He nails it on Russia. Again, the Russian obsession is so transparent, it is difficult ti understand how the dichotomy of deception gains any traction at all. Surely, anyone living above ground on planet Earth must realize that:
Russian military intervention in Crimea and eastern Ukraine is best understood not as a Russian initiative, but as a Russian reaction. It was a response to U.S. and U.K. efforts to attack Russia by pushing aggressively and prematurely for Ukraine membership in NATO.How many "color revolutions" (installing DEEP State operatives in governance positions of geo-strategic foreign countries) must the U.S. MISC (militarily industrial & surveillance complex) perform before people begin to realize that this is the standard cold war operating procedure of the modern era?
Then, he thoroughly dispels all doubt as to his rational sensibilities regarding China when he rightly assesses the position and motivation of Xi Jinping:
Xi positions himself as the leading advocate of globalization. The truth is more complex. President Xi is the most nationalist of all major leaders. He continually puts China’s long-term interests first without particular regard for the well-being of the rest of the world.China is pragmatic, and very wise in the way of foreign affairs. Putin and Xi are complete personality opposites who attract like metal to magnet. The magnetism of that attraction? Strategic interests. The timing and opportunity of coalition are priceless.
I commend Wm. Engdahl with properly characterizing the relationship, and its hope for the world, however fleeting, that we will have a few good years from the restructuring of the dollar system and the rise of Eurasian economic progress.
The U.S. has a large bankruptcy expert at the helm. It is fitting that Trump was chosen to oversee the bankruptcy of the dollar system. Like his properties, the U.S. will come out of it, surprisingly well. With a little luck, the old money faction that seeks perpetual conflict will finally die off and the people of America will not be incinerated in a series of mushroom cloud plumes that will make Hiroshima look like 3 schoolboys with a pack of firecrackers.
The only thing that seems to escape understanding is the order of things, as in what is root vs. symptom - what is cause vs. effect. It is best understood that first and foremost it is the money that is being nationalized. The dollar is being nationalized (in essence de-globalized).
You see, the nations - the people and their money - are as one. Do you think the rise of populism, of nationalism or "protectionism" (i.e. tribalism) is some organic form of spontaneous generation? No. The world's economic dynamic has changed. We can say that the banking class authored the change, or simply responded to it, or we can understand that the experiment of the former dynamic - dollar globalism - has run its course. Tribalism was said to be "group retreat to avoid paying up" but it may also be understood as "group retreat from a deal gone sour".
Yes, the nationalism that Rickards speaks of, evolved in part as a rejection of globalism - but what part of globalism is actually being rejected?
Globalization relied on open borders, free trade, telecommunications, global finance, extended supply chains, cheap labor and freedom of the seas.Do you think any of these things above is being rejected, or even reduced, going forward? These things will increase. It is the dollar that is being rejected. The global dollar system. Think about it. The dollar faction will recoil into one camp, and the rest of the world will enjoy the fruits of globalism - just not under the thumb of the dollar faction.
In response to the the removal of foreign dollar/Eurodollar support, the multi-lateral international monetary and financial system is being prepared for activation. Whether or not we view this change as "nationalism" or "protectionism" depends on one's point of view. Certain groups do want protection from the dollar's tax on productivity - no doubt. But true nationalism is not the objective. Regionalism first.