....China and Russia are still complementary economies. One is rich in resources and high military technology, while the other is good at mass manufacturing and rich in cash. This complementarity is well demonstrated by their partnership in Central Asia, where China provides investment in resource-rich yet unpredictable countries while Russia ensures the stability of ruling regimes. Facing increasing pressure from both east and west, it is unlikely that either China or Russia will seek to change this partnership any time soon, though the countries' willingness and ability may not always match.
....Energy ties between China and Russia reflect mutual demands for cooperation in political, security and economic dimensions. They cannot be viewed as driven by only one of them.
While China will likely do what it can diplomatically to avoid outright provocation or confrontation with Washington, it is unlikely it will trust Washington enough to believe there is any chance for a meaningful partnership as the Chinese leadership have, no doubt, taken note of Washington's unwillingness to abide by its agreements (see the Native Americans, Russia, and Qaddafi as a few examples). Zbig's idea that Washington could somehow implement a divide-and-conquer strategy with China against Russia is a pipe dream. The train has left the station in terms of Eurasia largely controlling its own destiny in the future and Zbig seems to be in denial.
Moving on to Verity #4. This states that Europe is "not now and is not likely to become a global power. But it can play a constructive role in taking the lead in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human survival. Additionally, Europe is politically and culturally aligned with and supportive of core U.S. interests in the Middle East, and European steadfastness within NATO is essential to an eventually constructive resolution of the Russia-Ukraine crisis."
In other words, Europe can continue to follow Washington's orders whether those orders are really in Europe's long-term interests or not. And it is not at all clear that they are. Europe has too often gone along with, or not put up enough resistance to, Washington's militarist foreign policy since the 1990's. Today it is dealing with the worst refugee crisis since WWII - a refugee crisis that is largely the result of people fleeing Washington's wars and regime change operations. A recent Pew survey found that most Europeans do not view Russia as a threat, but instead view the immigration crisis and economic problems as major threats.
If it wasn't for EU leaders who kowtow to Washington policy and mainstream European media that largely follows the lead of the American corporate media, average Europeans may very well recognize that they have more in common culturally, historically and geographically with their next door neighbor to the east than they have with the descendants of the Puritan misfits half a world away. Indeed, in order to prevent an independent Europe that might decide that its rational interests were not always identical to Washington's, the EU project was supported and encouraged by the CIA and the Euro was the brainchild of academic Robert Mundell who created it, not to help Europe, but to serve as a foil on government regulation of business and independent monetary or fiscal policy.
In order to understand where one is going, it's important to understand where one has been and how it got to where it is presently. Needless to say, the reader doesn't get any of this contextual background from Zbig on why Europe's prospects for becoming an independent global power don't look too impressive at the moment.
Verity #5 states that the current strain of Islamic terrorism by Wahhabi whackjobs represents a "political awakening" - albeit violent - in reaction to historical brutal repressions by the western powers. Again, some history is in order here. Zbig has always had a soft spot for violent Islamic fundamentalists as he famously bragged in a 1998 interview about using them to provoke the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 so he could "give them their own Vietnam" quagmire.
Zbig also landed by helicopter in Afghanistan that year to give the jihadists a pep talk in their war against the Soviet Union - a war that led to the deaths of approximately a million Afghan civilians and turned a nation that had rights for women and little religious fanaticism into a Taliban stronghold.
All in a day's work for Zbig who will then write articles feigning concern for Muslims and their genuine historical grievances when he really just sees them as pawns on The Chessboard to use to further American empire or to maintain what is left of it - and all the more gratifying if they can be used to stick it to Russia in some way.
Given Zbig's continued vilification of Russia and self-serving dishonesty, weariness is in order on his latest effort.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
10
5
4
