(Answers to questions received from some of the youth)
1- The questioner asks: Is it possible to conclude an agreement like the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev agreement between America and China? Can we say this, especially since China, as a global economic power, has become the primary threat to United States power? Furthermore, what is the relationship between the American threat to China over Taiwan and this?
The answer is that concluding such an agreement is unlikely. Rather, America is working to involve China in a war with Taiwan so that it can contain it and make it submit to its will, as well as to prevent it from supporting Russia in Ukraine. It carries out actions to provoke China, forms alliances around it to act against it, and imposes sanctions on it. It has launched an economic war against it, and therefore it appears that it will continue these actions until the Taiwan issue ends in some way, because China insists on annexing Taiwan, even by force, as stated by its President, Xi Jinping, whose third five-year term was renewed: "China will not renounce the right to use force with Taiwan as a last resort and in extreme circumstances" (Al-Jazeera, 16/10/2022). China is monitoring what is happening in Ukraine and how things will turn out so that the tragedy is not repeated if Russia suffers a crushing defeat in Ukraine. We have seen that it refrained from supporting Russia in Ukraine; rather, it retreated after initially announcing unlimited support for Russia and signing an agreement in this regard, then took a neutral stance. This stance harmed Russia, which Putin described as a balanced position, expressing understanding for China's position so as not to lose it by blaming or criticizing it. Therefore, it is likely that America will not conclude an international sharing agreement with it as it did with the Soviet Union previously until all these actions are exhausted. Likewise, it will not conclude an agreement with it to recognize its sphere of influence in the South and East China Sea regions; instead, it is mobilizing countries against it and working to prevent it from controlling these two regions...
2- The questioner says: (Russia could have responded "like the Cuban Missile Crisis" by threatening the United States in close proximity, as the Soviet Union did previously... why didn't it?)
The answer to that is that this statement is unrealistic for Russia, which feels and admits that America is stronger than it. This is unlike the Soviet Union, whose power was parallel to American power. To delve deeper into these meanings, the nuclear power of both countries today is almost equal, but America possesses a missile shield that protects it from Russian missiles, and Russia does not possess such a shield. What Russia announced regarding the manufacture of new missiles capable of bypassing the missile shield is still in its early stages, meaning that the number of Russian nuclear missiles that can reach American territory and bypass the missile shield is few in actual service. Conversely, all of America's old missiles positioned to reach Russian territory can still do so. This is in addition to the massive advancement in American conventional weapons such as drones, stealth aircraft, and smart shells, for which Russia has no close equivalent. The Ukrainian war has proven that the Russian Air Force is weak and cannot even control the airspace of a country like Ukraine, and its drones are backward—reports speak of its use of Iranian drones in the Ukraine war. There are other major points of weakness for Russia's conventional forces revealed by the war in Ukraine, which exposed its illusions of grandeur. What kind of great power is it that cannot, in about eight months, defeat a small country like Ukraine, even if it received Western support?! What greatness is there for Russia, which rushed to withdraw from around the capital, Kyiv, at the beginning of the war before Western support for Ukraine increased?! That is, when Ukraine was less powerful! Therefore, as I said before, the statement that "Russia could have responded 'like the Cuban Missile Crisis' by threatening the United States in close proximity" is unrealistic. Russia today is not the Soviet Union of those days during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
3- As for the issue of international partnership mentioned in the question, for the Americans, it means that the major powers serve America's interests in exchange for America agreeing to give them something of the international spoils (ghana'im) that America decides. For example, Russia agreed to serve America's interests in Syria, so its military intervention took place in 2015, and Russia emerged as a major power, and the reputation of the Russian "veto" in the Security Council spread. This is a significant international prize. Then America wanted to transfer Russian services for America to the China Basin against North Korea and against China, but Russia refused. When America became certain of Russia's refusal, it began to downsize Russia's role, which appeared dominant in Syria, and harassed it in many matters such as the Azerbaijan-Armenia war and many other things. This is American thinking; Washington does not think about sharing influence with anyone, but rather thinks about involving other countries called "major" with it to help it achieve American interests around the world in exchange for some international spoils that America agrees to grant to this or that country. This is American thinking with China, with Russia, and with European countries. Part of this today is that America is expanding Germany's role in Eastern Europe in the face of Russia, but all of this is under American leadership and planning. If Germany decided to break away from American leadership and planning and act alone, America would begin to harass it... this is the logic that dominates American thinking.
4- As for the statement in the question, "Why didn't the United States impose sanctions on India when it agreed to import oil from Russia?"
The answer to that is that America did not impose sanctions on India because that would threaten the fate of its agents in India, led by Modi and his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It did not oppose its purchase of gas and oil from Russia because it could not provide it with an alternative. If India stopped its purchase of energy resources from Russia, as happened in Germany, prices would double in India, and this is what people in India cannot bear. It would affect the pro-American Modi government and consequently topple it, which is the opportunity awaited by the British agents in the Indian Congress Party, who are still strong in India. It even allows it to continue buying weapons from Russia, as has been customary since the era of the Congress Party, which ruled India for most periods since its founding in 1947 until 1998. Then the Bharatiya Janata Party came for the first time and ruled until 2004, and then the Congress Party returned to rule India until 2014, after which the Bharatiya Janata Party returned to power until today. Its success was at the expense of concessions from the agent rulers of Pakistan, as America ordered them, especially in Kashmir, which strengthened the popularity of this party. Therefore, when India bought S-400 missiles from Russia, America did not impose sanctions on it as it did on Turkey. Rather, it exempted India from sanctions within the framework of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, known by the acronym CAATSA. The US House of Representatives approved the exemption within its approval of the US defense budget for the year 2023 on 14/07/2022, on the grounds that "the exemption from sanctions will strengthen defense ties between the United States and India" (Anadolu, 16/07/2022). This was considered a blatant double standard, as it was imposed on Turkey for this purpose under this law and not on India. This indicates that America fears losing its influence in India by the fall of its agents in the Bharatiya Janata Party if it imposes such sanctions on it and prevents it from buying energy resources from Russia. Meanwhile, this does not affect Erdogan and his government, which revolves in its orbit; rather, it increases his popularity and covers up his ties with America.
5- As for the other points mentioned in the questions about oil and gas, the response to them is as follows:
a- Europe is the number one victim of the cut in Russian energy supply chains. This is because Europe sees the risks of Russian expansion near it, so it wants—in agreement with America—to be more capable of confronting Russia when it is not dependent on its gas and oil, and it is ready to bear the consequences. Therefore, it is not said that America is directing Europe to get rid of dependence on Russian energy, although this American direction is an old-new American strategy. Rather, it can be said that America succeeded—by hardening Ukraine's positions, supporting it, and dragging it toward the West—in entangling Russia in Ukraine. That is, it has succeeded through decades of intervention in Ukraine in cornering Russia into this position, which can only be understood as a threat to all of Europe. When the Russian threat to Europe became present and real, European countries voluntarily went along with the American strategy and then cut off Russian energy resources from Europe. This was followed by a rise in natural gas prices, as this gas used to come to it through many pipelines and not via sea tankers that transport liquefied gas (LNG); therefore, it was cheap. When those pipelines were "cut," it became necessary for them to import it mostly via sea tankers, and this is expensive due to the gas liquefaction industry in the exporting countries and then returning it to a gaseous state in the importing countries in Europe.
b- As for oil, its prices have risen globally and not just in Europe, unlike gas. America has also been harmed by the rise in oil prices. The same can be said about grains, whose Russian and Ukrainian sources were disrupted, meaning that the rise in grain prices was also global and not just European. In Europe, as in the rest of the world, the issue of grain and oil shortages is a matter of rising prices due to the possibility of transporting them from regions other than Russia and Ukraine. As for natural gas, it is different because of the modern nature of the gas liquefaction industry and the relative scarcity of gas tankers. The world's increased dependence on natural gas for reasons promoted over decades related to the environment and climate also contributed to this, as it is less polluting and dangerous than others such as coal and nuclear energy.
c- As for America dreaming of pricing natural gas internationally in dollars, this is certain, but there are great obstacles to it. Russia agrees with China and other countries on commercial exchange in local currencies, and this is a Russian approach that has made its way since 2014. In fact, many countries have been thinking about the same since the 2009 financial crisis when the countries of the world discovered the intensity of their dependence on the American dollar. It can be said that the approach of commercial exchange in currencies other than the dollar has indeed made its way in the world, even if it is still limited. Perhaps America's raising of interest rates and the new strong dollar policy that it began to adopt in 2022 are intended by America to restore confidence in the dollar and weaken that approach of commercial exchange in other local currencies. In the long run, climate policies lead to more dependence on natural gas internationally and an increase in the importance of this energy source; consequently, the issue of pricing it in dollars would be of great benefit to America...
d- It may be most important to look at the success of America's efforts to cut gas supply chains between Russia and Europe via pipelines such as the Nord Stream lines as a cutting of energy lines not controlled by America. What indicates this is that America did not pressure Turkey to cut gas lines with Russia, considering that Turkey is one of America's satellites. Thus, Russian President Putin announced intentions to establish a Turkish center for supplying Russian gas to Europe, meaning that America wants the Russian gas trade to Europe in the future to be through routes controlled by Washington.
6th of Rabi’ al-Akhir 1444 AH 31/10/2022 CE