9 Pakistan

First, Pakistan is the most viable overland access where the US can reconnect with Central Asia, which is rich in energy resources. As Russia is waging war in Ukraine and China is squeezing trade in the region, Washington requires other access points into Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and so on. The Central Asian countries could be linked to the world markets via Pakistan ports and road-rail connections, with the US being the investor and the strategic beneficiary. Second, Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan has been on the decrease over the past years, and possible US interest in the relations with Islamabad would ease tensions between Pakistan and the Taliban. Not only would such a thaw help maintain regional stability, but it would put Washington in a financial position to help gain access to Afghanistan’s resource sector. China is presently wooing the country due to its huge lithium, copper, and rare earth mineral deposits, which are essential to the clean energy transition. Recovery of Pakistani influence in Kabul would present the US with a worthwhile ally in the creation of accountable access to the resources and not allow their capture in totality by Beijing. These strategic advantages could be gained much more economically by rebuilding the relationship with Pakistan.

In recent days, due to the refusal of Kabul to give Bagram air base to the US, a terror outfit known as the TTP (founded, funded and directed by RAW, CIA, Mossad and MI6) was used to attack Pakistani border posts. Pakistan retaliated and Afghanistan responded. After 100s of casualties, China brokered a peace between them. The US aim is to create more fires, following the principle – “divide-and-rule”. Fortunately, China saw the danger and calmed things down. The two sides have clashed with each other on multiple occasions since the U.S. withdrawal, but the ongoing round of clashes is without a doubt the most serious. Interestingly, the escalation began right after President Donald Trump threatened the Taliban with “bad things” if does not hand back the strategic Bagram Airfield to the U.S. Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the U.S., but it is of course unlikely to start a war against the Taliban for the sake of Washington. In any case, the U.S. stands to win big from such a war between the two countries. Pakistan has been pivoting towards the West since April 2022’s against Imran Khan, with this trend accelerating since Trump’s return to power.

Their aims would advance US interests by greatly decelerating regional multipolar processes. To that end, Pakistan is suspected of facilitating the flow of foreign terrorists into Afghanistan as anti-Taliban proxies.  To top it all off, it is reported that Pakistan is now offering the US a commercial port too. Pasni town is in close proximity to Iranian-bordering Gwadar, the terminal point of the Belt & Road Initiative’s China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) flagship that which the US has long fear could one day host the Chinese Navy. The project’s blueprint plays on these fears as well as the US’ ones about Iran and even Russia to make their Pasni proposal more appealing to Trump 2.0. The document allegedly declares that “Pasni’s proximity to Iran and Central Asia enhances US options for trade and security…Engagement at Pasni would counterbalance Gwadar…and expand US influence in the Arabian Sea and Central Asia…China’s Gwadar investments under the Belt and Road Initiative raise dual-use concerns.”

The US presence in Pasni would aid the export of minerals that US companies were to mine in Baluchistan province but could quickly take on military dimensions. The US naturally has an interest in helping Pakistan defeat the Taliban.  The pretext of assisting “” Pakistan in its own “War on Terror”, especially if Americans (even if only security contractors) are killed after attacks on US mining projects in Baluchistan, could serve to justify the basing of US naval forces, ground troops, and/or aerial assets in or near Pasni. Washington could then follow for guaranteeing Pakistan’s security vis-à-vis Afghanistan, India, and even Iran. Through these means, which are dependent on a US presence of some sort in Pasni, Pakistan would complete its pro-Western pivot by fully restoring its Old Cold War-era partnership with America that Imran Khan opposed (and is why he was deposed). The regional multipolar processes championed by Russia, India, Iran, and China would therefore be challenged like never before, but that could also lead to them cooperating like never before too, with Pakistan bearing the brunt of their collective pressure.

10 Brazil

Brazil and India are accelerating plans to expand their $12-billion trade partnership in response to US tariff campaign, seeking new markets to shield their economies from Washington’s punitive measures. Delegations from both countries gathered in New Delhi this week to discuss tripling bilateral trade, according to government officials cited in the report. A Brazilian trade delegation visited India on 15–17 October and met   with key ministers in defense, commerce, energy, and foreign affairs, following recent strategic and trade consultations in New Delhi aimed at expanding cooperation across critical minerals, health, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, biofuels, and defense. Lula has sought to diversify Brazil’s economic partnerships since taking office, targeting Asian and West Asian markets, including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey. The policy has intensified since Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian exports, later granting exemptions for some products but keeping the levies in place. Trump’s trade war is generating a total reorganization of trade everywhere, Brazil’s exports to the US – roughly 12 percent of its total trade – have suffered from the tariffs, prompting a shift toward partners like Argentina, China, and now India. 

11 Venezuela

   The revelation in the American media that the White House had authorized the use of military force against drug cartels in Latin America unleashed a wave of reactions across the region and revived long-standing fears about Washington’s interventionist doctrine. The measure, framed under the narrative of “surgical operations” to combat drug trafficking, raises questions about its operating mechanisms, its impact on sovereignty, and the risks of a renewed militarization of the region. Rising powers are challenging US hegemony, and that precisely makes it more unpredictable, irascible, and potentially violent. While the global situation keeps the US busy in many parts of the world, it still maintains the long-held view that Latin America is ‘its backyard.’ First declared in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy statement warning European powers not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere. While it was originally framed as a protective measure against colonialism, it quickly became the ideological foundation for U.S. interventionism in Latin America, justifying dozens of military invasions, covert operations, and regime changes throughout the 20th century. Wall Street’s interest in South America was primarily on Mexico and the Caribbean. It was mainly conducted via “gunboat diplomacy” to ensure that Wall Street interests in these regions was protected by military force. This was the position from 1890 till the early 1930s. Prior to 1930, the entire Latin American continent was dominated by Rothschild finance and corporations.

In 1930, Nelson Rockefeller attended a party in London, hosted by the Rothschild’s. It was here that he heard about the fabulous wealth –especially oil- of Latin America. He returned to the US, did research on this, and his greed overtook him. He learnt Spanish and entered the Latin American market. Although the family had many investments in the continent, Nelson wanted even more-especially the European corporations owned by the Rothschild’s. Over the course of the next 15 years, Nelson squeezed out the Rothschild’s and soon became the emperor of Latin America. Venezuela was one of his first targets. The Rockefeller Empire’s holdings in Latin America are very extensive. Over the next 8 decades, Latin America was kept firmly under Rockefeller domination.  These countries had no alternative, until the early 2000s. China’s rise and Russia under Putin began making inroads into the continent. Now, these nations had an alternative. By the end of the century and the Cold War, there was a growing acceptance that the Monroe Doctrine had outlived its usefulness. Trump’s effort to revive this framework, and position it as a strategic attempt to reassert U.S. regional dominance in an increasingly competitive and multipolar landscape. Trump-era policy in Latin America has relied heavily on economic threats: punitive tariffs, aid suspensions, and sanctions designed to force governments to reduce engagement with China.        Washington is no longer able to compete through constructive means, particularly on the economic front.  But Latin America’s future is not being decided through troop movements or defense pacts; it’s being built through ports, railways, energy grids, and trade routes. You can’t contain economic transformation with military hardware. The Monroe Doctrine functioned in a world where Washington faced no serious competition. That world no longer exists. Latin America today is navigating a more complex international system, with the capacity to choose, and the memory of past interventions to guide those choices.  Their resources and labor are extracted to fuel economic growth in the core countries, not their own. By offering infrastructure, credit, and trade without the same political strings attached, China gives governments in the region more bargaining power, more room to negotiate, to diversify, and to assert economic autonomy. That shift in bargaining power is what Washington’s revival of the Monroe Doctrine is designed to contain. Trump’s approach to Latin America is not reshaping the region; it is exposing how little room remains for unilateral control. The attempt to push China out will not succeed through tariffs and threats.

But the most representative new consequence of this apparent reorientation to the Western Hemisphere is Trump’s sudden focus on Venezuela.  Under a false pretext of targeting drug cartels, Trump’s administration has ramped up threatening military pressure against Maduro’s government. Trump’s sudden high-octane gunboat diplomacy towards Venezuela is clearly designed to target Maduro’s unwelcome “regime”, and cleanse the US’ backyard of any adversarial—i.e. Chinese, Iranian, or Russian—presence or ‘meddling’. But while Trump himself uses the UN stage to grandstand and moralize against Russia, he has been furtively building up an alarming force off the Venezuelan coast which is in need of mentioning. Trump sent 10 WARSHIPS near Venezuela — nearly 13% of the deployed fleet. At the same time, Washington is actively restoring its old base in Puerto Rico and has brought in Marine Corps units, drones, naval assets, and even a vessel linked to Special Operations forces.

The U.S. stands to gain a lot from a regime change in Venezuela, which has the world’s largest oil reserves – and the primary reason. The country has oil reserves of 300 billion barrels, worth around $15 trillion. However, an invasion is very risky. The Venezuelan military is heavily-armed and if just a fraction of the country’s 28-million population decided to resist, the U.S. military could find itself in another endless war that it can’t win. Venezuela, like many other nations threatened by Wall Street, have looked at the Gaza and Houthi example- which has given them much more hope and perseverance to resist.

Venezuela & Israel

However, beneath the surface of this escalating military confrontation lies an overlooked dimension: the Jewish angle in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. Israel’s strategic concerns have played a significant role in shaping American policy toward Caracas. As Venezuela has emerged as the most consistently anti-Zionist country in South America, Jewish factions within the U.S. foreign policy establishment have increasingly viewed Caracas as a threat extending well beyond traditional hemispheric security concerns. The deterioration of Venezuelan-Israeli relations accelerated during the Second Intifada, when Chávez’s government sponsored rallies supporting the Palestinian cause. The first direct targeting of Venezuela’s Jewish community occurred in May 2004 when the Sephardic Tiferet Israel Synagogue in Caracas was attacked following a government-backed pro-Palestinian rally.

Venezuela’s complete break with Israel came on January 14, 2009, during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Chávez critized Israel’s military offensive as a “cruel persecution of the Palestinian people, directed by Israeli authorities.” The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry announced the severance of diplomatic ties, stating the move was “given the inhumane persecution of the Palestinian people carried out by the authorities of Israel.” Following this diplomatic break, Venezuela officially recognized Palestine on April 27, 2009, becoming the first country in the Americas to establish formal diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority. Venezuela has forged strong ties with Iran since 1999, creating what both countries describe as an alliance “against U.S. imperialism. Chávez’s first to Iran in 2001 launched what would become a strategic partnership based on shared resistance to the Judeo-American imperium’s overreach in their respective spheres of influence. Following Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election, Maduro repeatedly blamed “international Zionism” for Venezuela’s internal problems. In August 2024, after widespread protests over alleged electoral fraud, Maduro claimed that his opposition was supported and bankrolled by international Zionist networks. “All the communication power of Zionism, who controls all social networks, the satellites, and all the power behind this coup d’état,” Maduro declared in a televised speech. He also critized Argentina’s President Javier Milei, as a “Zionist” and “social sadist.” The breakdown in U.S.- Venezuela relations represent a complex intersection of hemispheric hegemony, energy geopolitics, and Jewish concerns. While oil reserves and great power competition provide the obvious explanations for American hostility, the Israeli factor adds a crucial dimension that has been consistently underestimated in policy analysis.

By emerging as South America’s most reliably anti-Zionist country, aligning with Iran, and tolerating Hezbollah’s presence, Venezuela has drawn the ire of Jewish policymakers in Washington who interpret challenges to Israel as pretexts for expanding U.S. power in defense of Zionist objectives. Taken together, these dynamics reveal how Venezuela’s defiance is not viewed in Washington merely as a hemispheric issue, but as part of a larger ideological battle tied to Israel’s security and the global reach of Zionist influence.

12 South Africa

Shipping Lanes and China

South Africa has long been a supporter of Palestinians. It’s also a country with close ties to Russia due to Moscow’s help in fighting apartheid. And it’s a BRICS founding member. That’s three strikes in Washington. But the increased pressure from Trump can also be viewed in the context of the US’ renewed emphasis on shipping lanes, which has received a plenty of attention in the effort to purchase Greenland to and leaning on Panama for more control over its canal. In South Africa this focus means a lot more attention for a small outpost in the Western Cape called Simon’s Town, which is home to the South African Navy’s largest base.Why would Simon’s Town help explain US pressure on South Africa? Simonstown’s importance is best understood as one of three points of a triangle that determines the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. That triangle is formed by drawing 8,000 km line northwards from Simonstown to Djibouti on the African east coast where the Bab al-Mandab Strait narrows the gateway into the Red Sea (and the Suez Canal beyond) to just 30 kms. The balance of power around that gateway shifted in 2016 when China was granted a lease on a naval base just more than a decade after the United States had secured a similar lease. From Djibouti extend the line 13,000 km eastward to the Solomon Islands off the east coast of Australia. The Japanese, after crippling the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, sought to occupy the islands to isolate Australia and their retaking was a key allied objective in the liberation of South-East Asia. However, in April of 2022, eight decades after the defeat of Japan, China signed a security pact with the Solomon Islands. As the islands lie east of the confines of the two major “island chains” around which the American Pacific containment strategy was conceived at the end of the Second World War. The Chinese pact is the starkest challenge yet to the idea of the Pacific as “America’s lake”. Extend the line from the Solomon Islands back to Simonstown to complete the triangle and territory within sees the passage of more than half of all sea-borne global trade with the triangle’s three points determining access to the Red Sea, the South Atlantic, and the Pacific.

A few maps to help illustrate their point:

Exacerbating American vulnerability in the Indo-Pacific is that at the triangle’s center is the Chagos Islands archipelago which Britain sought to surrender to Mauritius in October 2024. The archipelago contains the island of Diego Garcia which houses a US naval base (leased from Britain). Flying from Diego Garcia, nuclear armed American aircraft can reach Australia, the southern and eastern regions of China, the southern points of Eastern Europe, and much of the Middle East. That leaves South Africa’s Simonstown as the key external vulnerability. The reason Simon’s Town is important globally is the same reason South Africa has been important for hundreds of years.  Simon’s Town is situated near the point where the Atlantic and Indian oceans come together. It remains important. Although it is a small port, it can be expanded. It is an important naval station in the Indo-Pacific. There is a real concern that South Africa’s closeness to China could lead to it taking over key strategic assets that are important to the local economy.

Another is that the US is interested in the ability to shut down shipping lanes in a conflict with China. Oil tankers from the Middle East crossing the Indian Ocean, as well as other shipments headed to China from Africa and Brazil, would “lack protection in a naval theatre dominated by the U.S.”: In a major war, Chinese oil tankers in the Indian Ocean “would find themselves very vulnerable”. This enduring weakness gives China’s adversaries a ladder of escalatory options, especially in a drawn-out conflict, like Russia’s war on Ukraine. These scenarios range from harassment and interdiction operations against Chinese shipping that could divert Chinese naval vessels to the region, up to a blockade and beyond.

So the strategy is to initiate a conflict between China and Taiwan or a country in East Asia like the Philippines and then attempt to isolate Beijing. It worked so well against Russia, why not give it another go against China with its much larger and more interconnected economy? It’s also a strategy that Beijing is well aware of and has been for years through its Belt and Road Initiative. By driving Moscow and Beijing even closer together with Project Ukraine, the US made any attempt at isolating China even more impossible.  It deserves a mention that any US dream of “isolating” Beijing would inevitably mean a collapse of the global economy and a contest of who could withstand the pain longer, who would have direct land connections to Russia and Central Asia for minerals, natural resources, and other needs, might not get as hurt as some like to believe. The US, meanwhile, would face product shortages and inflation that would make recent years seem quaint by comparison. Nevertheless, the quest for naval supremacy continues. We can see this at work in other Trump administration actions — from Greenland and Panama to others that have largely flown under the radar, such as pressure on India over the International North-South Transport Corridor and the sudden world-threatening emergence of ISIS in Somalia.

On Feb. 1, Trump ordered the first airstrike of his presidency, against alleged senior Islamic State commanders in northern Somalia. Last year, the US signed a deal with the government of Somalia to construct up to five military bases for the Somali National Army in the name of bolstering the army’s capabilities in the ongoing fight against militant groups.  What this history and the supposed recent emergence of IS in Somalia tells us is, one, the result of US counterterrorism strategy is that terrorism continues to magically spread like wildfire in spots deemed important to the US, and two, Somalia will be getting more attention from Washington going forward. It is a clear indication of the growing geopolitical significance of the Horn of Africa comes at a time of mounting concerns about securing the flow of international commerce via the Red Sea.

The CIA kicks France out of Madagascar

After weeks of protests and a mutiny, former Madagascar president boarded a French military plane and fled the country. The military that had once elevated the President now removed him. His flight to France echoes the collapse of other western-backed leaders across the continent. With a public angry at a corrupt, western-aligned government, Madagascar has the potential to shape its future and the whole Indian Ocean. This development comes as global powers scramble for strategic access in a region that holds five of the world’s nine maritime chokepoints. India, China, and the US are expanding their naval and commercial footprint, while France – once the uncontested gatekeeper of these waters – finds itself besieged and in retreat. As the fourth largest island in the world and, to the CIA, “the largest, most populous, and most strategically situated of the southwestern Indian Ocean”, Madagascar is a key player, as shipping routes change and expand, and superpowers look to increase their influence.

France’s colonial grip on Madagascar began in 1892, intended to check British sway over Indian Ocean routes. Despite the Suez Canal’s opening, the Cape Route, which rounds Madagascar and the Cape of Good Hope, remained a vital artery for trade between Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Madagascar formally gained independence in 1960. Yet decolonization remained incomplete. Paris retained control of the surrounding Scattered Islands granting itself exclusive economic zones encircling Madagascar’s north, east, and west. In 1975, Madagascar became a socialist state kicked the French military out. Facing growing protests over food shortages, Madagascar gave in and increased cooperation with Paris, letting the French navy at two ports. Each time Malagasy leaders pivoted away from Paris, crisis followed – often ending with exile and regime change.  Madagascar’s uprising is only the latest chapter in France’s broader The French military has been from Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Central African Republic, and others.

The loss of Madagascar carries enormous strategic cost. Paris risks losing control of the very maritime chokepoints it once colonized to secure. India, whose economy depends on the Indian Ocean for has been quietly building its presence for decades. New Delhi’s interest is both strategic and economic: safeguarding trade routes, monitoring rival navies, and extracting mineral wealth.  – vital for electronics and defense manufacturing – is abundant in Madagascar, but its extraction has been limited by poor infrastructure. China, meanwhile, sees the Indian Ocean as the maritime spine of its Belt and Road Initiative. A new government in Antananarivo presents an opportunity for Beijing to deepen its hold on a corridor essential to its global ambitions. The US has lagged behind in this contest, constrained by geography and distracted by wars elsewhere. Until recently, Washington’s main concern in the Indian Ocean was ensuring the flow of oil and other goods through the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.  But just as France once feared Britain would monopolize the Indian Ocean, America now worries China will do the same. Nevertheless, the US could see in Madagascar what France once saw: a Launchpad to counter rivals.

Although this was a Rockefeller move to eliminate any French influence in Africa, it does not guarantee any future US role in these countries after the dust settles. But, we will wait and see. The only way the US can gain a foothold is if it can co-opt the Malagasy revolution, turning the ruling military into puppets of western interest. It was done in the Arab Spring and it can be done again. But Africans no longer have patience and are willing to do what is necessary to keep the west out, as they did in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. Perhaps aware of this, the new Madagascar President signaled his anti-imperialism when he refused to speak French to the BBC because he “does not like glorifying the colonial tongue.”  On his first day in office, adorned with a military beret (similar to Traore’s) he went straight to tackle power outage issues. Symbolic or sincere, the gesture signals an intent to address local grievances rather than foreign expectations. If this moment holds, Madagascar could reclaim its stolen islands, extract its own resources, and chart a path independent of foreign tutelage. In doing so, it would join a growing chorus of African nations rejecting the west’s declining hegemony. Once the CIA kicks France out of Africa, it will then be the turn of the British- who have lots of vassals in the continent, starting with its most important one – South Africa.

In the broader struggle for the Indian Ocean, the Malagasy revolt may well mark the beginning of the end for Africa’s colonial-era arrangements – and the opening shot of a new geopolitical era.

Back to South Africa – – –  The tiny South African town the United States wants to control.

The United States has very strong strategic interests in South Africa, particularly in Simon’s Town, which gives the country an opportunity to secure a favorable trade deal and billions in American investment. Simon’s Town, and the broader Cape, has been significant in South Africa’s historical positioning as a global player over centuries. In the 21st century, the port is no less important, with it being one of three points that anchors control of the Indo-Pacific, a region through which trillions in trade flows every year. As a result, the port is playing an increasingly important role in geopolitics and is one of the reasons why American interest in South Africa has piqued in recent years. This interest in Simon’s Town is coupled with increasing economic competition between the United States and China in Africa, for its resources and as a means to garner geopolitical support. Africa’s 54 states provide a vital voting bloc at the United Nations and other global forums, able to sway decisions one way or the other. 

The Americans have fallen behind China in terms of fixed investment in Africa and the continent is important; it now has more cities of a million inhabitants or more than Europe and America combined. Africa remains the last untapped global consumer market, with its population steadily growing healthier and wealthier. South Africa is particularly important for the United States given its influence as the largest economy on the continent and its democratic institutions. Alongside the Solomon Islands and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, Simon’s Town is one of the three points that anchor the Indo-Pacific region through which more than half of global trade travels. The world is not multipolar in nature, where competing power bloc are looking to control or influence key choke points. These choke points are commercial and naval shipping passages that are narrow and easily controllable from a single port. Simon’s Town has been forgotten in recent years as one of these choke points, with the rise of the Suez Canal in 1869 enabling trade to flow from east to west and vice versa without going around the tip of Africa. However, in the past few years, the southern sea route around the Cape has seen its importance skyrocket due to conflict in the Middle East and the rising importance of the Indo-Pacific. The Houthis in Yemen firing rockets into the Red Sea have diverted shipping around the Cape at a rate that is equivalent to what happened after the fall of Hong Kong and Singapore in World War II . Simon’s Town, as one of the most strategically located ports along this route, has become central to the geopolitical struggle to control the Indo-Pacific. The Americans understand that Simon’s Town is one of the three points that anchor control of the Indo-Pacific. They are in some trouble on the other points, such as the Solomon Islands and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, so Simon’s Town has suddenly become very important to them. Furthermore, Simon’s Town is the backdoor to the South Atlantic, which is another crucial region considering the oil discoveries off the coast of Namibia and the rise of South America economically. 

This is similar to the reason why US President Trump talks so much about Greenland, as it gives you access to the Atlantic.  Simon’s Town remains a relatively sophisticated port, with surveillance equipment installed in 1973 still being able to track nearly all ocean traffic in the South Atlantic and South Indian oceans. A further, but key issue is that the US aims to shut down the Red Sea/Suez/Hormuz Straits. Were this to happen, the geopolitical importance of South Africa increases to both China and the West. At the current moment, South Africa is low on the targets of priority. But, over the near future, that will change.

13 Commodities vs. Paper Money (aka the real economy vs. a parallel financial economy)

The dollar is our currency, but it’s your problem.” It is an oft-cited instance of American hubris. All of a sudden, we have, from a Russian perspective: “Our commodities, your problem.” The anchor is shifting from debt claims to real assets – and this is bad news for countries whose economies are perched precariously atop a mountain of debt claims. Think of this as part hedge against Western sanctions and weaponization of the system, and part recognition that commodities have intrinsic durability that paper claims can’t always guarantee.  Ultimately, of course, paper promises can be inflated. It’s not lost on anybody in the Global South that the dollar is down some 140 % against gold in just two years and that US debt seems to be spiraling to infinity. If the current system is one where money, credit, and financial assets are king, this means the constraints in this system are money-related. The crises tend to start with something like a collapsing banking system, liquidity drying up, or collateral chains breaking. This is basically a money problem, not a real-economy problem. Remember the 1998 Asia currency meltdown; or the Global Financial Crisis of 2008; or Covid; or the UK gilt crisis of 2022; or the various US repo spikes. Such dislocations are dealt with by throwing balance sheet at them – swap lines, quantitative easing, backstops, and emergency loans. In 2022, we suddenly found out that Russian energy is not just another financial dislocation that can be covered with a swap line or emergency loan. From this, it follows that we need to think in terms of two economies: the real economy of energy, resources, goods and services, and a parallel financial economy of money and debt. There will always be a financial economy but we’re finding out now that it is the real economy that underpins the financial one and not the other way around.

But here’s the catch. When energy is abundant and cheap – and when money holds its value against energy – this energy foundation to the economy can be disregarded. The peak of renewables-based energy transition euphoria in Europe coincided with the peak of Russian supply of cheap hydrocarbons to Europe. A coincidence? Russia and China have been the main ‘guarantors of macro peace’, providing all the cheap stuff that was the source of deflation fears in the West, which, in turn, gave central banks the license for years of money printing (QE). This also gave the West license to dwell comfortably in the illusion that the economy is primarily a monetary system and not an energy-and-real-stuff system. Ironically, it was the reliable presence of cheap Russian oil and gas that helped this economic illiteracy fester. Central banks across the world are now buying gold bullion directly from domestic miner’s in-country, which will depress the supply available on Western exchanges. At the same time, Chinese mining companies are buying large gold-producing properties in foreign markets, using giant pools of capital from Hong Kong banks. The BRICS countries are building a new financial system, collateralized by gold holdings. They are major buyers and movers of gold from exchanges in Europe, to vaults in Hong Kong, Singapore, the UAE, Brazil, and Africa. Chinese firms are employing the same strategy that has served them so well in taking over the supply chains of food, energy, and raw materials: buy directly from local suppliers, paying premium prices in doing so. This type of supply chain will put the LBMA out of business or at least cripple Western access to physical gold going forward. There are negative implications for LBMA, the West, and how this is part of a much bigger strategy to secure all resource supply chains in a global mineral war. What the BRICS are doing in Gold, they are doing in everything. Gold is the tip of the economic spear out of the BRICS nations.

14 The Future of Multilateralism 

Multilateralism, as it was conceived after World War II, is facing a period of uncertainty. Traditionally, the UN has been seen as a bastion of multilateralism, but its alignment with the Western powers is being called into question.  The BRICS are no longer just an economic coalition; they are asserting themselves as a viable alternative to the historical dominance of Western countries. The unipolar world has given way to a multipolar era, where several emerging powers are claiming their rightful place in the global decision-making process. By forming strategic alliances, this group, which represents over 45% of the world’s population, seeks not only to strengthen its influence but also to offer an alternative platform for developing countries that often feel marginalized within traditional Bretton Woods’s institutions like the IMF or the World Bank. These discussions could lead to agreements to replace the key Western-controlled multilateral institutions. We are talking about the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO.  All of these are under the Rockefeller control. The world has witnessed injustice on a grand scale these past 4 years by these institutions. These are going to be replaced by a new crop of similar institutions, but this time, with the motto of “- – And justice for all”.  As the West may witness a redistribution of power in international affairs, the developing countries, represented by the BRICS, are taking the reins of this transformation. Tianjin marks the beginning of the end of Western supremacy and the emergence of a new era where the voice of the Global South is finally heard.   

Between 1980 and 2020, Europe’s share of global GDP fell from 26% to 15%. In other words, it fell by 11 percentage points, a very large drop. Although the decline in the United States was smaller, it fell from 21% in the 1980s to less than 16% in 2020. From another perspective, Asia and East Asia are constantly rising. The share in 1980 was 11.5%, and it has risen to 25% in 2020. Among this 25%, China has made the largest contribution, accounting for 18% of the world. What this illustrates is the acute swing in the world’s center of economic gravity – no matter the rhetorical tsunamis emanating from the Hegemon. In 1980 the economic center was the Trans-Atlantic area; the economic center will reach the Sino-Indian border by 2030.When we take China compounded with the 10 members of ASEAN, without even considering South Asia, it’s fair to argue that the economic center will already be in the East by 2030. By then “the ‘Asian Age’ will replace the ‘Western Age’, and since 1750, the world has always been in the Western Age.”  I qualify our century as “The Eurasian Century”. And that, in a nutshell, is the reason why the 2 families are in Deep Panic mode. The free lunch – of exploiting the wealth of the Global South – is coming to an end.

15 Conclusion

Many now speak of humanity’s drift towards World War III, imagining events similar to those of the 20th century. But war evolves. It will not begin with a June 1941 Barbarossa-style invasion or a Cuban Missile Crisis-style nuclear standoff. In fact, the new world war is already underway – it’s just that not everyone has recognized it yet. Let me repeat this point: World War 3 has begun. The date was 2014, the date of the CIA coup in Ukraine. It is not one single war, but rather a series of wars globally. For Russia, the pre-war period ended in 2014. For China, it was 2017. For Iran, 2023. Since then, war – in its modern, diffuse form – has intensified. This is not a new Cold War. Since 2022, the West’s campaign against Russia has grown more decisive. The risk of direct nuclear confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine conflict is rising. Trump’s return to the White House and pushed us dangerously close again. This war involves the world’s leading powers: the United States and its allies on one side, China and Russia on the other. It is global, not because of its scale, but because of the stakes: the future balance of power. The West sees the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia as existential threats. Its counteroffensive, economic and ideological, is meant to put a halt to that shift. It is a war of survival for the West, not just geopolitically but ideologically. Western globalism – whether economic, political, or cultural – cannot tolerate alternative civilizational models. Post-national elites in the US and Western Europe are committed to preserving their dominance. A diversity of worldviews, civilizational autonomy, and national sovereignty are seen not as options, but as threats. Compromise is no longer part of the game. What we’re seeing are not temporary crises but rolling conflicts. Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the two current flashpoints. A third has long been identified: East Asia, particularly Taiwan. Russia is directly engaged in Ukraine, holds stakes in the Middle East, and may become involved in the Pacific. And, Venezuela. The war is no longer about occupation, but destabilization. The new strategy focuses on sowing internal disorder: economic sabotage, social unrest, and psychological attrition. The West’s plan for Russia is not defeat on the battlefield, but gradual internal collapse. Its tactics are all-encompassing. Drone strikes target infrastructure and nuclear facilities. Political assassinations are no longer off-limits. Journalists, negotiators, scientists, and even their families are being hunted. Residential neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals are not collateral damage – they are targets. This is total war. This is underpinned by dehumanization. Russians, Palestinians and others are portrayed not just as enemies but as subhuman. Western societies are manipulated to accept this. Information control, censorship, and historical revisionism are used to justify the war. Those who question the dominant narrative are labelled traitors.

Meanwhile, the West exploits the more open systems of its adversaries. After refusing to interfere in foreign politics for decades, China and others now finds itself on the defensive. But those days must end. As our enemies coordinate their attacks, we must disrupt their unity. The European Union is not a monolith. Hungary, Slovakia, and much of southern Europe are not eager for escalation. These internal fractures must be widened. Western strength lies in unity among its elites and their ideological control over their populations. But this unity is not invulnerable.  The American elite remains largely hostile to Russia. There will be no new détente. The various regional conflicts are increasingly becoming a standoff between the West and the Global South.  Global events increasingly reflect the growing confrontation between the Western bloc, led by the United States and its allies, and the countries of the so-called “World Majority,” coalescing around BRICS.

Analyzing current global developments – from the BRICS summit in Rio to the escalating tensions in the Middle East – it is becoming increasingly clear that the world is moving toward a pronounced geopolitical divide. The interconnected nature of political, economic, and military processes across continents demonstrates that the era of unipolar dominance is fading. A growing confrontation is unfolding between two major blocs: the so-called West, led by the US, BRICS. This and the emerging non-Western world, whose political and economic core is increasingly represented by coalition is steadily solidifying its role as the voice of the Global South, positioning itself as the flagship of a movement advocating for multipolarity and greater equity in international affairs. In its bid to preserve global dominance, the US has increasingly resorted to political and economic coercion, viewing BRICS’ efforts as a direct challenge to the existing order. Yet, the global rift is not merely economic or ideological.   As we have seen in the past few months, Washington wants its rivals to submit to it- be it Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Hamas, Hezbollah, Yemen, and anyone else that Wall Street deems to be an “obstacle” to its global domination plans. It’s “Submit, or else!” The reply to Wall Street and the Trump White House is – – – “bring it on”.

From this, one clear conclusion emerges: conflicts in the Middle East are set to intensify. Gaza will likely remain a flashpoint of violence and humanitarian crisis, as the root political and geopolitical causes of the conflict go unaddressed. The confrontation between Israel and Iran – already escalating through direct military engagements and cyber operations – may evolve into a wider and more dangerous conflict. Moreover, the arc of tension is likely to draw in additional regional players.  Despite longstanding economic and military ties with the West, many of these countries are increasingly gravitating toward the non-Western camp, which champions reforms to global institutions, challenges hegemonic structures, and upholds sovereignty and equality in international relations. This trend lays the groundwork for a profound transformation – not only of the Middle East, but of the global system itself – where the battle over new rules of engagement become a driving force behind enduring instability and conflict. Our next article is called – “America, Gaza and Israel”.