Trump-Europe-Ukraine Meeting: Selling Division of Labor and Strategic Sequencing

August 20, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Following the recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and the following meeting of European leaders, the Ukrainian president and President Trump in Washington, a predictable US policy had begun to take shape.

As stated as early as February of this year by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaking to European leaders at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Europe was tasked with taking over Washington’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine by ramping up NATO spending, arms production, and the transfer of material support to Ukraine, allowing the US to pivot to the Asia-Pacific prioritizing the containment of China there. 

Secretary Hegseth was clear that the conflict would be frozen, not ended, and that European and non-European troops (not American troops) would be transferred into Ukraine to ensure a freeze, followed by Europe reorganizing and rebuilding Ukraine’s armed forces. 

As Secretary Hegseth explained, “the reality of scarcity” prevents the US from engaging directly and fully in two great-power conflicts with both Russia and China simultaneously, requiring the freezing of one conflict while the US pursues another. 

The very fact the US seeks to confront China in the Asia-Pacific in the same manner it has confronted Russia in Ukraine, demonstrates a complete lack of interest in actual peace with either (or any) nation. The US believes that if it can contain China sooner, it can circle back to confront and contain Russia later. 

The Marathon Initiative’s 2024 paper, “Strategic Sequencing, Revisited,” by Wess Mitchel, a former Trump administration official, stated explicitly: 

The idea of sequencing is simply to concentrate resources against one opponent in order to weaken its disruptive energies before turning to another, either to deter or defeat it.

Mitchel also used the term “division of labor” in regards to US “allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific,” a term Secretary Hegseth would repeat verbatim in Brussels earlier this year, revealing “division of labor” and “strategic sequencing” as tandem policies Washington is pursuing. 

First Principles: America’s Pursuit of Primacy 

At the end of the Cold War, as the New York Times (NYT) reported in its 1992 article, “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring no Rivals Develop,” the US sought to create “a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.” 

The same article would note Washington’s rejection of “collective internationalism,” referred to today as “multipolarism.” 

Is the "3 Seas Initiative" the West's Answer to China's Belt and Road?

June 9, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - To counter not only China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but also Russia's growing ties with Western Europe, an "alternative" infrastructure drive is being proposed that if and when completed, Washington, London, and Brussels hopes will further contain Russia and cut China off from European markets. 

Called the "Three Seas Initiative," it is described in a Bloomberg op-ed titled, "This Is How Europe Can Push Back Against China and Russia," as:

...a joint endeavor by 12 eastern members of the European Union to update the physical and digital links between the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas.

The op-ed argues that the initiative is the only way to fight off "Russian bullying and Chinese meddling." 

But upon closer scrutiny - even the selling points made by the author - Andreas Kluth - reads instead like a thinly veiled attempt to bully and meddle in Europe - and at the expense of the obvious opportunities trade and ties with Russia and China will bring. 

Kluth's argument includes blaming the Soviet Union's neglect of Eastern European nations as the reason they lack modern infrastructure today, claiming: 

Though economically vibrant, most of this region still lags the rest of the bloc in infrastructure. Travel by road and rail takes two to four times longer on average than in the rest of the EU. 

What’s missing in particular is good highways, railway tracks and gas pipes running north and south. This is a legacy of the Cold War. The Soviet hegemons made sure that Russian gas, tanks and troops could easily move east-west, but cared not a hoot about other connections among the countries they occupied.

Yet the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 - 30 years ago. If Eastern Europe currently still lacks modern infrastructure - it would be more appropriate to state that it is Brussels who "cares not" about making improvements. 

Nord Stream 2: Potential Flashpoint as Pipeline Nears Completion

January 6, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline project extending from Russia to Germany that - when completed - will provide a secure means of exporting Russian natural gas to Western Europe - circumventing a now volatile Ukraine and other potential conflict zones, all while tying Russia and Europe together further through mutually beneficial economic activity.

The project has faced significant hurdles - mainly in the form of US sanctions aimed at pressuring Russia's European partners into backing out of the deal. The recent alleged "poisoning" of Alexei Navalny also appears to be an engineered provocation aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Germany as the project nears completion. 

I explain the most recent developments regarding the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and why this project is critical to keep an eye on. 

RELATED: Nord Stream 2: Washington to "Free" Europe From Freedom to Decide for Itself

Its completion will be a victory for multipolarism and help draw Western Europe further out of Washington's orbit. It will also be severe blow to Washington's and Wall Street's unipolar international order - a prospect it appears the US is willing to anything to avoid. 

Brian Berletic, formally known under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci" is a geopolitical researcher, writer, and video producer (YouTube here and BitChute here) based in Bangkok, Thailand. He is a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook and more recently, 21st Century Wire. You can support his work via Patreon here.

US Walks Away From Another Treaty, Closer to Confrontation with Russia

November 25, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The US has signaled a desire to withdraw from yet another agreement created specifically to reduce the likelihood of a military confrontation between the US and NATO versus Russia. 

The US State Department's own Voice of America in an article titled, "US Officially Withdraws from Open Skies Agreement," would report: 

The United States formally withdrew on Sunday from the Open Skies Treaty, an 18-year-old arms control and verification agreement that Washington repeatedly accused Moscow of violating.

The withdrawal is the latest blow to the system of international arms control that U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly scorned, complaining that Washington was being either deceived or unfairly restrained in its military capabilities.

Even the VOA article admits there is no evidence regarding US accusations that Russia has violated the agreement.

The Open Skies Treaty put into effect in 2002 made provisions for short-notice unarmed observation flights by both sides over each other's territory to help assure both sides that neither was secretly preparing forces for attack or amassing troops in sensitive areas. 

For Russia, this would mean amassing troops within its own territory but close to its borders with Western Europe. 

For the US, this would mean amassing troops thousands of miles from its own shores in European nations hosting them which now includes nations directly on Russia's borders, circumstances already decidedly in favor of potential American, not Russian aggression. 

Despite the treaty ultimately being designed to ensure European security from a potential Russian attack, European allies of Washington including Germany have reacted negatively to Washington's withdrawal from it. 

Germany's Deutsche Welle (DW) in an article titled, "US officially withdraws from Open Skies transparency pact," would note: 

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Germany regrets the US decision and that Berlin still regarded the agreement as "an important part of the arms control architecture that contributes to mutual trust and thus security in the northern hemisphere."

Thus, one of the key nations the treaty is designed primarily to protect still stands by it, regretting Washington's decision to withdraw from it and even indirectly suggesting that Washington's actions threaten trust and security in the northern hemisphere. 

Europe Helps US Destroy Libya, Now Blames/Sanctions Russia

October 24, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The EU has leveled sanctions against Russia for - among other things - "meddling" in Libya's ongoing civil war.

AFP in its article, "EU sanctions senior Putin aides over Navalny, Libya," would claim: 

The EU said Wagner had committed "multiple and repeated breaches" of a UN arms embargo on Libya, where Russia has backed warlord Khalifa Haftar in his uprising against the internationally-recognised government.

The UK - despite leaving the EU - has also said it would uphold the sanctions. 

The EU's attempt to high-road Russia, however, raises an important point - that it was the EU alongside the US who destroyed Libya's government in 2011 in the first place. 

The 2011 Western military intervention led to the civil war now currently consuming the nation and its people. And if Russia really is supplying weapons to Libyan groups in Libya - they are fighting groups who are being supplied arms in violation of the same UN arms embargo by other nations - namely the EU and the US.  

The US and Europe Destroyed Libya in the First Place 

Libya's ongoing chaos is a direct result of a 2011 US-led military intervention which included forces from several European nations including the UK. After destroying much of the nation's infrastructure and ousting the Libyan government led by Muammar Qaddafi - Libya was plunged into perpetual infighting as the country was divided by competing warlords and terrorist organizations flush with weapons the US and Europe provided them. 

NATO's Slow-Motion Blitzkrieg Eastward

September 20, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - When the US announced it would be reducing the number of its troops stationed in Germany many hoped in vain it would be the beginning of an overall reduction of US forces in Europe and a deescalation of tensions between the US, NATO and the Russian Federation.

Many others, however, easily predicted these forces would simply be moved elsewhere in Europe and most likely eastward even closer to Russia's borders and, as a result, increasing tensions.

AP reported in its article, "Pompeo inks deal for US troop move from Germany to Poland," that:

Some 4,500 U.S. troops are currently based in Poland, but about 1,000 more are to be added, under a bilateral decision announced last year. Last month, in line with President Donald Trump’s demand to reduce troop numbers in Germany, the Pentagon announced that some 12,000 troops would be withdrawn from Germany with about 5,600 moving to other countries in Europe, including Poland.

The article would add, in an attempt to explain the presence of US troops in Europe and their creep ever eastward, that:

Pompeo has used his Europe trip to warn the region’s young democracies about threats posed by Russia and China and has received a warm welcome.

What threats would those be?

NATO's creation and use as a balance of power during the Cold War could be argued, but since the collapse and eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has not only continued to expand in membership including nations sitting directly on Russia's borders, it has expanded in scope, participating in wars of aggression stretching from Africa to Asia.

If it were ever a tool to maintain a balance of power between East and West, it has since transformed into a bludgeon to fully exploit a perceived absence of it in its favor.

From Libya to Iraq to Syria to Afghanistan, NATO members have destroyed one nation after another from the turn of the century and continue doing so to this day.

Navalny Poisoning - The Real Target is Russian-German Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

US-NATO continue building "momentum" behind Navalny incident - hope to end Nord Stream 2 pipeline before facts emerge, the pipeline is completed, and as all other options have so-far failed.  

September 6, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Alexei Navalny is the ideal opposition figure for any incumbent government - he is ineffective, unpopular, and transparently compromised by malign foreign interests.

According to a poll carried out by the Lavada Center - a polling organization funded by the US government itself  via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - a mere 9% of all Russians look favorably on him and his work, with most Russians unaware of who he even is.

Germany was the one place the US and NATO needed Navalny to be the most - and in a condition of poor health the US and NATO needed him to be in. 

His continued existence and his monopoly over Russia's equally unpopular opposition ensures that an effective opposition never takes root in grounds choked by his presence.

For Moscow - Navalny's continued existence is not only not a threat, he occupies space where a real threat might otherwise emerge.

For the United States and its NATO partners who have dumped millions of dollars and political capital into Navalny's dead-end opposition in Russia - Navalny's continued existence is an underperforming investment at best.

"Coincidentally" just as the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline nears completion - a pipeline project that will expand Russia's hydrocarbon exports, increase revenue, and provide cheap energy to Europe in a business deal that would also help draw Europe and Russia closer diplomatically - Navalny was "poisoned."

He wasn't just "poisoned." He was allegedly poisoned with nerve agents called "Novichoks" alleged to be available only in Russia. Navalny was rushed by a shadowy NGO with opaque funding called "Cinema for Peace" to Germany - of all places.

Delivered right to the heart of what is surely one of Russia's most important economic and diplomatic projects at the moment - it is the perfect excuse for the US and NATO to pressure Germany to abandon Nord Stream 2 - an objective Washington has struggled and failed to achieve for years.

The US and NATO wasted no time accusing Russia even with no evidence presented that Russia was responsible - not to mention lacking any conceivable motive for the alleged "assassination" attempt of such an unpopular opposition figure at such a crucial time for Russia, its economy, and its ties with Western Europe and Germany in particular.

Why is the US-NATO Eager for Regime Change in Belarus?

Regime change in Belarus would help extend NATO's presence on Russia's border by over 700 miles.  

August 27, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Belarus borders Russia and despite differences it has had with Russia over the years, the current government represents a much better alternative than a client regime installed by Washington and NATO.

US and EU-backed regime change in Belarus would extend NATO's presence along Russia's borders by over 700 miles in addition to the over 590 mile-long presence NATO-members like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia already make up (this includes borders shared with the Russian oblast of Kaliningrad).

It would also bring NATO troops within almost 240 miles of Moscow, just within cruising range of US-built M1A2 main battle tanks.

Watching NATO's enlargement following the dissolution of the Soviet Union from the 1990's onward makes it a no-brainer as to what motivates US and NATO meddling in Belarusian politics. It is all aimed toward regime change and the shaping of Belarus into an extension of ongoing efforts to smother Russia.

It is the natural continuation of what could be best described as a slow-motion blitzkrieg, where US and NATO methodically dissect Russia's allies abroad, smother its borders, strangle its economy, and foment unrest within Russia itself.

Belarus depends on Russia economically with a significant amount of its imports and exports coming from and going to Russia. Regime change there, made to look like an immense effort to "save" the people of Belarus, would mean the cutting of these economic ties and would leave a vacuum that would take years to fill. Just like in Ukraine following US-NATO led regime change there, economic collapse would be a guarantee.

For Russia, Belarus is among its top 10 trading partners and while Russia could probably find ways of compensating for the loss of trade with Belarus should a Western-backed client regime take power, it would be yet another cut among many inflicted by the West on its besieged economy.

US Meddling in Belarus is Real, Admitted and Ongoing for Decades 

Why would the opposition in Belarus choose economic collapse, the use of their territory to extend NATO's looming presence on Russia's borders and transform the nation into a potential battleground like neighboring Ukraine?

The fact that the opposition is funded by the US and thus making decisions best suited to Washington's interests rather than Belarus' helps explain why.

The US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization well-known for its involvement in fostering regime change around the globe, funds a total of 35 (admitted) programs in Belarus. The specific individuals and organizations in Belarus the NED is funding are not disclosed on the NED's website. 

US funding Belarus' opposition is nothing new.

"Poisoned" Kremlin Critic Flown to Germany as German-Russian Nord Stream 2 Nears Completion

The perfectly timed poisoning of unpopular, ineffective Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny and the involvement of Germany comes as Washington sought to place maximum pressure on Berlin to cancel the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline. 

August 25, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny - according to German doctors - was allegedly poisoned but is expected to survive. If Navalny was poisoned and the goal was to assassinate him, it was a poorly conceived, poorly executed, and most of all - poorly timed plan. 

Navalny's sudden reappearance across the Western media comes just at the height of US attempts to place maximum pressure on Germany to cancel a pipeline - Nord Stream 2 - it is jointly constructing with Russia. The pipeline would move Russian hydrocarbons into Western Europe directly, bypassing Ukraine now fully destabilized by US and NATO intervention. 

Just last week German state media DW in an article titled, "US senators threaten Germany's port town of Sassnitz over Nord Stream 2 gas project," would highlight the nature of US pressure, reporting that: 

Three US senators are threatening the ferry port on the island of Rügen with "crushing" sanctions to prevent the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Fearing financial ruin, the people of Sassnitz are defiant.

This latest threat from the US against their own German "allies" comes after a long, concerted campaign to pressure Germany into cancelling the joint pipeline with Russia. 

Earlier this year, the New York Times in an article titled, "A Russian Gas Pipeline Increases Tension Between the U.S. and Europe," would report: 

...the State Department moved to potentially impose economic penalties on investors and other business participants in the project, an expansion of existing sanctions.

The new measures were “a clear warning to companies” that “aiding and abetting Russia’s malign influence projects will not be tolerated,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters. “Get out now, or risk the consequences.”

The New York Times would note that growing US pressure faced condemnation from European leaders who accused Washington of interference in their sovereign affairs and specifically in regards to European energy policy. 

The pipeline is already well over 90% completed. 

Perfectly Timed Political Stunt 

The New York Times in a more recent article titled, "Aleksei Navalny, Putin Critic in a Coma, Was Poisoned, German Doctors Say," deliberately trumps up the incident. 

Indeed Navalny is in a coma, but according to the German hospital currently treating him in an official statement, it was a medically induced coma. The statement read: 

Since his admission at the weekend, Alexei Navalny has been receiving treatment at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The patient is being treated in intensive care and remains in medically induced coma. While his condition is serious, it is not currently life-threatening.

The New York Times in its article notes how unpopular and ineffective Navalny has been as an opposition figure in Russia over the years, admitting that: 

Mr. Navalny’s needling criticism of Mr. Putin has never posed a serious electoral threat to the Russian leader, and Mr. Putin remains popular with many Russians.

It should be noted that Navalny himself and the anemic opposition he leads is a product of the US State Department with virtually ever organization and individual in it the recipient of US government money channeled through Washington's notorious regime change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).  

Navalny's US Backing 

Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow - with the Fellowship recently releasing a statement in solidarity with Navalny after this latest incident - and in his profile it states (emphasis added):

Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.

The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is a US NED-fund recipient, implicating Navalny as an agent of US-funded sedition. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list DA! among many of the "youth movements" they support operating in Russia:

DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.

That this funding is nowhere on NED's official website and is admittedly withheld from public knowledge by the funding's recipients indicates that full disclosures are intentionally not being made and that clandestine US funding is most likely much more widespread across Russia's "opposition" as well as for individuals like Navalny himself.  

The COVID-19 Chronicles: Western Europe

June 4, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Western Europe (we'll define as France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, and Austria) shows how regions of the world with existing socioeconomic problems have seen Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) simply amplify them while in other regions where fundamentals have been stronger (China and ASEAN), have simply been temporarily setback.

Even within nations, this is also the case, where sectors and industries performing well have merely been set back while others already struggling long before COVID-19 showed up have been dealt a severe blow.

Health Impact 

Just looking at the reported number of cases and the reported number of deaths tells us that even deep in the heart of the European Union there is some disparity, whether it is via how testing is done, statistics are gathered and reported, the state of healthcare in each respective nation or some sort of demographic factor being responsible.

Germany and France, for example, had nearly the same number of reported COVID-19 cases, yet France had many, many more reported deaths.

France: 182,942 cases, 28,432 deaths
Germany: 180,789 cases, 8,428 deaths
Spain: 282,480 cases, 26,837 deaths
Belgium: 57,342 cases, 9,312 deaths
Portugal: 30,788 cases, 1,330 deaths
Austria: 16,539 cases, 641 deaths

Fears of overburdened healthcare infrastructure stemmed from predictions and models of a pathogen that would spread faster and have a greater impact on public health than COVID-19 actually did.

As testing continues to expand, the number of infected appears to have been vastly larger than previously reported meaning that the mortality rate of COVID-19 is thus much lower.

As Russia Sends Aid, US and NATO Sneer and Smear

Once again NATO reveals itself as the architect of its own decline, missing a golden opportunity to help instead of hinder and harass. 

April 9, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - When Russian military planes and trucks arrived in Italy to provide relief for communities hit by the Covid-19 outbreak, the Italian government, elected into power by the Italian people, was thankful for the assistance offered by Moscow.

Named officials within the Italian government, including the foreign minister, the minister of defense and the governor of Apulia, Michele Emiliano, publically expressed thanks to Russia for the aid.

But finding any mention of this across the Western media is difficult, often buried deep within articles aimed entirely at smearing Russia for sending aid and depicting Italians as victims of a publicity stunt.

Reuters, in a smear piece published by the New York Times and aimed at vilifying Moscow, still had to admit regarding Russian aid that Italians were grateful, noting:

"There are no new geopolitical scenarios to trace, there is a country that needs help and other countries that are helping us," Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio was quoted as saying by Italy's Il Corriere della Sera newspaper on Thursday.

Despite Italy being capable of speaking for itself and bringing up any suspicions (if they had any), the West decided to step in and speak for Italy instead.

Sneering and Smearing 

Western headlines are flooded with scorn for both Russia and the aid they sent, completely indifferent to how Italians themselves perceived the gesture.

Articles like Bloomberg's "Italy Questions Russians Over Their Goodwill Virus Gestures," admit several paragraphs in that officially, Italy was grateful for the aid, noting:

“Our country can only be grateful” for the solidarity of many countries, including Russia, the Italian defense and foreign ministries said in a joint statement Friday.

Yet claims that "Italy questions Russia" suggest the entire nation is suspicious of the aid. Upon reading Bloomberg's article, the only source cited is a single article in the Italian newspaper "La Stampa." It is hard to believe an article in "La Stampa" constitutes all of "Italy."

According to the pro-Western Moscow Times in their article, "80% of Russia’s Coronavirus Aid to Italy ‘Useless’ – La Stampa," also entirely based on the La Stampa article, its admits La Stampa's information came from an "unnamed source." 

Other articles, like the BBC's "Coronavirus: What does ‘from Russia with love’ really mean?," Foreign Policy's "Beware of Bad Samaritans," and Forbes' "From Russia With Love? Putin’s Medical Supplies Gift To Coronavirus-Hit Italy Raises Questions," all used similarly disingenuous tactics to depict the Russian aid as somehow sinister and unwanted.

London Attack: West's Terrorists Bite the Hand that Feeds (Again)

The latest incident in London was so entirely preventable that it is difficult to describe it as anything less than deliberate.

February 13, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In yet another headline-grabbing terror attack - an armed man in south London left several injured - some seriously - with the suspect himself killed at the scene by police.

Entirely predictable was the fact that the suspect named as Sudesh Amman - was a known terrorist - having been previously arrested, tried, and imprisoned for terror-related offenses, only to be inexplicably released early.

The London Telegraph in its article, "Streatham attack knifeman named as Sudesh Amman who had a previous terror conviction," would report regarding his earlier conviction that:

Alexis Boon, then head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, said at the time of his conviction that Amman had a “fierce interest in violence and martyrdom”.

He explained: “His fascination with dying in the name of terrorism was clear in a notepad we recovered from his home. Amman had scrawled his ‘life goals’ in the notepad and top of the list, above family activities, was dying a martyr and going to ‘Jannah’ - the afterlife.

Also predictable was the fact that this known terrorist would once again menace the public - being only the most recent example in a string of headline-grabbing terror attacks carried out by similar suspects similarly known to police and intelligence organizations, but otherwise inexplicably allowed to menace the public.

Major terror attacks in France and Belgium were likewise carried out by suspects entirely known to local police and regional intelligence organizations.

Not only are these suspects known to Western authorities, but they are also affiliated with Western-sponsored terrorist organizations most notably Al Qaeda, its various franchises, and the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) which have for nearly a decade served as proxies in Western-engineered regime change wars aimed at Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, and beyond.

The latest incident in London was so entirely preventable that it is difficult to describe it as anything less than deliberate.

It is only a matter of time before politicians begin spinning and exploiting the incident - using it to shape policy both foreign and domestic - allowing analysts to better understand why such an entirely preventable act of violence was allowed to unfold nonetheless.

From London to Paris: The West's Self-Perpetuated Terror 

As seen in nearly every terror attack in recent years both in Europe and North America including high-profile incidents like the "Charlie Hebdo shooting" and the Garland, Texas attack, the alleged suspects all have one common thread - they were all already under the watch of security agencies for years, some even imprisoned one or more times for terror-related and/or other violent offenses, some even having traveled overseas to fight alongside Western-backed terrorists in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond.

The Guardian in an article titled, "France passes new surveillance law in wake of Charlie Hebdo attack," admitted then that the French government alone had over 1,400 people under watch, including hundreds of terrorists who have recently returned from fighting alongside Western-backed terrorists in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. 

Among these monitored potential risks were in fact the suspects behind the "Charlie Hebdo shooting."

Slate Magazine would report in their article, "The Details of Paris Suspect Cherif Kouachi’s 2008 Terrorism Conviction," that: 

Kouachi was arrested in January 2005, accused of planning to join jihadists in Iraq. He was said to have fallen under the sway of Farid Benyettou, a young "self-taught preacher" who advocated violence, but had not actually yet traveled to Iraq or committed any acts of terror. Lawyers at the time said he had not received weapons training and "had begun having second thoughts," going so far as to express "relief" that he'd been apprehended.

Kourachi and his brother would be reported to have traveled to the Middle East to receive training from Al Qaeda, then to have fought in Syria in a war backed in part by France, before returning home and carrying out their grisly terror attack, all while being tracked by French intelligence.

If Kouachi previously could be arrested for "association with wrongdoers with the intention of committing a terrorist act," why wasn't he arrested immediately upon his return to France for having subsequently received and employed military training by a terrorist organization?

CNN would report in an article titled, "France tells U.S. Paris suspect trained with al Qaeda in Yemen," that: 

Western intelligence officials are scrambling to learn more about possible travel of the two Paris terror attack suspects, brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, with new information suggesting one of the brothers recently spent time in Yemen associating with al Qaeda in that country, U.S. officials briefed on the matter told CNN. Additional information from a French source close to the French security services puts one of the brothers in Syria.

The problem that led up to the "Charlie Hebdo shooting" - or any high-profile attack since - was clearly not a lack of intelligence or surveillance. 

Nord Stream 2: Washington to "Free" Europe From Freedom to Decide for Itself

December 23, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline project extending from Russia to Germany that - when completed - will provide a secure means of exporting Russian natural gas to Western Europe - circumventing a  now volatile Ukraine all while tying Russia and Europe together further through mutually beneficial economic activity.

Of course, for special interests residing across the Atlantic in Washington and on Wall Street, Russia and Europe building closer ties through constructive economic activity undermines a long-standing strategy of coercing Europe via the constant threat of a supposedly hostile Kremlin Washington claims undermines a free and united Europe.

Ironically, in order to preserve Europe's "freedom" the US has now resorted to punishing interests in Europe - and in Germany specifically - for freely choosing to do business with Russia. It not only fully illustrates the supreme hypocrisy that lies at the very root of Washington's current foreign policy, but also threatens to undermine legitimate US business interests seeking - just as Russia does - to build constructive economic ties with companies and nations around the globe.

Sanctions Approved

The BBC in its article, "Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline," would report:

President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union. 

The sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline that will allow Russia to increase gas exports to Germany. 

The US considers the project a security risk to Europe. 

Both Russia and the EU have strongly condemned the US sanctions.

It may or may not confound objective observers to see the US unilaterally leveling sanctions against foreign companies because of what Washington claims are security threats to the nations these companies reside in.

It is clearly the business of Germany and Germany alone to determine what may or may not be a security risk. The US deciding not only unilaterally that the Nord Stream 2 project is a security risk - but in contradiction to Berlin's own assessments of these supposed risks - exposes what is a US foreign policy rooted in singular self-interests poorly hidden behind notions of global peace, stability, and progress.

Were Russia the "threat" that Washington claims it is, clearly Germany would not have invested the immense amount of time, energy, and resources required merely to approve of the Nord Stream 2 project - let alone all the time, energy, and resources required to build and operate it.

Stated Motives. Admitted "Hidden" Motives. Larger, Unspoken Motives 

The BBC article gives a glimpse of what is truly motivating Washington's current posture regarding Nord Stream 2. In its article, it notes that:

The Trump administration fears the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.

And indeed, US energy interests do stand to lose against Russian natural gas - but only because US energy interests are unable to fairly compete against Russia's ability to deliver cheaper energy through much more practical means.

There is also another motivation driving Washington's current foreign policy - unmentioned by the BBC - but one that eclipses the interests of American big-energy - no matter how large these interests may be.

The alleged spectre of a malign Russia preying on Europe serves as - and has served for decades as the foundation of the US-led NATO alliance, the US military presence in Europe and the billions upon billions of dollars of weapon sales, contracts, and all the political influence that constitutes both.

Europe and Russia building a significant pipeline and cooperating over something as key to Europe's economic security and survival as energy demand obviously and completely undermines NATO's pretense to exist - and thus threatens the immense racket that constitutes NATO's continued existence. This not only threatens Washington's grip on Europe, but all the other wars NATO is used as a vehicle to carry both the American nation and its Western allies into across the globe.

The Western intervention in Serbia in the 1990s, the Afghan war stretching from 2001 to present day, and more recently the Western intervention in Libya beginning in 2011 are all examples of US belligerence made possible by NATO - and belligerence that would be exponentially more difficult to continue onward with if NATO was weakened or rendered entirely unnecessary and disbanded.

Not Serving European Interests, or even US Interests 

One must be careful when saying "the US is imposing sanctions on Germany." The US is not. A small handful of special interests in Washington, directed by an even smaller handful of interests on Wall Street are imposing sanctions on Europe over the Nord Stream 2 project.

They are doing so clearly to the detriment of Russia. But also obviously to the detriment of Germany and the European companies involved in completing, operating, and receiving benefits from the pipeline when it opens.

They are also imposing sanctions on Europe to the detriment of the American people, American businesses at large, and the American nation itself both as it stands internationally today and to the detriment of how it will stand internationally in the future.

The G7's Growing Irrelevance

September 13, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The Group of Seven (G7), comprised of the "most advanced economies in the world," includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

It emerged in the 1970s. While it exists for supposedly many different and "important" reasons, it has functioned more as a Western-centric economic cartel than any sort of progressive international alliance.

For a relatively short time, the G7 included Russia, and was known then as the G8. But Russia's inclusion was aimed at forcing Russia, its people and resources under Western domination, not any sort of real effort to cultivate cooperation or inclusion with emerging economies like Russia's.

When it became clear that Russia was using its membership in the Group to advocate for its own best interests rather than falling into line, it was ousted.

While Russia seeks closer ties with the West to move costly and perhaps even dangerous conflict into the direction of healthy competition if not certain forms of cooperation, the G7's posture toward Russia and its attempts to frame it across the media illustrates exactly why the Group and the nations that comprise it, are losing their leadership role upon the global stage.

Western Leadership is Dying 

Articles like the Christian Science Monitor's "Disarray at G-7 summit: Is Western leadership dying, or adapting?," frame perfectly why there really is no question to whether or not Western leadership is dying. It is, and the West's inability to face this reality and the underlying reasons for its existence is precisely why it is.

The article claims:

When French President Emmanuel Macron declared it would be “pointless” to try to deliver the traditional final communique at the G-7 summit he hosted last weekend it prompted some to wonder if maybe the organization itself is pointless. 

Leaders of the Group of Seven major economies had been especially riven by conflicting perspectives on global issues from climate change to trade. 

But the larger question behind the doubts about the G-7 is whether a Cold War-era grouping based on common interests and values such as democracy, the rule of law, free markets, and human rights still has a global leadership role to play in the 21st century.

Anyone paying attention to anything members of the G7 are doing and their actions upon the global stage are well aware that "values" like democracy, the rule of law, free markets and human rights were always ever political mechanisms the West hid its otherwise self-serving agenda behind rather than stood for.

In reality, it is the toppling of governments around the globe, the subverting of national sovereignty, the literal invasions and occupations of various nations particularly under deliberately false pretexts, the mafia-style economics, the lopsided and predatory "free trade agreements" and the operation of a multinational, global-spanning network of torture facilities to process opponents of Western interests that defines "Western leadership" in the late 20th and now 21st century.

If the G7 cannot come to grips with the reality that its supposed values are now clearly seen by the world as a canard rather than as its compass, it cannot effectively address why its power and influence is in decline, saying nothing of its waning global leadership.

Moral leadership and a unity of purpose are two fundamentals that have always historically bound nations in pursuit of their endeavors. The G7 functions more like a tropism of perpetual expansion, lacking genuine purpose while hiding behind increasingly transparent "values."

Does anyone still truly believe Western leadership is predicated upon democracy, the rule of law, free markets and human rights? What evidence is there that suggests this?

Europe Has no Freedom But to Choose "Freedom Gas"

June 7, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently renamed US liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports "freedom gas." But freedom for who? For Europe who already has a cheap and reliable source of natural gas, but is being forced to switch over to more expensive US gas under the threat of sanctions? Certainly not.

Or freedom for Russia who supplies Europe with much of its natural gas to compete openly and fairly with the United States? Most definitely not.

Or is it freedom from competition for the US?  Yes, indeed.

It is often contradictory branding that heralds various chapters of US injustice at home (under the draconian "Patriot Act" for example) and abroad, such as during the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq carried out under the dubious name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Not the Onion

So discredited have US campaigns christened in the name of "freedom" become, that few scarcely believed the US was actually, seriously calling its natural gas exports "freedom gas." However, it is not a headline torn from the pages of the satirical newspaper "The Onion," but rather from the US DOE itself.

In an article from the DOE's official website titled, "Department of Energy Authorizes Additional LNG Exports from Freeport LNG," the DOE states (emphasis added):

“Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes, who highlighted the approval at the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver, Canada. “There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide.”

Aside from the almost comical reference to "freedom gas," there is something else revealing about the DOE's claims of  "giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy." 

This is in direct reference to Europe, and Europe's current imports of Russian gas. Russian gas, delivered by pipelines to Europe will always be cheaper than US liquefied natural gas transported by sea to Europe. That is, unless the US, through the threat of sanctions not only against Russia, but against Washington's own allies in Europe, can raise those costs to above the price of US exports.

Articles like Foreign Policy's "U.S. Senate Threatens Sanctions Over Russian Pipeline," make it clear just how far along the US is toward doing just that.

Who Gains from Turning Europe into a Potential Nuclear Battlefield?

February 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The United States and its NATO partners are attempting to make the case for Washington's decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Claims that the Russian Federation has been violating the treaty have yet to be substantiated with anything resembling credible evidence. Also missing is any rational explanation as to why Russia would develop or deploy nuclear weapons capable of launching a nuclear strike on Europe without warning - a scenario the INF Treaty was created to deter.

Bloomberg in its article, "Nuclear Fears Haunt Leaders With U.S.-Russian Arms Pact's Demise," would claim:

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s top civilian, cited recent Russian deployments and evoked a Cold War-style threat of nuclear destruction at a global conference of security and defense officials this weekend in Munich, the baroque German metropolis that’s one of Europe’s richest cities.  

“These missiles are mobile, easy to hide and nuclear-capable,” Stoltenberg said. “They can reach European cities, like Munich, with little warning.”

Stoltenberg, the rest of NATO, Washington, and the many media organizations that work for and answer to both have failed categorically to explain why Russia would ever use nuclear-capable missiles against cities "like Munich, with little warning."

Would Moscow Nuke Russia's Closest Trade Partners? 

While Russia has invested greatly in recent years to expand its economic trade with Asia, it is still heavily dependent on trade with Europe.

The Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity reveals not only Europe as the most important region for Russian trade, particularly for Russian exports, but nations like the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy as among Russia's top trade partners.

Russia is currently working with Germany on its Nord Stream 2 pipeline - a pipeline transporting Russian hydrocarbons to Western Europe without passing through politically unstable nations like Ukraine. The project is a keystone of recent Russian efforts to modernize and adapt its hydrocarbon industry around complications arising from US interference across Europe - particularly in the form of the US-engineered 2014 coup in Ukraine and NATO's constant US-led expansion along Russian borders.

And Russian companies aren't the only ones benefiting from Nord Stream 2 or other economic ties between Russia and Europe. Russia imports more from Germany than any other European nation, and Germany is only second to China among all nations Russia imports goods from.

It is highly unlikely Russia is going to launch nuclear missiles at "Munich, with little warning" - because to do so would be entirely without rational justification. Characters like Stoltenberg and the rest of NATO gloss over this obvious gap in their narrative to sell Russia as an unpredictable adversary and an enduring threat to Western Europe, as well as the United States. But by filling in this obvious gap in NATO's logic, we can see who really benefits from turning Europe into a potential nuclear battlefield by stationing short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

Nuclear Battlefield Europe

It is Washington, not Germany nor Russia that opposes the Nord Stream 2 project. It is Washington who seeks to drive a wedge between Western European and Russian economic trade. It is Washington who seeks to galvanize - or coerce - Europe into a united front against Russia - even if it means compromising regional stability - both in terms of economics and security.

Washington - by withdrawing from the INF Treaty - doesn't jeopardize the security of its own territory - but opens up a new dimension to an already ongoing nuclear arms race in the heart of Western Europe. It will be Western Europeans and Russians who face the consequences that emerge from the abandoning of the INF Treaty and any unpredictable - or even accidental - incidents that result from the stationing of short-range nuclear weapons across the region.

As pointed out many times before - NATO itself more than any external threat - represents the greatest danger to its member states in terms of pilfering national treasuries, miring nations in protracted wars and occupations thousands of miles from their own shores, and exposing member nations to the consequences of these wars including the deluge of refugees fleeing to Europe from them.

The US - by causing chaos and division both within Europe and between Europe and its trade partners - is able to continue exercising control over the continent - literally an ocean away from Washington DC.

The withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the dangerous arms race sure to follow is another example of the US playing the roles of arsonist and fire brigade as a means to maintain the relevance of the international order it constructed over the last century - an order the US serves as the self-appointed leader of.

In terms of simple economics and genuine European security - the United States could not be more irrelevant.

While Germany maintains the United States as its top export destination - the overall European and Asian regions by far contribute more to the German economy. Any instability or crisis in Europe would have an impact on the German economy its trade with the US would in no way compensate for. In terms of imports, the role of the US is even less.

While European trade with Russia is relatively small in comparison to inter-European trade, or with partners in Asia or even the US - Russian hydrocarbons serve an important role in European energy security. And while the cutting of ties between Europe and Russia would certainly hurt Russia more - the chaos used to cut those ties may disrupt stability within Europe itself - chaos that would impact inter-European trade - trade that ties with the US or Asia would not compensate for.

Washington plays a dangerous game, with short-range nuclear missiles being the latest point of leverage it seeks to use in prying Europe away from Russia. It is another illustration of just which nation's government truly poses the greater threat not only to Europe, but to global peace, security and stability in general.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.     

US Withdrawal from NATO Would Benefit Americans Most of All

January 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Alleged discussions between US President Donald Trump and his aides about a US withdrawal from NATO have been making headlines recently.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia," would claim:

There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years. 

Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.

And while the division or dissolving of NATO most certainly would benefit Russia - removing a malignant and aggressive rogue institution from its borders and the toxic atmosphere of perpetual confrontation it creates - it would also most certainly benefit each and every NATO member many times more.

Despite the many myths surrounding NATO's role in "protecting" its individual members, nothing has undermined the security of NATO member states more than NATO itself.

The Myth of NATO's Purpose 

The reality-show that is American politics has increasingly depended on institutionalized reverse psychology - where a notion that fundamentally appeals to Americans of all political persuasions is passed through "Trump" to create automatic and irrational aversion in at least some segments of the public.

A US withdrawal from an expensive, antiquated, and repeatedly abused military alliance allegedly created to keep in check a Soviet Union that no longer exists is one such universal notion. To polarize debate around the otherwise clear-cut benefits of reducing or dissolving America's role in NATO, "Trump's" alleged desire to withdraw from the alliance has been emphasized, and specifically within the context of "Trump" being an alleged agent of "Russian" influence.

But the truth of NATO's actual purpose and the very real threats it poses to global peace and stability is independent of one's like or dislike of US President Donald Trump.

Far from confronting a Soviet - or now "Russian" threat - NATO instead is used to leverage and abuse Europe's collective political and military power to augment US wars of aggression far beyond the North Atlantic where NATO was supposedly created to protect.

According to NATO's own website, NATO exists to:

...guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

Considering this stated purpose, one must wonder what the now 17 year-long US-led NATO occupation of Afghanistan has to do with the freedom and security of  NATO's American and European members - who must cross oceans and seas just to reach Afghanistan - a nation that poses no threat to any of NATO's members nor possesses the means even if it sought to.

The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has seen the rise of terrorist organizations previously unheard of in Afghanistan, including the emergence of the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) who use the nation as a springboard to spread across Central Asia. The conflict has bled NATO members of billions in funds and has claimed the lives of NATO member soldiers.

NATO atrocities including the bombing of civilians with manned aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), torture, and other abuses have further tarnished NATO's reputation as well as consumed the political legitimacy of many individual NATO members involved.

The fact that the numerous goals NATO supposedly seeks to achieve in Afghanistan have gone unmet for now nearly two decades also undermines the legitimacy and credibility of NATO and its member states.

Another recent NATO action was in Libya in 2011. The destruction of Libya triggered a refugee tidal wave that swept Europe, compromising socioeconomic stability and domestic security within the very heart of NATO's supposed area of responsibility.

Libya itself has been reduced to a failed state where terrorism now runs rampant, threatening security across North Africa and serving as a springboard for militancy and terror both regionally and globally.

Foreign Policy in a 2015 article titled, "The New Pirates of Libya: Why the rise of the radical Islamists in North Africa threatens America directly -- and how to stop it," would admit (emphasis added):

Over the last four years, Libya has become a key node in the expansion of Islamic radicalism across North Africa, West Africa, and the Sahel, and into Europe. Arms and fighters have crossed Libya’s porous borders, feeding radical organizations from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to Boko Haram and reinforcing radical trends in the heart of the Middle East. If events in Libya continue on their current path, they will likely haunt the United States and its Western allies for a decade or more. 

The current situation in Libya is the product of a series of significant mistakes, erroneous assumptions, and myths that date back to NATO intervention in 2011.  

NATO is revealed as a geopolitical wrecking ball - knocking down - not upholding regional or global security. The resulting chaos is then used as a pretext to further expand its mandate. Its actions have repeatedly compromised its many member states in ways even the most tenacious outside threat could not.