead to public backlash, which could deter the move. US allies in Europe and other regions may also oppose the tariffs if they destabilize global trade and economic relations. Notably, Trump has previously used threats as a geopolitical tool without actually following through on them. He could be employing a similar tactic again.

Abbas Duncan, RT editor

Hybrid WW3, Military Industrial Complex

Israel’s Air Defense and the Weakness of the U.S. Navy

Leave a comment

These lines were written on CNN, the voice of the Democratic Party close to the US neocons, at a time when US President Biden announced that he had not yet received a guarantee that Israel would not target nuclear facilities in a possible counter-attack on Iran. This is clearly an expression of the US being held hostage by Netanyahu.

Continue reading Israel’s Air Defense and the Weakness of the U.S. Navy →
Hybrid WW3, Nazism & Zionism

Shattered Myth of Invincibility

Leave a comment

Recent satellite imagery reveals that Iran’s massive ballistic missile attack on Israel on October 1st successfully overwhelmed Israeli air defenses, despite causing limited damage due to the intentional non-use of non-nuclear warheads, and despite of the assistance provided by a US aircraft nearby.

Continue reading Shattered Myth of Invincibility →
Hybrid WW3, Nazism & Zionism

Iran Launches Missile Attack on Israel Amid Escalating Regional Tensions

Leave a comment

In a significant escalation of Middle Eastern conflicts, Iran has launched a barrage of ballistic missiles towards Israel. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced on Tuesday evening that “missiles were launched from Iran towards the State of Israel,” instructing civilians to seek shelter upon hearing alert sirens.

Continue reading Iran Launches Missile Attack on Israel Amid Escalating Regional Tensions →
Genocide, UN, WTO, WHO

The UN Won’t Protect Gaza, But Can Adopt A ‘Pact for the Future?’

Leave a comment

The United Nations has become a parody of itself. As world leaders gathered in New York this week, Gaza, Lebanon, and Palestine were nowhere on the agenda, but a rammed-through US Pact designed to protect the ‘rules-based order’ was right at the top.

Continue reading The UN Won’t Protect Gaza, But Can Adopt A ‘Pact for the Future?’ →
Hybrid WW3

Global Nuclear Tensions Upgraded

Leave a comment

In an era marked by increasing geopolitical tensions, recent developments in nuclear doctrine and military capabilities among world powers have raised concerns about global stability.

Continue reading Global Nuclear Tensions Upgraded →
Geopolitics, Hybrid WW3

Indonesia-Russia Relations: A Comprehensive Analysis

Leave a comment

As we stand on the cusp of a new era in international relations, the partnership between Indonesia and Russia emerges as a pivotal alliance that could reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

Continue reading Indonesia-Russia Relations: A Comprehensive Analysis →
Hybrid WW3, Nazism & Zionism

Israel-Lebanon Conflict: Escalating Tensions and Humanitarian Concerns

Leave a comment

As of September 24, 2024, the situation along the Israel-Lebanon border has taken a drastic turn, with reports of massive Israeli airstrikes targeting southern and eastern Lebanon.

This escalation marks a significant development in the ongoing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, raising concerns about the potential for a wider regional conflict.

Massive Israeli Airstrikes

According to the Lebanese Health Ministry’s Emergency Operations Center, a wave of Israeli airstrikes on September 23 resulted in at least 182 fatalities and 727 injuries, including civilians, women, and children. The attacks targeted various areas in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa region, with hundreds of strikes reported within hours.

Key Points:

  • Over 180 people killed in Israeli airstrikes
  • Hundreds of strikes targeting southern and eastern Lebanon
  • Civilian homes destroyed in multiple villages
  • Bekaa region also targeted in the attacks

The National News Agency (NNA) of Lebanon reported that several civilian homes were destroyed in villages such as Sohmor in the Bekaa and various areas in the south. The Israeli military intensified its raids on all areas, including valleys and outskirts of towns in the western sector of south Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s Response

In response to the Israeli attacks, Hezbollah’s military media announced that its fighters targeted several Israeli military installations, including:

  • The reserve headquarters of the Northern Corps
  • The reserve base of the Galilee Division and its logistical warehouses in the Amiad base
  • Military industries complexes of the Rafael Company in the Zevulun area north of Haifa

These targets were reportedly struck with dozens of rockets, marking a significant escalation in Hezbollah’s offensive capabilities.

Israeli Warnings and Strategy

The Israeli army sent text messages to Lebanese citizens in south Lebanon and the Bekaa, warning them to “stay away” from Hezbollah sites. This communication preceded the intense airstrikes across the region.

An Israeli security source told Yedioth Ahronoth that the Air Force planned to launch “wide and powerful attacks across Lebanon during the early afternoon hours.”

Recent Escalations

The current situation follows a series of events that have heightened tensions in the region:

  1. On September 22, Hezbollah struck deep within Israel, targeting the Ramat David airbase and a Rafael military industry site in the Haifa area.
  2. On September 20, Israel assassinated two top Hezbollah commanders and several fighters in a strike on Beirut, which also resulted in civilian casualties.
  3. Earlier, Israel had carried out a terror attack in Lebanon, detonating thousands of communication devices distributed to Hezbollah members, resulting in numerous casualties and injuries.

Potential for Further Escalation

The situation remains highly volatile, with the potential for further escalation on both sides. The international community watches closely as these events unfold, concerned about the humanitarian impact and the risk of a broader regional conflict.

Humanitarian Concerns

The escalating conflict has raised significant humanitarian concerns:

  • High civilian casualty rates
  • Destruction of homes and infrastructure
  • Potential displacement of populations in affected areas
  • Risk of a wider humanitarian crisis if the conflict continues to escalate

International Response

As of the time of writing, the international community’s response to this latest escalation is still developing. It is expected that various nations and international organizations will call for de-escalation and a return to diplomatic channels to resolve the ongoing tensions.

Conclusion

The situation between Israel and Lebanon remains highly volatile and dangerous. As both sides continue to engage in military actions, the risk of a larger conflict looms, especially when the political survival of Bibi Netanyahu necessitates the continuance of hostilities in the region.

The coming days will be crucial in determining whether diplomatic efforts can succeed in de-escalating the situation or if the region will face a more protracted and potentially devastating conflict.

Covert Geopolitics is an independent online platform for in-depth analysis of international affairs, geopolitics, and emerging global trends. We strive to provide accurate, timely, and insightful coverage of major world events and their implications. We are committed to journalistic integrity, factual reporting, and fostering informed discourse on complex global issues. © 2024 Covert Geopolitics. All rights reserved.

Geopolitics, Hybrid WW3, Nazism & Zionism

Lebanon Pager Attack: A Montrous Act of Terrorism by MOSSAD

Leave a comment

In a shocking turn of events, Lebanon has been rocked by what many are calling a “monstrous act of terrorism.” On a fateful Tuesday, thousands of pagers simultaneously detonated across the country, leaving a trail of destruction, death, and injury in their wake.

Continue reading Lebanon Pager Attack: A Montrous Act of Terrorism by MOSSAD →
Nazism & Zionism, Terrorism

From 11 September to 7 October: The Fake ‘War on Terror’ Collapses

1 Comment

For years, the US executed Israel’s regional destabilization program using phantom terrorists as justification for the ‘War on Terror.’ But 7 October 2023 killed Washington’s never-ending war project – with a flip of the switch, US adversaries have now turned the ‘Long War’ on Israel.

Continue reading From 11 September to 7 October: The Fake ‘War on Terror’ Collapses →
Geopolitics, Hybrid WW3

Russia-Mongolia Relations and Global Nuclear Dynamics: A Comprehensive Analysis

Leave a comment

In an ever-evolving geopolitical landscape, the relationship between Russia and Mongolia has taken center stage, highlighting the intricate dance of diplomacy, strategic partnerships, and global power dynamics.

Continue reading Russia-Mongolia Relations and Global Nuclear Dynamics: A Comprehensive Analysis →
Military Industrial Complex, Nazism & Zionism

A Return to Form: Expediting US Weapons and Military Supplies to Israel

Leave a comment

Despite much grandstanding in the Biden administration about halting specific arms shipments to Israel over feigned concerns about how they might be used (inflicting death is the expected form), US military supplies have been restored with barely a murmur.  In a report in Haaretz on August 29, a rush of weapons to Israel has been noticed since the end of July.

Continue reading A Return to Form: Expediting US Weapons and Military Supplies to Israel →
Multipolar World

The Evolving Landscape of UN Security Council Sanctions

Leave a comment

The world has undergone a remarkable transformation since the end of the Cold War, transitioning from a unipolar order dominated by the United States to a more multipolar landscape.

Continue reading The Evolving Landscape of UN Security Council Sanctions →
BRICS / SCO / EAEU, Military Industrial Complex

The Enduring Significance of Military Alliances in Global Politics

Leave a comment

In the ever-evolving landscape of international relations, military alliances continue to play a pivotal role in shaping global politics. From ancient Greece to the modern era, these strategic partnerships have been instrumental in maintaining peace, deterring aggression, and sometimes, unfortunately, in waging wars.

Continue reading The Enduring Significance of Military Alliances in Global Politics →
BRICS / SCO / EAEU

With Belarus and Azerbaijan Becoming BRICS Members, Russia Gains Weight in Eurasia

Leave a comment

Russia today is taking another pivotal moment in its history, (with a series of many landmark issues) under its presidency of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), referred to as informal association, consistently forging collaborative relations with developing countries.

Continue reading With Belarus and Azerbaijan Becoming BRICS Members, Russia Gains Weight in Eurasia →
Geopolitics, NarcoState, Philippine Affairs

People Power 2024 Has Been Initiated to Remove the Marcos Jr. Narco-Gov’t

Leave a comment

Only one media network is broadcasting what’s really going on inside the raid of the once pristine place of worship of the 8-million strong Kingdom of Jesus Christ religious group behind the successful operation against the communist movement and the rule of the Jesuit-installed oligarchy in the country.

Continue reading People Power 2024 Has Been Initiated to Remove the Marcos Jr. Narco-Gov’t →
Press Freedom / Whistleblowing, Surveillance

Pavel Durov’s Arrest: A Turning Point for Free Speech and Online Privacy

Leave a comment

In a shocking turn of events, Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of the popular messaging app Telegram, was arrested at Paris-Le Bourget Airport on a Saturday in 2024. This incident has sent ripples through the tech world and raised serious concerns about the future of online privacy and free speech.

Continue reading Pavel Durov’s Arrest: A Turning Point for Free Speech and Online Privacy →
Geopolitics, One Belt One Road

Cooperation vs. Confrontation in the Indo-Pacific

Leave a comment

In the complex landscape of international relations, two distinct paradigms have emerged in the Indo-Pacific region. On one side, there’s a push for mutual progress and development through economic cooperation and infrastructure projects.

Continue reading Cooperation vs. Confrontation in the Indo-Pacific →
NATO, Ukrainian Crisis

This European Region Could Be the Next Ukraine

Leave a comment

The conflict between Russia and the West won’t end after Kiev is no longer viable as a proxy.

The “Ukraine crisis” is not actually an accurate name for what is happening now in relations between Russia and the West. This confrontation is global. It touches virtually every functional area – from finance to pharmaceuticals to sport – and spans many geographical regions.

In Europe, which has become the epicenter of this confrontation, the highest level of tension outside Ukraine is now in the Baltic region. The question often asked in Russia (and in the West) is: Will this become the next theater of war?

In Western Europe and North America, a scenario has long been contemplated in which the Russian Army, after its victory in Ukraine, continues to march forward – next seeking to conquer the Baltic republics and Poland.

The purpose of this simple propaganda fantasy is clear: to convince Western Europeans that if they do not “invest fully” in supporting Kiev, they may end up with a war on their own territory.

It is telling that almost no one in the EU dares to publicly ask whether Moscow is interested in a direct armed conflict with NATO. What would its aims be in such a war? And what price would it be willing to pay? Obviously, even posing such questions could lead to accusations of spreading Russian propaganda.

Our country takes note of provocative statements made by our northwestern neighbors, the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Finns. They have referred to the possibility of blockading the Kaliningrad exclave by sea and land, and closing Russia’s exit from the Gulf of Finland. Such statements are mostly made by retired politicians, but sometimes sitting ministers and military officers also raise their voices.

The threats do not cause panic among Russians. Decisions of this magnitude are made in Washington, not in Warsaw or Tallinn. Nevertheless, the situation cannot be ignored.

The Baltic Sea region lost its status as the most stable and peaceful region in Europe many years ago. Since Poland (1999), Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (2004), and most recently Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024) joined NATO, it became, as they proudly and happily repeat in Brussels, a “NATO lake.” It is a two-hour drive from Narva (i.e. NATO) to St. Petersburg. After Finland joined the US-led bloc, the line of direct contact increased by 1,300km, meaning it doubled. St. Petersburg is less than 150km from this border. Thus, the price of Moscow’s voluntary abandonment of the principle of geopolitical containment at the end of the Cold War was high.

NATO territory has not only expanded and moved closer to the Russian border; it is actively being equipped for operations. Corridors for rapid access of NATO forces to the frontier (the so-called military Schengen) have become operational; new military bases are being built and existing ones are being upgraded; the physical presence of US and allied forces in the region is increasing; military, air and naval exercises are becoming more intensive and extensive. Washington’s announcement that it intends to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Germany in 2026 draws parallels with the so-called Euro-missile crisis of the early 1980s, which was considered the most dangerous period of the Cold War after the Cuban standoff in October 1962.

The current situation in the northwest is forcing Moscow to strengthen its strategy of military deterrence against the enemy. A number of steps have already been taken. To bolster non-nuclear deterrence, the Leningrad Military District has been reconstituted and new formations and units are being created where they had long been absent. Military integration between Russia and Belarus has progressed significantly. Nuclear weapons have already been deployed on Belarusian territory. Exercises involving Moscow’s non-strategic nuclear forces have taken place. Official warnings have been issued that, under certain conditions, military facilities in the territory of NATO countries will become legitimate targets. A modernization of Russia’s nuclear doctrine has been announced. Atomic deterrence is becoming a more active tool of Russian strategy.

We can only hope that Washington realizes that a naval blockade of Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg would be a casus belli – an excuse to declare war. The current American administration does not seem to desire a major direct conflict with Russia. But history shows that they sometimes happen when neither side seems to want them. The strategy of creeping escalation in order to strategically defeat Russia, which the US has adopted in the protracted proxy war in Ukraine, carries with it the risk of just such a scenario, where the logic of a process once set in motion begins to determine political and military decisions and the situation quickly spirals out of control.

Another danger lies in Washington’s de facto encouragement not only of irresponsible rhetoric but also of irresponsible action by American satellites. The latter, convinced of their impunity, may go too far in thoughtlessly provoking Moscow, thereby bringing the US and Russia into direct armed conflict. Again, we can only hope that America’s instinct for self-preservation will be stronger than its arrogance.

Hopes are hopes, but it is clear that Russia has already exhausted its reserve of verbal warnings. The hostile actions of our adversaries do not call for condemnation, but for an appropriate response. We are now talking about airfields in NATO countries, including Poland, where the F-16s handed over to Kiev may well be based; possible attempts by Estonia and Finland to disrupt shipping in the Gulf of Finland; the prospect of Lithuania cutting the railway link between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia on various pretexts; and significant threats to our ally Belarus. A tough response at an early stage in the development of each of these possible schemes has a better chance of preventing a dangerous escalation. Of course, the strongest position for Russia is to be proactive, to pursue a preventive strategy in which Moscow does not react to the enemy’s escalatory steps, but takes the strategic initiative.

It should be borne in mind that Russia’s confrontation with the collective West will continue after the end of active military operations against Ukraine. From the Arctic, which is a separate area of rivalry, to the Black Sea, there is already a solid, unbroken dividing line. European security is no longer a relevant concept, and Eurasian security, including the European component, is a matter for the distant future. A long period of “non-world peace” lies ahead, during which Russia will have to rely on its own forces and capabilities rather than on agreements with Western states for its security. For the foreseeable future, the Baltic region – that once-promising bridge on the road to a “Greater Europe” – is likely to be the most militarized and Russia-hostile part of the neighborhood. How stable the situation will be depends, of course, on the goals of the Ukraine operation being achieved.

This article was first published by Profile.ru, and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Dmitry Trenin, a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

Banking & Finance, Geopolitics, Hybrid WW3

The Global Gambit: Unraveling the Complexities of Russian Asset Confiscation

2 Comments

In a bold move that has sent ripples through the global financial community, the United States House of Representatives has passed legislation that could pave the way for the confiscation of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets.

Continue reading The Global Gambit: Unraveling the Complexities of Russian Asset Confiscation →
Genocide, Nazism & Zionism

Tensions Soar as Iran Issues Aviation Warning and Hamas Appoints New Leader

Leave a comment

In a rapidly evolving situation that threatens to destabilize the already volatile Middle East, Iran has issued a stark warning to aviators as it contemplates retaliatory action against Israel.

Continue reading Tensions Soar as Iran Issues Aviation Warning and Hamas Appoints New Leader →
Banking & Finance, Stock Market

Global Market Crash 2024: Causes, Consequences, and the Fed’s Role

Leave a comment

The global financial markets experienced a significant shock on August 5, 2024, as fears of a potential US recession triggered a widespread sell-off across various asset classes. This article explores the causes and consequences of this market crash, its impact on different sectors, and the role of the Federal Reserve in stabilizing the situation.

Continue reading Global Market Crash 2024: Causes, Consequences, and the Fed’s Role →
Corporatocracy / Fascism

Food, Dispossession and Dependency

Leave a comment

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

Continue reading Food, Dispossession and Dependency →
Banking & Finance, Economy, Financial Crisis

The Great Divide: Unveiling the Gap Between Paper and Physical Economies

Leave a comment

In the intricate web of global finance, a puzzling phenomenon has captured the attention of economists, policymakers, and financial experts alike: the growing chasm between the size of the economy as represented on paper and the tangible, physical economy that exists in the real world.

Continue reading The Great Divide: Unveiling the Gap Between Paper and Physical Economies →
Hybrid WW3, Middle East, Nazism & Zionism

Escalation in Middle East: Netanyahu’s High-Stakes Gamble Risks Regional Escalation

Leave a comment

The recent assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran has sent shockwaves through the Middle East, potentially derailing ceasefire negotiations and risking a wider regional conflict.

Continue reading Escalation in Middle East: Netanyahu’s High-Stakes Gamble Risks Regional Escalation →
BRICS / SCO / EAEU, Multipolar World

China’s Diplomatic Efforts Reshaping Middle East and Ukraine Conflicts

Leave a comment

In recent years, China has emerged as a significant diplomatic player on the world stage, filling voids left by diminishing US involvement in key global conflicts. From brokering peace deals in the Middle East to mediating discussions on the Ukraine crisis, Beijing’s influence is reshaping international relations and challenging the traditional dominance of Western powers.

Continue reading China’s Diplomatic Efforts Reshaping Middle East and Ukraine Conflicts →
Geopolitics, Nazism & Zionism

War Criminal Benjamin Netanyahu Addresses the US Congress

1 Comment

To my surprise, last Thursday morning there was relatively little coverage of the address to the US Congress delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Wednesday afternoon apart from a critical opinion piece that appeared in the New York Times regarding Israel’s war on the Palestinians.

Continue reading War Criminal Benjamin Netanyahu Addresses the US Congress →
Geopolitics, White House

Engineering a Crisis: How Political Theater Helps the Deep State Stay in Power

Leave a comment

“The two ‘sides’ of mainstream politics are not fighting against one another, they’re only fighting against you. Their only job is to keep you clapping along with the two-handed puppet show as they rob you blind and tighten your chains while your gaze is fixed on the performance.”—Caitlin Johnstone

Continue reading Engineering a Crisis: How Political Theater Helps the Deep State Stay in Power →
Big Tech, Technocracy

Global IT Meltdown: CrowdStrike Update Paralyzes Air Travel and Media Worldwide

1 Comment

In an unprecedented technological catastrophe, a faulty software update from cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike triggered a global IT outage on July 19, 2024, causing widespread disruptions across multiple sectors.

Continue reading Global IT Meltdown: CrowdStrike Update Paralyzes Air Travel and Media Worldwide →
Ukrainian Crisis, White House

The Shifting Tides of Power: Trump, Ukraine, and the Future of US Foreign Policy

Leave a comment

In a world where geopolitical tensions continue to escalate, recent events have thrust the complex relationship between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia back into the spotlight.

Continue reading The Shifting Tides of Power: Trump, Ukraine, and the Future of US Foreign Policy →
Nazism & Zionism

ICJ Declares Israel’s Occupation Illegal: Global Reactions and Implications

Leave a comment

In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories illegal, marking a significant moment in the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This advisory opinion, sought by the United Nations General Assembly, has sent ripples through the international community and reignited debates about the future of the occupied territories.

Continue reading ICJ Declares Israel’s Occupation Illegal: Global Reactions and Implications →