Video: U.S. President Richard Nixon had a historic trip to China in 1972. Take a look back on the week that changed the world. 1972 年，美國總統理查德尼克鬆對中國進行了歷史性的訪問。回顧一下改變世界的一周.
https://vimeo.com/680774245
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/661791595044169/?d=n

Video by Tulsi Gabbard: 2020 US Presidential Candidates, former Hawaii US Congresswoman, US Army Lieutenant colonel comments on Ukraine. If the same comments came from Chinese-Americans, Chinese racists & haters will ask them to go back to China. 2020年美國總統候選人、前夏威夷美國國會女議員、美國陸軍中校對烏克蘭的評論. 如果同樣的評論來自美國華人, 那些來自中港澳台的中國種族主義者仇中人士會要求美國華人滖回中國以表示他們對白人的忠心, 願意無條件做白人🐶奴才.
https://vimeo.com/680757101
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/661765841713411/?d=n

Warmongers argue that we must protect Ukraine because it is a “democracy.” But they’re lying. Ukraine isn’t actually a democracy. To hold onto power, Ukraine’s president shut down the 3 TV stations that criticized him, and imprisoned the head of the opposition political party which came in 2nd place in the election, and arrested and jailed its leaders (exactly what Putin has been accused of doing)—all with the support of U.S.

Video: China’s virus-killing system on trial in HK 中國病毒殺滅系統在香港試用 If it works in Hong Kong, it’s big news for the world. Huge numbers of lives can be saved if the system proves transferable 如果它在香港奏效，這對世界來說是個大新聞。 如果系統證明可轉移，則可以挽救大量生命.
https://vimeo.com/680748442
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/661753908381271/?d=n

Video: Donbas explained: The source of conflict on the Russia-Ukraine border 頓巴斯解釋說：俄烏邊境衝突的根源
https://vimeo.com/680695989
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/661662111723784/?d=n

Asia Times: WWII redux: The endpoint of US policy – The threatened peoples of East Asia and Europe can stop the US drive to restore its global domination 亞洲時報：二戰歸來：美國政策的終點 – 受到威脅的東亞和歐洲人民可以阻止美國恢復其全球統治地位的努力By Prof. John Walsh, MD in SF 2-21-22

“This is not going to be a war of Ukraine and Russia. This is going to be a European war, a full-fledged war.” So spoke Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky just days after berating the US for beating the drums of war.

It is not hard to imagine how Zelensky’s words must have fallen on those European ears that were attentive. His warning surely conjured up images of World War II when tens of millions of Europeans and Russians perished.

Zelensky’s words echoed those of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on the other side of the world at the eastern edge of the great Eurasian landmass: “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled flat.” We can be sure that Duterte, like Zelensky, had in mind World War II, which also consumed tens of millions of lives in East Asia.

The United States is stoking tensions in both Europe and East Asia, with Ukraine and Taiwan as the current flashpoints on the doorsteps of Russia and China, which are the targeted nations.

Let us be clear at the outset. As we shall see, the endpoint of this process is not for the US to do battle with Russia or China, but to watch China and Russia fight it out with their neighbors to the ruin of both sides. The US is to “lead from behind” – as safely and remotely as can be arranged.

To make sense of this and react properly, we must be very clear-eyed about the goal of the US. Neither Russia nor China has attacked or even threatened the US. Nor are they in a position to do so – unless one believes that either is ready to embark on a suicidal nuclear war.

Why should the US elite and its media pour out a steady stream of anti-China and anti-Russia invective? Why the steady eastward march of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since the end of the first Cold War? The goal of the US is crystal clear – it regards itself as the Exceptional Nation and entitled to be the No 1 power on the planet, eclipsing all others.

This goal is most explicitly stated in the well-known Wolfowitz Doctrine drawn shortly after the end of the first Cold War in 1992. It proclaimed that the United States’ “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet union or elsewhere….”

It stated that no regional power must be allowed to emerge with the power and resources “sufficient to generate global power.” It stated frankly that “we must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global power” (emphasis mine).

The Wolfowitz Doctrine is but the latest in a series of such proclamations that have proclaimed global domination as the goal of US foreign policy since 1941, the year before the US entered World War II. This lineage is documented clearly in a book by the Quincy Institute’s Stephen Wertheim, “Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy.”

Target No 1: China

China’s economy is No 1 in terms of PPP-GDP (gross domestic product based on purchasing power parity) according to the International Monetary Fund and has been since November 2014. It is growing faster than the US economy and shows no signs of slowing down. In a sense, China has already won by this metric, since economic power is the ultimate basis of all power.

But what about a military defeat of China? Can the US with its present vastly superior armed forces bring that about? Historian Alfred McCoy answers that question in the way most do these days, with a clear “no”:

“The most volatile flashpoint In Beijing’s grand strategy for breaking Washington’s geopolitical grip over Eurasia lies in the contested waters between China’s coast and the Pacific littoral, which the Chinese call ‘the first island chain.’

“But China’s clear advantage in any struggle over that first Pacific island chain is simply distance.…The tyranny of distance, in other words, means that the US loss of that first island chain, along with its axial anchor on Eurasia’s Pacific littoral, should only be a matter of time.”

Certainly the US elites recognize this problem. Do they have a solution?

Moreover, that is not the end of the “problem” for the US. There are other powerful countries, such as Japan, or rapidly rising economies in East Asia, easily the most dynamic economic region in the world. These too will become peer competitors, and in the case of Japan, it already has been a competitor, both before World War II and during the 1980s.

Target No 2: Russia

If we hop over to the western edge of Eurasia, we see that the US has a similar “problem” when it comes to Russia. Here too, the US cannot defeat Russia in a conventional conflict, nor have US sanctions been able to bring it down. How can the US surmount this obstacle?

And as in the case of East Asia, the US faces another economic competitor, Germany, or more accurately, the European Union with Germany at its core. How is the US to deal with this dual threat?

One clue comes in the response of President Joe Biden to both the tension over Taiwan and that over Ukraine. Biden has said repeatedly that his administration will not send US combat troops to fight Russia over Ukraine or to fight China over Taiwan. But it will send materiel and weapons, and also “advisers.”

And here too the US has other peer competitors, most notably Germany, which has been the target of US tariffs. Economist Michael Hudson puts it succinctly in a penetrating essay: “America’s real adversaries are its European and other allies: The US aim is to keep them from trading with China and Russia.”

Postwar rise to power

Such “difficulties” for the US were solved once before – in World War II.

One way of looking at that conflict is that it was a combination of two great regional wars, one in East Asia and one in Europe. In Europe the US was minimally involved as Russia, the core of the USSR, battled it out with Germany, sustaining great damage to life and economy. Both Germany and Russia were economic basket cases when the war was over, two countries lying in ruins.

The US provided weapons and materiel to Russia but was minimally involved militarily, only entering late in the game. The same happened in East Asia, with Japan in the role of Germany and China in the role of Russia.

Both Japan and China were devastated in the same way as were Russia and Europe. This was not an unconscious strategy on the part of the United States. As Harry Truman, then a senator, declared in 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.”

At the end of it all, the US emerged as the most powerful economic and military power on the planet. McCoy spells it out:

“Like all past imperial hegemons, US global power has similarly rested on geopolitical dominance over Eurasia, now home to 70% of the world’s population and productivity. After the Axis alliance of Germany, Italy and Japan failed to conquer that vast landmass, the Allied victory in World War II allowed Washington, as historian John Darwin put it, to build its ‘colossal imperium … on an unprecedented scale,’ becoming the first power in history to control the strategic axial points ‘at both ends of Eurasia.’

“As a critical first step, the US formed the NATO alliance in 1949, establishing major military installations in Germany and naval bases in Italy to ensure control of the western side of Eurasia.

“After its defeat of Japan, as the new overlord of the world’s largest ocean, the Pacific, Washington dictated the terms of four key mutual-defense pacts in the region with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia, and so acquired a vast range of military bases along the Pacific littoral that would secure the eastern end of Eurasia.

“To tie the two axial ends of that vast landmass into a strategic perimeter, Washington ringed the continent’s southern rim with successive chains of steel, including three navy fleets, hundreds of combat aircraft, and most recently, a string of 60 drone bases stretching from Sicily to the Pacific island of Guam.”

The US was able to become the dominant power on the planet because all peer competitors were left in ruins by the two great regional wars in Europe and East Asia, wars that are grouped under the heading of World War II.

If Europe is plunged into a war of Russia against the EU powers with the US “leading from behind” with materiel and weapons, who will benefit? And if East Asia is plunged into a war of China against Japan and whatever allies it can drum up, with the US “leading from behind,” who will benefit?

It is pretty clear that such a replay of World War II will benefit the US. In World War II, while Eurasia suffered tens of millions of deaths, the US suffered about 400,000 – a terrible toll certainly but nothing like that seen in Eurasia.

And with the economies and territories of Eurasia, East and West, in ruins, the US will again emerge on top, in the catbird seat, and able to dictate terms to the world. World War II redux.

But what about the danger of nuclear war growing out of such conflicts? The US has a history of nuclear “brinksmanship,” going back to the earliest post-World War II days. It is a country that has shown itself willing to risk nuclear holocaust.

Are there US policymakers criminal enough to see this policy of provocation through to the end? I will leave that to the reader to answer.

The peoples of East and West Eurasia are the ones who will suffer most in this scenario. And they are the ones who can stop the madness by living peacefully with Russia and China rather than serving as cannon fodder for the US.

There are clear signs of dissent from the European “allies” of the US, especially Germany, but the influence of the US remains powerful. Germany and many other countries are after all occupied by tens of thousands of US troops, their media heavily influenced by the US and with the organization that commands European troops, NATO, under US command. Which way will it go?

In East Asia the situation is the same. Japan is the key, but the hatred of China among the Elite is intense. Will the Japanese people and the other peoples of East Asia be able to put the brakes on the drive to war?

Some say that a two-front conflict like this is US overreach. But certainly, if war is raging on or near the territories of both Russia and China, there is little likelihood that one can aid the other.

Given the power of modern weaponry, this impending world war will be much more damaging than World War II by far. The criminality that is on the way to unleashing it is almost beyond comprehension.

John V Walsh, until recently a professor of physiology and neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, has written on issues of peace and health care for Asia Times, San Francisco Chronicle, EastBayTimes/San Jose Mercury News, LA Progressive, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch and others.

What we can expect after Putin’s conquest of Ukraine 普京征服烏克蘭後我們可以期待什麼 by Robert Kagan 2-22-22

Let’s assume for a moment that Vladimir Putin succeeds in gaining full control of Ukraine, as he shows every intention of doing. What are the strategic and geopolitical consequences?

The first will be a new front line of conflict in Central Europe. Until now, Russian forces could deploy only as far as Ukraine’s eastern border, several hundred miles from Poland and other NATO countries to Ukraine’s west. When the Russians complete their operation, they will be able to station forces — land, air and missile — in bases in western Ukraine as well as Belarus, which has effectively become a Russian satrapy.

Russian forces will thus be arrayed along Poland’s entire 650-mile eastern border, as well as along the eastern borders of Slovakia and Hungary and the northern border of Romania. (Moldova will likely be brought under Russian control, too, when Russian troops are able to form a land bridge from Crimea to Moldova’s breakaway province of Transnistria.) Russia without Ukraine is, as former secretary of state Dean Acheson once said of the Soviet Union, “Upper Volta with rockets.” Russia with Ukraine is a different strategic animal entirely.

The most immediate threat will be to the Baltic states. Russia already borders Estonia and Latvia directly and touches Lithuania through Belarus and through its outpost in Kaliningrad. Even before the invasion, some questioned whether NATO could actually defend its Baltic members from a Russian attack. Once Russia has completed its conquest of Ukraine, that question will acquire new urgency.

One likely flash point will be Kaliningrad. The headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet, this city and its surrounding territory were cut off from the rest of Russia when the Soviet Union broke up. Since then, Russians have been able to access Kaliningrad only through Poland and Lithuania. Expect a Russian demand for a direct corridor that would put strips of the countries under Russian control. But even that would be just one piece of what is sure to be a new Russian strategy to delink the Baltics from NATO by demonstrating that the alliance cannot any longer hope to protect those countries.

Indeed, with Poland, Hungary and five other NATO members sharing a border with a new, expanded Russia, the ability of the United States and NATO to defend the alliance’s eastern flank will be seriously diminished.

The new situation could force a significant adjustment in the meaning and purpose of the alliance. Putin has been clear about his goals: He wants to reestablish Russia’s traditional sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe. Some are willing to concede as much, but it is worth recalling that when the Russian empire was at its height, Poland did not exist as a country; the Baltics were imperial holdings; and southeastern Europe was contested with Austria and Germany. During the Soviet period, the nations of the Warsaw Pact, despite the occasional rebellion, were effectively run from Moscow.

Today, Putin seeks at the very least a two-tier NATO, in which no allied forces are deployed on former Warsaw Pact territory. The inevitable negotiations over this and other elements of a new European security “architecture” would be conducted with Russian forces poised all along NATO’s eastern borders and therefore amid real uncertainty about NATO’s ability to resist Putin’s demands.

This takes place, moreover, as China threatens to upend the strategic balance in East Asia, perhaps with an attack of some kind against Taiwan. From a strategic point of view, Taiwan can either be a major obstacle to Chinese regional hegemony, as it is now; or it can be the first big step toward Chinese military dominance in East Asia and the Western Pacific, as it would be after a takeover, peaceful or otherwise. Were Beijing somehow able to force the Taiwanese to accept Chinese sovereignty, the rest of Asia would panic and look to the United States for help.

These simultaneous strategic challenges in two distant theaters are reminiscent of the 1930s, when Germany and Japan sought to overturn the existing order in their respective regions. They were never true allies, did not trust each other and did not directly coordinate their strategies. Nevertheless, each benefited from the other’s actions. Germany’s advances in Europe emboldened the Japanese to take greater risks in East Asia; Japan’s advances gave Adolf Hitler confidence that a distracted United States would not risk a two-front conflict.

Today, it should be obvious to Xi Jinping that the United States has its hands full in Europe. Whatever his calculus before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he can conclude only that his chances of successfully pulling something off, either in Taiwan or the South China Sea, have gone up. While some argue that U.S. policies drove Moscow and Beijing together, it is really their shared desire to disrupt the international order that creates a common interest.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet in Beijing on Feb. 4. (Alexei Druzhinin/AFP via Getty Images)
Long ago, American defense strategy was premised on the possibility of such a two-front conflict. But since the early 1990s, the United States has gradually dismantled that force. The two-war doctrine was whittled down and then officially abandoned in the 2012 defense policy guidance. Whether that trend will be reversed and defense spending increased now that the United States genuinely faces a two-theater crisis remains to be seen. But it is time to start imagining a world where Russia effectively controls much of Eastern Europe and China controls much of East Asia and the Western Pacific. Americans and their democratic allies in Europe and Asia will have to decide, again, whether that world is tolerable.

A final word about Ukraine: It will likely cease to exist as an independent entity. Putin and other Russians have long insisted it is not a nation at all; it is part of Russia. Setting history and sentiment aside, it would be bad strategy for Putin to allow Ukraine to continue to exist as a nation after all the trouble and expense of an invasion. That is a recipe for endless conflict. After Russia installs a government, expect Ukraine’s new Moscow-directed rulers to seek the eventual legal incorporation of Ukraine into Russia, a process already underway in Belarus.

Some analysts today imagine a Ukrainian insurgency sprouting up against Russian domination. Perhaps. But the Ukrainian people cannot be expected to fight a full-spectrum war with whatever they have in their homes. To have any hope against Russian occupation forces, an insurgency will need to be supplied and supported from neighboring countries. Will Poland play that role, with Russian forces directly across the border? Will the Baltics? Or Hungary? And if they do, will the Russians not feel justified in attacking the insurgents’ supply routes, even if they happen to lie in the territory of neighboring NATO members? It is wishful thinking to imagine that this conflict stops with Ukraine.

The map of Europe has experienced many changes over the centuries. Its current shape reflects the expansion of U.S. power and the collapse of Russian power from the 1980s until now; the next one will likely reflect the revival of Russian military power and the retraction of U.S. influence. If combined with Chinese gains in East Asia and the Western Pacific, it will herald the end of the present order and the beginning of an era of global disorder and conflict as every region in the world shakily adjusts to a new configuration of power.

USCPFA featuring special guest LEE Siu Hin to talk about his documentary on Xinjiang and his book Capitalism on a Ventilator at dinner meeting Fri 2-25-22 4pm Elaine’s Grant Place 737 Washington in SF Chinatown

Special guest LEE Siu Hin is doing China-US labor solidarity tours so he spends 5 months in China and one month here, working with
Alliance for Global Justice and UNAC.

China-US Solidarity Network http://www.ChinaSolidarity.org

National Immigrant Solidarity Network http://www.ImmigrantSolidarity.org

Xinjiang documentary official website: http://www.VoiceXJ.net

He will show the previews on his documentary on Xinjiang, also about his book “Capitalism on a Ventilator”

Capitalism on a Ventilator: The Impact of COVID-19 in China & the U.S.

In January 2020, China alerted major international scientific bodies about the eruption of a dangerous new virus and heavily promoted basic precautions. U.S. politicians and corporate media ridiculed and ignored the warnings. Washington ramped up its policy of racist propaganda, military encirclement, trade war and sanctions. The consequence, tens of thousands of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. – the highest in the world.Rather than global cooperation on testing, vaccine development and PPE supplies, the U.S. chose competition, profits and military build-up.Even with fewer resources, socialist countries, including Cuba and Vietnam, using people’s mobilizations, were better prepared to protect their populations. Their death rates are among the lowest. What can we learn?An anthology by social justice activists. Edited by: Sara Flounders & Lee Siu Hin

He will travel up from L.A. to join us this Friday night.

RSVP to Lotus 415.786.3010

Video: US, Canada, Australia and EU Olympians debunk their Gov’t fake news propaganda on 2022 Beijing Olympics 美國、加拿大、澳大利亞和歐盟奧運選手揭穿他們政府關於 2022 年北京奧運會的假新聞宣傳
https://vimeo.com/680585184
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/661539508402711/?d=n

Video: Is Russia “Invading” Ukraine? Or Reacting to an Ongoing Occupation by US? 俄羅斯“入侵”烏克蘭了嗎？ 還是對美國正在進行的佔領做出反應？
https://vimeo.com/680497444
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/661425488414113/?d=n
Is Russia really “invading” Ukraine? Or is it finally reacting to an ongoing occupation or capture of Ukraine – a nation on its own borders after 8 years of patience?

The US has admittedly interfered in Ukraine’s internal political affairs in violation of the UN Charter, admittedly spending billions of dollars to shape its political system and influence the outcome of its political process.

In 2014 the US overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and installed into power a regime answering to Washington, not the Ukrainian people – and for the benefit of Washington at the very obvious cost of Ukraine’s present and future stability and prosperity.

Russia pours troops into the two breakaway enclaves of Ukraine after Moscow officially recognised them, the Western alliance, led by the US has been quick to denounce the “invasion” and impose limited sanctions. 在莫斯科正式承認烏克蘭這兩個分離共和國, 俄羅斯將軍隊投入維和, 以美國為首的西方聯盟迅速譴責所謂”入侵”並實施有限的製裁.