Putin and Xi Have Red Lines, Too

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on April 13, 2021

https://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2021/04/12/putin-and-xi-have-red-lines-too/

In recent days, Russian tanks, artillery, armor, trucks, and troops have been moving by road and rail ever closer to Ukraine, and Moscow is said to be repositioning its 56th Guards Air Assault Brigade in Crimea.

Military sources in Kyiv estimate there are now 85,000 Russian troops between six and 25 miles from Ukraine’s northern and eastern borders.

"I have real concerns about Russia’s actions on the borders of Ukraine. There are more Russian forces massed on those borders than at any time since 2014 when Russia first invaded," said Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday’s "Meet the Press." Blinken added this warning:

"President Biden’s been very clear about this. If Russia acts recklessly, or aggressively, there will be costs, there will be consequences."

What "costs" and what "consequences" were left unstated.

Earlier, Biden personally assured President Volodymyr Zelensky of America’s "unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea."

What does that mean?

When Putin was a young KGB officer, the Black Sea was a virtual Soviet lake, dominated in the west by Warsaw Pact members Bulgaria and Romania, and on the north and east by the USSR. Turkey occupied the south bank.

Today, three of the six countries that front on the Black Sea – Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey – are NATO members. Two of the others, Ukraine and Georgia, openly aspire to become members of NATO.

If Russia feels a sense of loss and forced isolation, who can blame them?

The transparency of the Russian military buildup suggests that it is more of a message to the U.S. and NATO than any preparation for an invasion.

Putin seems to be saying: Ukraine’s admission to NATO or stationing of US or NATO forces in that country would cross a red line for Russia. And we will not rule out military action to prevent or counter it.

The record suggests that Putin is not bluffing.

We have been here twice before.

In 2008, when Georgia invaded South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Georgia in the 1990s, Putin sent troops into South Ossetia, drove the Georgians out, and then invaded Georgia and occupied part of that country as an object lesson.

And though the US had regarded Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili as a friend and Georgia as a potential NATO ally, George W. Bush did nothing.

Again, in 2014, when a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the elected and pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, Putin occupied and annexed Crimea and assisted pro-Russian rebels in the Donbas in breaking free of Kyiv’s control.

In short, when it comes to Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated that it has its own red lines, which it will back up with military action.

The US and NATO, however, have shown repeatedly that while they will give moral support and provide military aid to Ukraine, they are not going to fight Russia over Ukraine, or to wrest Crimea or the Donbas from Putin’s control.

A similar test is taking place in the South and East China seas.

Also on Sunday’s "Meet the Press," Blinken was asked if the United States would fight to defend Taiwan, which is being harassed and threatened by XI Jinping’s China, which claims the island as its sovereign national territory.

"Are we prepared to defend Taiwan militarily?" NBC’s Chuck Todd asked.

Blinken’s response:

"What we’ve seen, and what is of real concern to us, is increasingly aggressive actions by the government in Beijing directed at Taiwan, raising tensions in the Straits. And we have a commitment to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act … All I can tell you is it would be a serious mistake for anyone to try to change the existing status quo by force."

Since Biden’s presidency began, China has been sending military aircraft, fighters, and bombers, into Taiwanese air space, circumnavigating the island with warships, and openly warning that any declaration of independence by Taipei would mean war with Beijing.

Thus, Russia has made clear what it would fight to prevent – Ukraine’s accession to NATO and NATO troops on its soil. And China has made clear what its red line is, what it would fight to prevent – the declared independence of Taiwan.

But US policy in both cases seems to be one of "strategic ambiguity," leaving the issue open as to what we would do.

A question arises: Are Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China, with their advantages of geographic proximity, threatening military action to jointly test the resolve of the Biden administration, and colluding to do so – one in Ukraine, the other in the South and East China Seas?

And, should we fight for Ukraine, how many NATO allies would be there beside us? And should we fight to keep Taiwan free, how many Asian allies would fight China alongside us?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

 

Secretary of State Blinken Throws Down the Gauntlet to China and Russia… Again

by Rick Rozoff Posted on April 12, 2021

https://original.antiwar.com/Rick_Rozoff/2021/04/11/secretary-of-state-blinken-throws-down-the-gauntlet-to-china-and-russia-again/

America began a new week with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. One might forgive a traveler from another land or time forming the impression that almost all U.S. television news, cable, and network alike consisted of different channels of Voice of the White House. (Or the Pentagon Broadcasting Service.) Being the foreign policy chief of the Biden-Harris administration, Blinken was treated with the utmost deference except when he appeared to be slipping away from saber-rattling and toward some facsimile of diplomacy, as will be seen below. In return, Blinken endearingly addressed Todd as Chuck. The direct address with the personal touch didn’t prevent Todd from goading Blinken on to new heights of obloquy and hostility toward Russia and China, though. Asking the tough questions is how the likes of Todd would phrase it, no doubt.

Perhaps the first third of the program focused on Covid-19 and what Blinken matter of factly referred to COVAX, though it’s doubtful many viewers had heard the term before. Even in that context he didn’t let slip the opportunity to deliver himself of this chastisement:

“I think China knows that in the early stages of Covid, it didn’t do what it needed to do, which was to, in real-time, give access to international experts, in real-time to share information, in real-time to provide real transparency. And one result of that failure is that the vaccine – the virus, excuse me, got out of hand faster and with, I think, much more egregious results than it might otherwise.”

Nothing more perturbing than an egregious virus.

Without blinking an eyelid Todd then fired this question at his guest:

“Are we prepared to defend Taiwan militarily?”

Quite a segue from the Coronavirus. In fact, as will be seen, Todd regularly prompted, and prodded, Blinken into making bellicose statements in relation to China and Russia, at one point questioning the resolve if not the manhood of his guest.

Blinken responded in the manner he was primed to: “So, Chuck, what we’ve seen, and what is of real concern to us is increasingly aggressive actions by the government in Beijing directed at Taiwan, raising tensions in the Straits. And we have a commitment to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act….And all I can tell you is it would be a serious mistake for anyone to try to change the existing status quo by force.”

He repeated the last line twice in the interview, as he did a comparable one directed toward Russia.

Todd then raised the ante by stating: “I understand that. So it does sound like you’re saying that, look, we have commitments. And if China does try something in Taiwan, we will militarily respond?”

No subtlety there. Recall he was speaking to what is traditionally described as the U.S.’s top diplomat yet he eliminated all intermediate steps and measures to push for the military necessity. Blinken answered by again asserting “it would be a serious mistake for anyone to try to change that status quo by force.”

Todd then chided, really reproached, Blinken by saying that as the U.S. hasn’t been confrontational enough with Russia over the Donbas and Crimea then China will question America’s commitment to defending Taiwan. The secretary hastened to disabuse Todd of any notion that he wasn’t as assertive as Todd would want him to be in saying, “the United States…led a very significant international effort to impose real costs and sanctions on Russia for its aggression in Crimea, in the Donbas.”

Afraid that he couldn’t coax any more aggressive and threatening content from his guest, Todd followed up Blinken’s assurances with: “How’s that worked out? In fairness, sir?”

The point is transparent that if Washington would be more confrontational with Russia, up to and including with military force, China would get the message that it’s prepared to go to war against it as well.

Blinken fumbled for a minute and Todd, nothing loath, intensified the demand for confrontation with Russia over Ukraine with, “I mean, it hasn’t worked out very well.”

That last sentence succeeded in coaxing out of Blinken (most likely it was meant to assign him the role of a reluctant advocate of the military option) the reaction he was aiming at: “If Russia acts recklessly, or aggressively, there will be costs, there will be consequences.”

Still not content with his efforts to push the world’s two major nuclear powers further down the path of no return, Todd didn’t relent and offered this: “Mr. Secretary, what you just outlined on Russia sounds like the exact same policy the Obama-Biden administration had towards Russia on this. That was – that has not positioned Russia to be better actors. That didn’t – that policy, arguably, didn’t work. We’re not saying that Trump’s policy worked either. What do you say to that?”

Nothing short of Blinken announcing that the U.S. was bombing Moscow in five minutes would have slaked Todd’s insatiable thirst for a U.S.-Russia showdown. The Punch and Judy show continued with Blinken repeating again in relation to Russia what he had said regarding China twice as well, that “when it comes to Russia’s actions, there’ll be costs and consequences if it acts recklessly and aggressively….”

Once again with no approximation or pretense of transition, Todd blurted out:

“You said that China’s treatment of the Uyghurs was, quote, ‘an effort to commit genocide.’ And I guess I’ve got to ask it this way: How do you justify doing business with China or any country that you believe is committing genocide?”

Blinken complied with: “When it comes to what we’re seeing from the government in Beijing, including with regard to the Uyghurs and the actions, it’s taken in Xinjiang, yes, I think that’s, that’s exactly the right description….”

He added that he was prepared to work with China on other matters “even as we stand resolutely against egregious violations of human rights or in this case, acts of genocide.”

The two then moved on to Afghanistan concerning which Blinken at NATO headquarters last month repeated the NATO bromide about “we went in together, we’ll come out together.” That is, the upcoming twentieth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of the nation by the U.S. and NATO will not be the last one.

Though no two cases are exactly alike, the irony of threatening one fellow nuclear power – Russia – for obstructing the reunification of Ukraine while threatening another – China – for seeking reunification of its country seems rather contradictory. The country the U.S. identifies as its closest ally in the world has for decades the occupied territory it seized from its neighbors and treats a religious and ethnic minority within that territory in a manner some would compare to Todd’s and Blinken’s characterization of China’s treatment of its Uyghurs. That country wasn’t mentioned in the Meet the Press episode. It’s never been told that “it would be a serious mistake for anyone to try to change the existing status quo by force” or “If [it] acts recklessly, or aggressively, there will be costs, there will be consequences.”

No, those threats are reserved for Russia and China. When Blinken arrives at NATO headquarters later this week to join Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese rhetoric will be ratcheted up yet more.

Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. He is the manager of Stop NATO. This originally appeared at Anti-Bellum.

 

Bacanora compró a precio de ganga tierras ricas en litio

Braulio Carbajal

 

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2021/04/11/economia/015n2eco 

Periódico La Jornada
Domingo 11 de abril de 2021, p. 15

Hace una década, Bacanora Lithium adquirió de un particular los derechos de explotación de más de 3 mil hectáreas en el noreste de Sonora. Para la cesión, según documentos de la empresa, desembolsó aproximadamente 7 millones de pesos, un precio de ganga para hacerse con el control de lo que a la postre se reveló como el más grande yacimiento de litio en México, proyecto que, estima la minera, dejará ingresos por mil 200 millones de dólares.

A principios de los 90, un grupo de investigadores estadunidenses obtuvo la concesión de una porción de tierra ubicada en la región limítrofe entre Chihuahua y Sonora, afectada por la actividad del crimen organizado. Su objetivo era extraer boro, un material usado en la industria para fabricar limpiadores y jabones.

No obstante, tras varios estudios, concluyeron que el boro encontrado en la zona era anómalo, por lo que al poco tiempo decidieron abandonar la región.

Casi 20 años después, en 2010, Bacanora, una empresa que en ese entonces era de capital canadiense (ahora es inglesa) inició campañas de recogida de muestras en el área con el objetivo de extraer boro; sin embargo, de manera fortuita descubrió que la región era rica en litio, mineral que en ese entonces comenzaba a ser objeto de mayor atención por su uso en la naciente industria de los autos eléctricos.

En ese entonces, los derechos de explotación de las tierras estaban en manos de un particular, a quien Bacanora, de acuerdo con un informe a inversionistas fechado en 2013, compró en 2010 las concesiones por un precio de 40 mil dólares (490 mil pesos al tipo de cambio de entonces) y la cesión de 500 mil acciones de Bacanora a un precio de un dólar por acción, lo que equivalía a aproximadamente 6 millones 200 mil pesos.

A lo anterior, poco menos de 7 millones de pesos, se debe sumar la inversión de 420 millones de dólares que se espera hará Bacanora Lithium para echar a andar su proyecto en Sonora, yacimiento que Mining Technology calificó como el mayor depósito en desarrollo del mundo, con reservas por 243 millones de toneladas.

La venta de los derechos de tierra de un particular a Bacanora no es nada extraño, pues cualquier persona puede adquirir derechos para explotar tierras a precios realmente bajos, dado que el costo del trámite de cada solicitud de concesión minera va de los 443 pesos (entre 1 y 30 hectáreas), hasta los 137 mil 790 (más de 50 mil hectáreas), más un pago variable por hectárea extra.

No obstante, en la normativa hay un vacío que permite que las concesiones sean traspasadas de mano en mano, lo que ha provocado que los dueños de los títulos especulen con las hectáreas otorgadas por el gobierno hasta que llegue un mejor postor, empresa nacional o trasnacional, a la que ceden los derechos a cambio de una cantidad que suele ser mucho mayor que la que pagaron.

Las tierras cuyos derechos adquirió Bacanora en 2010 se ubican a 190 kilómetros al noreste de la ciudad de Hermosillo, Sonora, y están a 200 kilómetros al sur de la frontera con Arizona.

En las más de 3 mil hectáreas que componen las concesiones se ubican los siguientes ranchos con los que la empresa ha negociado con sus propietarios para explotar las tierras: Rancho Seco, Las Chivas, San Gabriel de los Castores, El Palmar, La Joya, El Sauz, El Cubachi, Sauz de Valencia, Los Americanos, La Ventana y Las Perdices.

Según la empresa minera, ha recibido permiso del gobierno local y los propietarios de los ranchos mencionados para realizar trabajos de exploración, además de asegurar que más allá del pago que hizo por la concesión de las tierras, no hay otras regalías que haya tenido que pagar, derechos de devolución u otros acuerdos.

 

China has three ‘weapons’ to deal with US provocation: Global Times editorial

By Global Times Published: Apr 09, 2021

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1220661.shtml

A number of US senators on Thursday introduced a draft measure, titled the Strategic Competition Act of 2021, which is to be reviewed by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week. The act proposes sanctions on more Chinese officials over Xinjiang, canceling restrictions on mutual visits between US and Taiwan island officials, providing military assistance worth billions of dollars to Indo-Pacific allies, and monitoring China's ballistic missiles.

Also on Thursday, the US Department of Commerce added seven Chinese supercomputing entities to a US economic blacklist. This is the first time since US President Joe Biden took office that it expanded the scale of the list to crack down on Chinese companies. It is the incumbent administration's continuation of policies of the previous administration to suppress China's high-tech companies.

The US is completing its nationwide mobilization for its strategy to contain China. Those senators drafted and pushed forward an act to carry out the full-fledged competition with China, showing their strong hostility toward China, which has become one of the few bipartisan consensuses in US politics. 

There is no lack of political conditions in the US under which the latest act will get the green light. If it gets approved, it will further strengthen the US policy orientation to suppress China. Of course, the Biden government has huge room to maneuver. For instance, the act calls for canceling the restrictions on the mutual visits between US and Taiwan officials. Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo announced the cancellation upon his departure from the post, but what the new government will do is still in the hands of Biden's core team.

The Trump administration almost destroyed the original framework of China-US relations with a piecemeal approach. Biden is inheriting the destructive results of his predecessor and systematizing the China containment policy. The Biden team does not exclude the possibility of cooperating with China that could benefit the US, in a bid to reduce the counter-effect of confronting China. It emphasizes aligning with allies to balance China and tries to create an iron curtain of the whole of the West to contain China, with the ultimate motive of crushing China.

This is the fundamental overthrow of the world's peaceful development after the Cold War. Over the years, China has not fired a shot or overthrown any regime. It realized development via hard work and eliminated poverty. It also played a pivotal role in withstanding several major global crises. Only because China's political system is different from the US' and China managed to narrow its gap of strength with the US in a short period of time, the US views China as a foe and carried out an overall containment of China. These actions are extreme and go against human civilization.

However, it is not the right time to reason with Washington. China has three "weapons" to counterattack US offensives. One is the internal driver of China's development. The fundamental reason for China's progress over the years is that it has found its development path. China is yet to bring all of its potentials into full play. China must unleash its potential to ensure the Chinese economy grows the fastest among major economies in the years to come and keep narrowing the gap of strength between China and the US.

Second, China has become the biggest trader of goods in the world and has huge attractiveness for economic cooperation. China's business partners are all over the world. The US can woo the EU to attack China's human rights, but can hardly deal a blow to China-Europe economic cooperation. Economic cooperation is a good card in the hands of China from which China can maintain and develop normal relations with most Western countries. It is difficult for the US to organize a real anti-China alliance among Western countries, and China should try to add to this difficulty. 

The third weapon is China's firm stance. Since the trade war, China has been level-headed during struggles with the US - it does not retreat or make impulsive actions. China's political system, traditional culture, and balanced power structure shape its strategic steadiness. The US wants to defeat China in a sprint with its comprehensive advantages, but China is eyeing a marathon. China has the ability and qualifications to extend the race, and it will be the final winner.

 

Jewish Voice For Peace

jewishvoiceforpeace.org

We all know that antisemitism is a real and present threat—the anti-Jewish conspiracists staging an insurrection at the Capitol left no room for doubt. We also know that the conversation around antisemitism is broken. For years we've pushed back as the Israeli government and its supporters levied baseless accusations of antisemitism against Palestinians in order to evade accountability for human rights abuses, turning the concept upside down. It’s a mess, and it leaves all of our movements vulnerable.

In this context, over 200 Jewish studies scholars have just released the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). It’s a powerful corrective to the harmful, controversial, and increasingly widespread International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which falsely conflates some criticisms of the state of Israel with antisemitism. This new definition is remarkable in its simple affirmation of what we and our Palestinian partners have long said: Advocating for BDS, a one-state solution, or anti-Zionist politics is NOT antisemitic. 

While we welcome the rebuke of the IHRA definition, in attempting to rebut its deceptive claims, the JDA falls into the trap of linking conversations about Palestinian rights with antisemitism. Palestinians deserve to be able to advocate for themselves on their own terms, because Palestinian rights are human rights. 

Likewise, we want to dismantle antisemitism on our own terms. And so do our friends in progressive Jewish organizations across the world. We also know that definitions don’t dismantle oppression. We want those who are looking to support Jewish safety to focus on the practical and principled ways to do so that go far beyond definitions. 

That’s why we worked with progressive Jewish organizations to create five principles for dismantling antisemitism.

1. Do not isolate antisemitism from other forms of oppression. 
Situate your work to dismantle antisemitism within the broader struggle against all forms of racism and oppression.  Antisemitism is embedded in white supremacy and is part of the machinery of division and fear used to keep us isolated and vulnerable—the same machinery that is used to target Black people and other people of color, people who are Muslim, immigrants, Indigenous communities, and others. Isolating antisemitism ignores the central threats faced by these communities under white supremacy, erases the lived experiences of Black Jews and other Jews of color, and atomizes a struggle that must be united to succeed. Act from the principles that oppression is intersectional and that justice is indivisible.

2. Challenge political ideologies that foment racism, hate, and fear.
Refuse and challenge fascist, white nationalist, and far-right ideologies leading to murderous violence. These conspiratorial and dangerous beliefs are wielded to divide and sow fear across communities, and to reinforce and maintain white supremacy.  Cede no ground to the leaders, institutions, and politicians who promote these ideologies and gain power by breeding violent antisemitism, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

3. Create environments that affirm and celebrate all expressions of cultural and religious life.
Institute policies and practices that actively embrace, not just tolerate cultural and religious diversity. White Christian hegemony structures many of our societies, lives, relationships, and institutions. By framing all communities that are not white and Christian as the “other,” this feeds exploitation, hatred, and discrimination.  Push back on this harmful reality by assessing your community or organization’s policies and building affirming, inclusive spaces where Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, and all other faith communities can thrive and belong. 

4. Make undoing all forms of racism and bigotry both policy and daily practice. 
Establish racial justice, religious inclusion, and social equity as central pillars for setting policy and making decisions—in organizations, institutions, and legislation. Until our entire society is transformed to the point where racism and antisemitism are truly eradicated, it is up to all of us to create open spaces, rooted in the fabric of daily practice, for anti-racist educational initiatives, curriculums, and frameworks. If we do not make undoing white supremacy, including anti-Black racism, antisemitism, and islamophobia, a part of our daily lives, we will never achieve the just future we want.

5. Practice safety through solidarity, not law enforcement. 
Resist calls to respond to violence against Jewish people by increasing police presence. Increased policing will harm some of the most vulnerable members of our communities, including Jewish people of color. Instead, invest in strategies, practices, and plans that build protection and safety for all our communities, without increasing the power and presence of increasingly militarized law enforcement. Our history shows that freedom and safety for any of us depend on freedom and safety for all of us.

 

 

The US ignores Brzezinski’s warning faces a dilemma

By Zhang Tengjun Published: Apr 06, 2021 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1220323.shtml

The late renowned US geopolitical thinker Zbigniew Brzezinski made an insightful and exclusive analysis of geopolitical patterns in his famous book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. 

Many of his judgments still have vitality today. Brzezinski pointed out in his book that "Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an 'antihegemonic' coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances." His warnings against US diplomacy have once again garnered much attention in recent days. 

Whereas US relations with China, Russia, and Iran have, to varying degrees, fallen into tensions, the latter three countries have made new progress in developing relations among them. This pattern has made some media outlets and analysts believe that Brzezinski's prediction is now becoming a reality. 

However, if we look deeper into Brzezinski's point of view, perhaps we shouldn't focus too much on whether it has, or will, come true or not. Brzezinski himself held onto the belief that such "contingency" was remote. In fact, what he really wanted to convey by issuing such a warning is that the US shouldn't make enemies everywhere and bring ruin upon itself.  

Brzezinski wrote, Eurasia is the "chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played," where there are many "geostrategic players" and "geopolitical pivots." He added, "How the United States both manipulates and accommodates the principal geostrategic players on the Eurasian chessboard and how it manages Eurasia's key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America's global primacy." In the view of Brzezinski, China and Russia are classified into geostrategic players, while Iran is one of the geopolitical pivots. This can illustrate the importance of the three countries.

In the 1990s, the US was immersed in the dream of pursuing "unipolar hegemony." Against this backdrop, Brzezinski put forward such prudent judgment and advice to US policymakers. This shows his capability. Unfortunately, since he published his analysis more than two decades ago, US diplomacy has been walking along the track of self-centeredness — especially as "America First." 

For example, President Bill Clinton promoted democracy across the world. George W. Bush recklessly waged wars in the name of countering terrorism. Barack Obama used his presidency to redefine "American exceptionalism." Donald Trump attempted to reconstruct US hegemony by disruptive means. The US never seems to have a deep, accurate assessment of the real world in which it is a part. It does not seem to know what role it is supposed to play. This country lives in a world of its own imagination.

When Joe Biden took office, there was much talk that "America is back," and that "diplomacy is back at the center of [US] foreign policy." We've heard that the "alliance of democracies" would lead the world again. 

These loud but empty slogans still ignore the fast-changing nature of world politics revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The US may want to come back, but is the world willing or able to go back to the times when the US could rally multitudes at its calls? If a global poll were conducted, the answer to that question would probably not satisfy the US.

With the foreign policy of the new administration, it is obvious that the traces of American bullying are still evident. The US has alleged to see "a stiff competition with China," to unite like-minded allies and partners and to hold China accountable on a variety of issues by building a position of strength. 

The US President ignored diplomatic protocols and called the Russian leader a "killer." This was a personal attack that is not helpful to bilateral relations — not now and not at any time. The US has declared to come back into compliance with the Iran nuclear deal. But it only mentions the obligations for Iran to dismantle some of its nuclear equipment, rather than the US' responsibility to lift sanctions. The US has failed to show due respect for a sovereign state.

Faced with the development of friendly, non-aligned interstate relations between China, Russia, and Iran, the US is once again suffering from its delusions of persecution. It went back to its old ways of looking for enemies and trying to tie the entire West to its chariot against non-Western countries. Regardless of the development of the trilateral relations, Washington should realize that the time when the US could confront several countries at the same time has long passed. 

This Cold War mentality no longer meets the current reality. 

As Brzezinski argued, in the long run, global politics is destined to become increasingly incompatible with a situation in which one country has exclusive hegemonic power. Thus, the US is not only the first and only truly global superpower. But it may well be the last as well. The US government should perhaps listen more often to such honest advice, though it may be unpleasant to hear.

In addition to dealing with the pandemic and recovering the US economy, the Biden administration needs to thoroughly rethink the US foreign policy and give up illusions of hegemony. Washington needs to think seriously about how to treat other countries in the world as equals and live together peacefully. It also needs to try to be a normal member of the international community instead of an exceptional, American-style leader.

The author is an assistant research fellow at China Institute of International Studies. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn