Le sommet qui a réuni les présidents américain et chinois lors de la visite de M. Xi Jinping aux États-Unis, du 23 au 25 septembre, invite à mesurer un renversement géopolitique – et à s'interroger sur un autre.
Au milieu des années 1980, la question de Taïwan ne figure pas au rang des priorités géopolitiques de la planète. Depuis 1979, Washington a établi des relations diplomatiques avec la République populaire de Chine (RPC). La priorité est alors d'affaiblir l'Union soviétique en jouant des tensions qui l'opposent à la Chine. Dans le grand jeu planétaire, Taïwan ne représente qu'« un problème insignifiant », selon un document du Congrès américain daté de février 1982.
Le « problème insignifiant » d'hier se trouve désormais tout en haut de la liste des questions brûlantes qui opposent Washington et Pékin. Le statut de l'île offre depuis longtemps à Washington une marge de manœuvre : si le traité de San Francisco établit que le Japon « renonce » à Taïwan, il ne précise pas à qui elle doit revenir. Après l'effondrement du bloc soviétique, alors que la Chine apparaît comme un rival possible des États-Unis, cette ambiguïté prend une nouvelle valeur stratégique.
M. Xi aurait sans doute aimé acter un nouveau renversement, à l'occasion de sa visite officielle, en obtenant des États-Unis qu'ils « adhèrent à la position correcte consistant à s'opposer à “l'indépendance de Taïwan” » — ce qui aurait, de nouveau, renvoyé l'île au rang de question géopolitique « insignifiante ». Que M. Trump se soit gardé de répondre publiquement, à M. Xi comme aux journalistes, pourrait signifier qu'il compte toujours sur l'île comme atout de négociation.
Dans le district de Neihu, en périphérie de Taipei, l'American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) se fait relativement discret. Pas de drapeau, ni de marines en armes, ni de voitures avec plaques diplomatiques ; seul un sceau représentant l'aigle des États-Unis à la porte d'entrée rappelle à qui le bâtiment appartient. Inauguré en 2018, l'institut s'est éloigné du quartier de Xinyi où se retrouvent généralement les structures diplomatiques du monde entier, des « représentations » d'États — et non des ambassades — car la plupart des nations ne reconnaissent pas Taïwan comme pays.
D'une valeur de 255 millions de dollars (190 millions d'euros), l'« ambassade de facto », comme on l'appelle, possède néanmoins des dimensions colossales. Si l'on y ajoute les bureaux à Kaohsiung, deuxième ville de l'île, la présence américaine rassemble près de 500 employés (contre 1 300 à Pékin). Officiellement, l'AIT se définit comme une organisation à but non lucratif financée par le gouvernement des États-Unis. Officieusement, il constitue l'un de leurs bâtiments diplomatiques les plus chers d'Asie.
Selon M. Luke Martin, responsable des affaires culturelles, l'AIT est structuré « comme n'importe quelle ambassade : il y a un responsable des affaires politiques, économiques, culturelles, un bureau des relations presse, des départements chargés du commerce, de l'agriculture, de la défense (1) ». M. William A. Stanton, directeur entre 2009 et 2012, ne s'en cache pas : « L'AIT a toujours été, dans les faits, une ambassade. Globalement, notre mandat est d'améliorer les relations entre Taïwan et les États-Unis. (…) La plus grande différence réside dans les noms que l'on emploie. La “chancellerie politique” est appelée “affaires générales”. J'étais officiellement “directeur”, mais les Taïwanais m'appelaient “Monsieur l'ambassadeur”. » Il n'est pas nommé par la Maison Blanche ni confirmé par le Sénat à l'instar des autres ambassadeurs, mais il assume les mêmes fonctions. « Au lieu de recevoir ma lettre de la part du président, je l'ai reçue de la part d'Hillary Clinton [alors secrétaire d'État] », souligne l'ancien diplomate. Il vit toujours à Taïwan et il enseigne comme professeur invité à la prestigieuse université Chengchi, à Taipei (2).
Après sa reconnaissance de la République populaire de Chine, en 1979, Washington a déménagé son ambassade à Pékin et pris une série de mesures évitant toute présence officielle à Taïwan. Avant 2002, explique encore M. Stanton, les employés américains devaient démissionner de leurs fonctions de diplomate avant d'accepter un poste à Taipei. Tout comme les militaires. Cela n'est plus le cas.
Les relations taïwano-américaines prennent une tournure de plus en plus officielle, notamment depuis la présidence de M. Donald Trump. Cette évolution a alimenté les tensions déjà existantes entre les deux rives du détroit de Formose depuis l'élection, en 2016, de la présidente Tsai Ing-wen. Le 10 janvier 2021, juste avant l'investiture de M. Joseph Biden, le secrétaire d'État Michael Pompeo a même annoncé que « les règles instaurées dans le but d'apaiser Pékin devraient être caduques ». Il a levé toutes les restrictions concernant les contacts entre officiels américains et taïwanais.
Aujourd'hui, démocrates comme républicains soutiennent une politique « dure » envers Pékin. M. Biden a d'ailleurs invité la représentante de Taïwan aux États-Unis, Mme Hsiao Bi-khim, à sa cérémonie d'investiture. Des visites de personnalités américaines, à un niveau de responsabilité jamais atteint depuis 1979, ont eu lieu : que ce soit celle du ministre de la santé Alex Azar, en mars 2020 (sous l'administration Trump), ou celle de l'ambassadeur américain aux îles Palaos, où Washington envisage de créer une nouvelle base militaire, le 1er avril 2021.
Le porc dopé à la ractopamine désormais autorisé
Pour Mme Hsiao, « la défense et la sécurité constituent l'objectif premier [pour Taïwan]. Viennent ensuite le champ des relations économiques et, en troisième position, notre participation internationale et nos autres partenariats politiques », ainsi qu'elle le confie dans une interview au magazine spécialisé dans l'actualité de l'Asie-Pacifique The Diplomat, le 9 février 2021.
Taïwan et les États-Unis ne sont liés par aucun accord de défense. Mais, par le Taiwan Relations Act, signé en 1979, ces derniers se sont engagés à fournir aux 23,5 millions d'habitants de l'île les moyens de se défendre. Washington dispose d'un quasi-monopole sur les ventes d'armes (à l'exception de quelques livraisons, notamment en provenance de la France). Les directeurs successifs de l'AIT mesurent d'ailleurs leur succès au montant des contrats signés : « Durant mon mandat, nous avons vendu pour environ 13 milliards de dollars d'armement [9,6 milliards d'euros], un chiffre d'affaires légèrement inférieur à celui réalisé sous Trump », souligne M. Stanton.
Le 9 juillet 2019, le Congrès américain approuve la vente de 66 avions de combat multirôle F-16V, 108 chars M1A2T Abrams, 250 missiles de défense aérienne Stinger, et d'autres armes. L'administration Trump a mis au point un système d'évaluation des besoins (need-based review system) qui permet de répondre plus rapidement aux demandes en équipements militaires de Taipei. En novembre 2020, « l'état-major de la marine taïwanaise a confirmé, pour la première fois, la présence d'un corps de marines américains d'active — et non de retraités — stationnés sur la base navale de Zuoying (3) » au sud de l'île, afin de former pendant quatre semaines les militaires taïwanais.
Toutefois Washington refuse de vendre des F-35 capables de faire face aux avions de chasse chinois, voulant rester le seul et unique gardien de l'équilibre géostratégique dans la région. « L'objectif n'est pas d'inverser le rapport de forces actuel », explique Yeh Yao-Yuan, chef du département des études internationales à l'université de Saint-Thomas, à Houston, pour justifier la décision américaine.
Si l'administration Tsai et la presse internationale se félicitent de ces étroites relations taïwano-américaines, l'opposition y voit un danger. Le porte-parole du Kuomintang, M. Ho Chih-Yung, estime que « malheureusement, le gouvernement a cessé de poursuivre une politique prudente entre les États-Unis et la Chine ; il a choisi de devenir un pion dans l'échiquier géopolitique entre les deux grandes puissances ». Ce parti très anticommuniste, qui a longtemps considéré la réunification sous son égide, avec la Chine comme l'objectif absolu, est désormais largement divisé. Une partie de ses membres revendiquent désormais le « statu quo pacifique » : Washington comme allié sur le plan stratégique, la Chine comme partenaire économique essentiel. À l'opposé, le Parti démocrate progressiste (DPP) au pouvoir voit les États-Unis comme un allié de premier plan pour contrer la pression chinoise et se rapprocher de l'indépendance, largement soutenue par la jeune génération (lire l'article ci-dessus), tout en prônant, lui aussi, un « statu quo pacifique ». « Taïwan n'a pas intérêt à prendre parti alors qu'elle négocie avec deux puissances majeures dont les intérêts sont antagonistes, nous précise M. Ho. Car personne ne veut voir de conflits éclater. » Selon Yeh Yao-Yuan, la relation actuelle est, au contraire, équilibrée : « Taïwan a besoin de l'assistance des États-Unis afin de préserver sa souveraineté, les États-Unis ont besoin de Taïwan pour faire avancer leurs intérêts stratégiques et contrer la Chine. »
Et Mme Tsai ne rate pas une occasion de montrer l'efficacité de ce rapprochement. Le 6 juin 2020, les trois lettres « USA », visibles de loin, barraient la façade du Grand Hotel, monument représentatif de la capitale, en remerciement du don de 750 000 vaccins. Quatorze jours plus tard, l'Amérique annonçant l'envoi de 2,5 millions de vaccins, c'était à la très emblématique tour Taipei 101 d'afficher : « Vive l'amitié entre les États-Unis et Taïwan ».
Il faut dire qu'il n'y a presque plus une ombre au tableau depuis que la présidente a levé, en août 2020, un point de constante tension : l'interdiction d'importer du porc américain élevé à la ractopamine, substance destinée à doper les muscles des animaux et interdite en Europe, notamment. Cette question empoisonne l'accord-cadre sur le commerce et les investissements (en anglais, Trade and investment framework agreement, TIFA) signé en 1994 entre Washington et Taipei, plusieurs fois suspendu à cause des produits carnés. Le gouvernement taïwanais espère que la reprise des discussions mènera à un large accord de libre-échange, permettant de rompre la dépendance à la Chine, toujours premier partenaire commercial.
Un lobby peu médiatisé mais très efficace
Certes, Mme Tsai ne cesse d'affirmer que, à la différence de M. Chen Shui-bian, son prédécesseur du DPP à la présidence (2000-2008), elle ne se prononce pas pour l'indépendance de l'île. Mais, en sous-main, celle-ci recherche toujours plus de garanties et d'officialité. « Renforcer la capacité de dissuasion de Taïwan est crucial pour notre survie sur le long terme », résume Mme Hsiao (4).
À Washington, le lobby taïwanais, qui reste bien moins médiatisé que le lobby israélien, joue un rôle majeur, notamment pour encourager la vente d'armes. « [Des think tanks] produisent des analyses clairement faites pour peser sur la politique extérieure des États-Unis (…) mais ils ne mentionnent pas directement qu'elles sont financées par la représentation de Taïwan à Washington », nous assure Eli Clifton, chercheur au Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, favorable à la démilitarisation de la politique extérieure américaine. Ainsi le Project 2049 Institute fait partie de ces organisations exerçant leur influence en coulisses. Financé par Taipei et l'industrie de l'armement américaine, l'organisme publie de nombreux articles plaidant pour que Washington défende la participation de l'île aux organisations internationales, renforce la légitimité de l'AIT et encourage l'intégration économique entre les alliés du Pacifique. D'autres études agitent le spectre d'une invasion chinoise (5).
Elles ne manquent pas de mettre en avant le discours de M. Xi Jinping, pour les 100 ans du Parti communiste chinois, le 1er juillet 2021. Appelant à « faire progresser la réunification pacifique de la patrie » et à « faire résolument échec à toute tentative visant à l'“indépendance de Taïwan” » (6), celui-ci lance cette menace à peine voilée : « Nul ne doit sous-estimer la détermination, la volonté et la compétence du peuple chinois pour défendre la souveraineté nationale et l'intégrité du territoire. »
Quant au rôle exact de l'AIT, la direction de cette vraie-fausse ambassade a refusé de répondre à nos questions, et l'arrivée de la nouvelle directrice Mme Sandra Oudkirk, n'y a rien changé. Même mutisme du côté du ministère de la défense taïwanais. Alors qu'« il y a forcément des canaux pour parler de militaires à militaires, note Hugo Tierny, doctorant spécialisé sur les questions de défense dans le détroit de Taïwan, cette partie des relations se caractérise par une grande discrétion ». Le moins que l'on puisse dire.
(1) Interview de M. Luke Martin, The KK Show #67, YouTube, 16 février 2021.
(2) En poste en Chine, en Australie et en Corée du Sud, notamment, ce diplomate a reçu la médaille du « service civil exceptionnel » du département de la défense des États-Unis, pour ses contributions au commandement des forces américaines en Corée de 2006 à 2009.
Que cherchait Mme Nancy Pelosi, troisième personnage de l'État américain, en se rendant début août à Taipei ? Un simple coup de publicité ? Ou voulait-elle provoquer Pékin, obligeant M. Joseph Biden et son gouvernement à accélérer le changement de la politique historique des États-Unis ? Celle-ci combine la reconnaissance d'« une seule Chine » et une certaine protection de Taïwan.
Chou Tai-chun. — « Détails triviaux dans l'incident », 2021
Bien avant que l'avion de la présidente de la Chambre des représentants Nancy Pelosi ne touche le sol taïwanais le 2 août dernier, les relations sino-américaines se trouvaient déjà dans une spirale négative. M. Joseph Biden et son gouvernement s'étaient attachés à tisser un réseau d'alliances hostiles pour encercler la Chine ; de son côté, Pékin multipliait les manœuvres militaires agressives en mer de Chine orientale et en mer de Chine méridionale. Il reste que leurs relations bilatérales ne s'étaient pas détériorées au point de rendre impossible tout dialogue de haut niveau sur le changement climatique ou sur d'autres questions vitales. Pour preuve, les présidents Biden et Xi Jinping ont discuté de ces sujets, lors de leur entretien par visioconférence, le 28 juillet.
En fait, la visite de Mme Pelosi a créé une nouvelle faille dans la relation entre les deux puissances, balayant toute perspective de coopération. Ne subsiste qu'une rivalité militaire exacerbée.
Depuis le rétablissement des relations diplomatiques avec la République populaire de Chine (RPC) en 1978, sous l'administration de James Carter (1977-1981), les dirigeants américains ont toujours adhéré (au moins publiquement) au principe d'une « Chine unique », Taïwan et le continent constituant un seul pays bien que ne dépendant pas nécessairement d'une même entité politique. Ce que résume la célèbre formule adoptée un peu plus tard « Une Chine, deux systèmes ». Dans le même temps, avec le Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) voté par le Congrès en 1979, les États-Unis sont tenus de livrer des armes défensives à Taipei selon ses besoins et de considérer toute tentative chinoise de modifier le statut de l'île par la force comme un fait « extrêmement préoccupant » — une formulation connue pour son « ambiguïté stratégique », dans la mesure où elle ne dit pas clairement si Washington interviendrait ou pas.
Combinés, ces deux préceptes ont jusqu'ici contribué à garantir une forme de stabilité : en laissant supposer l'existence d'un lien intrinsèque entre Taïwan et le continent, le principe d'« une seule Chine » dissuade Pékin de toute tentative précipitée de s'emparer de l'île ; de son côté, l'« ambiguïté stratégique » laisse les Taïwanais comme les Chinois dans l'incertitude sur la réponse américaine en cas de déclaration d'indépendance des premiers ou de projet d'invasion des seconds. De quoi dissuader les uns et les autres de toute prise d'initiative irréfléchie (1).
Degré de tolérance abaissé
Même si les dirigeants américains assurent toujours adhérer à ces deux principes, les plus hauts responsables du gouvernement et du Congrès ont donné l'impression ces derniers mois qu'ils s'en étaient éloignés, au profit d'une politique suggérant l'existence de deux États : la Chine d'une part, Taïwan de l'autre (« one China, one Taïwan ») et en faveur d'une plus grande « clarté stratégique ». M. Biden lui-même y a contribué : interrogé sur Cable News Network (CNN) pour savoir si Washington défendrait Taïwan en cas d'attaque chinoise, il a répondu clairement. « Nous sommes tenus de le faire (2) », a-t-il déclaré, bien que ce ne soit pas la ligne officielle.
Le président comme d'autres dirigeants ont aussi suggéré un changement de politique, en cherchant à obtenir de leurs alliés dans la région — l'Australie, le Japon et la Corée du Sud — qu'ils s'engagent à assister les forces américaines, dans le cas où celles-ci seraient impliquées dans une guerre contre la Chine. De plus, le Congrès a encouragé ce processus en apportant un soutien bipartite aux livraisons d'armes à Taïwan, en y organisant à de nombreuses reprises des visites de délégations de niveau élevé et en projetant de modifier le TRA de 1979 pour en finir avec l'« ambiguïté stratégique », laquelle serait remplacée par un engagement ferme à aider l'île à se défendre (3). La Chine a observé ces développements avec un désarroi grandissant. Pour ses dirigeants — et particulièrement pour M. Xi, qui brigue un troisième mandat de cinq ans au poste suprême de premier secrétaire du Parti communiste et de président de la RPC —, la réunification s'est imposée comme l'objectif ultime de la politique gouvernementale, une condition sine qua non de la « renaissance » nationale (4). « Le peuple chinois, fort de plus de 1,4 milliard de personnes, est déterminé à défendre résolument la souveraineté de la Chine et son intégrité territoriale, a-t-il déclaré à M. Biden lors de leur échange du 28 juillet, selon le communiqué chinois. Nul ne peut s'opposer à la volonté du peuple, et quand on joue avec le feu, on finit par se brûler (5). »
Mme Pelosi savait parfaitement que sa visite ne pourrait conduire qu'à aggraver la situation. Les responsables du Pentagone comme ceux de la Maison Blanche l'ont avertie que l'effectuer à ce moment-là susciterait l'ire des dirigeants chinois et provoquerait d'une façon ou d'une autre une réaction cinglante de leur part. Elle a malgré tout fait le choix de se rendre à Taipei — tout en s'assurant d'attirer au maximum l'attention internationale en faisant planer le doute sur sa visite. On ne peut pas ne pas se dire qu'elle a fait le voyage avec la ferme intention de provoquer et d'accélérer le processus d'inflexion de la politique américaine vers la doctrine « la Chine d'une part, Taïwan de l'autre », avec tous les risques que cela comporte.
Si telle était son intention, son entreprise a largement été couronnée de succès. En dépit des efforts déployés par les responsables de la Maison Blanche pour assurer leurs homologues chinois de la séparation des pouvoirs au sein du système politique américain, Pékin a eu du mal à croire que Mme Pelosi ne représentait qu'elle-même — et non le gouvernement des États-Unis. Aux yeux des dirigeants chinois, cette visite n'est que l'aboutissement d'une campagne conjointe du Congrès et de la Maison Blanche pour répudier le principe d'une seule Chine, un premier pas vers la reconnaissance de Taïwan comme État indépendant. L'administration Biden a bien tenté de sauver la situation en soulignant avec insistance qu'« aucun changement » n'était intervenu dans sa politique, mais ces déclarations n'ont pas semblé convaincre.
Le 10 août, une semaine seulement après le voyage de Mme Pelosi, le Bureau d'information du Conseil des affaires d'État (gouvernement) a publié un nouveau Livre blanc sur « la question de Taïwan », réaffirmant la volonté de Pékin de réaliser la réunification de l'île par des moyens pacifiques, sans exclure le recours à des moyens militaires afin de briser toute résistance de la part des forces indépendantistes taïwanaises ou de leurs soutiens étrangers : « Nous sommes prêts à créer un vaste espace [de coopération] afin de parvenir à une réunification pacifique, mais ne céderons pas le moindre pouce de terrain aux activités sécessionnistes, quelle que soit la forme qu'elles puissent prendre, peut-on lire. La question de Taïwan est une affaire intérieure qui concerne les intérêts fondamentaux de la Chine (…), aucune ingérence extérieure ne sera tolérée (6). »
Les déclarations officielles ont été accompagnées de toute une série d'opérations militaires et diplomatiques, visant à démontrer que les dirigeants avaient abaissé leur degré de tolérance à l'égard des « ingérences extérieures » comme celle de Mme Pelosi. Ils ont haussé le niveau de préparation du pays en vue d'un éventuel blocus de l'île ou même de son invasion si celle-ci s'engageait plus loin dans la voie de l'indépendance. Plusieurs mesures préoccupantes reflètent cette nouvelle position.
• Le 4 août, l'Armée populaire de libération (APL) a tiré onze missiles balistiques DF-15 dans les eaux situées à l'est, au nord-est et au sud-est de Taïwan — ce qui laisse entrevoir son intention d'organiser un blocus en cas de crise ou de conflit. Cinq d'entre eux ont atterri dans la zone économique exclusive du Japon, signe que toute guerre liée à Taïwan pourrait s'étendre rapidement à l'archipel nippon, qui abrite de nombreuses bases militaires américaines (7).
• Le 6 août, des représentants du gouvernement chinois ont annoncé que le dialogue entre les responsables de l'APL et ceux de l'armée américaine visant à prévenir toute confrontation involontaire entre leurs forces navales et aériennes respectives était interrompu. Les discussions sur des questions aussi vitales que le changement climatique et la santé mondiale sont, quant à elles, suspendues (8).
• Le 7 août, plusieurs médias d'État chinois ont annoncé que l'APL mènerait désormais « régulièrement » des exercices militaires à l'est de la ligne médiane du détroit de Taïwan (côté taïwanais), alors que les forces chinoises avaient jusqu'ici principalement mené leurs opérations à l'ouest de cette ligne (côté chinois). De quoi accentuer la pression psychologique sur l'île, tout en se donnant la possibilité d'effectuer des simulations d'une invasion.
Toutes ces mesures ont été qualifiées d'« irresponsables » et de « provocatrices » par les Américains. « Nous ne devons pas prendre en otage la coopération sur des sujets d'intérêt mondial, au nom des divergences entre nos deux pays, a déclaré le secrétaire d'État Antony Blinken lors d'une conférence de presse, à Manille, le 6 août. Les autres [pays] attendent de nous, à juste titre, que nous continuions à travailler sur les questions qui touchent à l'existence et aux moyens de subsistance de leurs peuples tout comme des nôtres (9). »
Malheureusement, les propos de M. Blinken comportent une grande part de vérité. Mais il serait erroné de tenir Pékin pour seul responsable de l'impasse dans laquelle se trouve la relation entre les deux pays. Le secrétaire d'État lui-même a consacré la plus grande partie de l'année dernière à nouer des alliances pour tenter de contenir la montée en puissance de la Chine, et à adresser aux dirigeants chinois des ultimatums sur un large éventail de problèmes internes, tels que la persécution des Ouïgours du Xinjiang ou la répression politique à Hongkong — ultimatums auxquels ils ne pouvaient céder. Certes, M. Blinken a aussi appelé à une coopération accrue en matière de changement climatique, mais toujours dans un second temps. Du point de vue chinois, c'est Washington qui prend en otage les discussions sur les sujets à enjeu crucial pour la planète.
N'est-il pas temps de mettre fin à ce petit jeu consistant à rejeter sur l'autre la responsabilité de la situation, et de reprendre des discussions sur les mesures permettant de réduire le risque d'un conflit violent ? Les États-Unis devraient s'engager à ne plus faire transiter leurs navires de guerre par le détroit de Taïwan, et Pékin à ne pas en franchir la ligne médiane avec leurs forces militaires. S'il est impossible de revenir à l'ère de l'avant-visite de Mme Pelosi, tout doit être fait pour empêcher que cette nouvelle configuration ne dégénère en conflit armé.
Israeli Finance Minister and settler leader Bezalel Smotrich has called on Israel to “go to war” in the occupied Palestinian West Bank and “do there what we did in Gaza,” Israeli media reported on 27 September.
“I certainly have solutions” to the situation in the West Bank, he said. “I think we need to go to war in Judea and Samaria, to do there what we did in Gaza, to dismantle the Palestinian Authority, which is a terror authority.”
The Religious Zionism Party leader also called on Israel to annex the areas of southern Lebanon and Gaza occupied by Israeli troops.
“I would very much like to annex at least up to the Yellow Line in Gaza and up to the Litani [River] in Lebanon,” he says.
As part of its genocide of Palestinians since 2023, Israel has occupied an estimated 70 percent of Gaza, which is divided by a yellow line demarcating areas under direct Israeli occupation from those remaining under Hamas control.
Israel has also occupied territory in Lebanon amounting to 7 percent of the entire country.
Israel carries out demolition campaigns in both, seeking to wipe out any trace of Palestinian and Lebanese villages and cities already largely destroyed by Israeli bombing.
Smotrich made the comments after he was asked on a podcast how to advance Israel’s project in the West Bank amid Palestinian resistance.
Israel has accelerated its construction of illegal Jewish settlements and outposts in the West Bank this year, including in the E1 settlement.
E1 is designed to cut the West Bank in half and separate it from occupied East Jerusalem, making the establishment of a territorially contiguous Palestinian state impossible.
At the same time, Jewish settlers enjoying protection of the army regularly carry out violent pogrom-style attacks on Palestinian villages in hopes of forcing Palestinians to abandon their homes and agricultural lands.
In response, Palestinians have carried out several car ramming and shooting operations targeting Jewish settlers in recent weeks.
Smotrich also repeated his call to dismantle the Palestinian Authority (PA), which provides civil administration to parts of the West Bank, including the Palestinian cities such as Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin and Bethlehem.
The PA was established following the Oslo Accords in 1993 to serve as an interim government until the establishment of a Palestinian state.
However, the PA has in practice served as an arm of the Israeli occupation, assisting the Israeli military in suppressing Palestinian resistance.
Smotrich has previously called on Israel to annex more than 80 percent of the West Bank, which Israel conquered in 1967.
Since then, Israel has established some 160 Jewish settlements and 360 outposts, housing more than 700,000 Jewish settlers as part of a long-term campaign to colonize and Judaize the Palestinian territories.
In his campaign for next month’s Knesset election, Smotrich has touted the expansion of Israeli settlements under the current coalition government, which includes Smotrich, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.
As head of the Likud Party, Netanyahu is seeking his seventh term as prime minister. Ben Gvir leads a religious nationalist party, Jewish Power, known for its extremism and calls for violence against Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Israeli authorities decided to impose a week-long “comprehensive closure” on the occupied West Bank, closing crossings to the territory until Saturday for the Jewish religious holiday of Sukkot.
The order will prevent Palestinians with work permits from entering Israel and Jewish settlements to go to their jobs.
Local sources told the Wafa News Agency that the entrance gate to Turmus Ayya, north of Ramallah, was closed and residents were “harassed.”
Wafa also reported that entrances to Aboud, Nabi Saleh, Atara and Taybeh were closed, while military checkpoints were set up at the entrances to Yabroud and Ein Sinyah.
In New York fand die UN-Generalversammlung statt und der deutsche Außenminister Wadephul hat bei der Gelegenheit überraschend um ein Treffen mit dem russischen Außenminister Lawrow gebeten. Lawrow hat das Treffen gewährt und damit haben zum ersten Mal seit Anfang 2022 wieder ein russischer und ein deutscher Außenminister miteinander gesprochen. Wadephul hat sich dabei jedoch in […]
Israeli attacks in Gaza have killed at least eight Palestinians over the past three days, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, as the IDF continues its constant violations of the so-called ceasefire deal that was signed in October 2025. The Health Ministry said on Saturday that at least six Palestinians were killed and 38 were […]
Chaque dimanche, je passe en revue ce que la semaine a changé pour votre épargne. Cette semaine : taxe foncière, PLF 2027, or et argent, taux souverains, bitcoin, livrets réglementés et euro, et la première échéance datée de DAC8.
LE COURRIER DES STRATÈGES
Restez libre !
LA NEWSLETTER · GRATUITE
Le Courrier, chaque matin.
L'essentiel de l'actualité, passé au crible par les cinq plumes du Courrier. Dans votre boîte, chaque jour ouvré.
Gratuit. Vous restez libre de partir quand vous voulez.
Le calendrier fiscal : quatre dates avant la fin octobre
Les avis 2026 sont en ligne depuis le 22 septembre. Adhésion au prélèvement à l'échéance avant le 30 septembre, donc mardi. Buraliste partenaire jusqu'au 15 octobre pour les montants inférieurs ou égaux à 300 euros. Paiement en ligne jusqu'au 20 octobre. Prélèvement le 26 octobre.
Je préconise l'adhésion au prélèvement à l'échéance avant mardi — un débit unique décalé de cinq à six jours, à ne pas confondre avec la mensualisation. Cinq jours de trésorerie gagnés, et le risque de majoration de 10 % supprimé.
LE COURRIER DES STRATÈGES
Restez libre !
ABONNEMENT
Allez au fond des choses.
Deux grands formats par jour. Les cinq plumes du Courrier. La série Sécession, le dimanche.
Le PLF 2027 : le gel du barème est une hausse d'impôt
Sébastien Lecornu a esquissé le 18 septembre les contours du projet de loi de finances pour 2027 : 54 milliards d'euros d'effort, un déficit cible de 4,8 à 5 % du PIB contre 6,5 % sans mesures, et le gel du barème de l'impôt sur le revenu. Le texte passe en Conseil des ministres le 30 septembre — j'écrivais le 2 septembre que le vrai test de la dette française serait ce texte, pas le pétrole.
Left Image: Saint Luke the Evangelist 1450 – Source. Top Right: De materia medica in Arabic 12th–13th century – Source. Bottom Right: Cumin and dill from an Arabic book of simples 1334 – Source.
by Brian Shilhavy
The word “physician” mostly has a negative meaning in the Bible.
In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was afflicted with a disease in his feet. Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians. (2 Chronicles 16:12)
A woman who had had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and had endured much at the hands of many physicians, and had spent all that she had and was not helped at all, but instead had become worse— after hearing about Jesus, she came up in the crowd behind Him and touched His cloak.
For she had been saying to herself,
“If I just touch His garments, I will get well.”
And immediately the flow of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. (Mark 5:25-29)
However, the word “physician” is used positively in the New Testament portion of the Bible when it refers to Jesus Christ:
When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples,
“Why is He eating with tax collectors and sinners?”
And hearing this, Jesus said to them,
“It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
(Mark 2:16-17)
As I have previously written over the years, the Jewish people had their own system of healing as prescribed by the Law of Moses, and it involved the Levitical Priests. They were not supposed to rely on the “pagan doctors”, and hence the criticism of King Asa who apparently did not follow the Law of Moses, but went to pagan doctors instead during the Old Testament days.
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ established himself as the Messiah who had the authority to heal people from their diseases.
There is one exception in the New Testament, however, of one of the disciples of Jesus being referred to as “the beloved physician”, which is how the apostle Paul referred to Luke, who is believed to be the only non-Jewish author in the New Testament portion of the Bible. He wrote the Gospel of Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles.
He was a frequent traveling companion with Paul, who referred to him as “the beloved physician”.
Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and Demas does also. (Colossians 4:14)
Historical evidence outside of the Bible has led some people to believe that Luke was originally from Antioch, and attended a famous medical school in Philippi, part of the Roman empire at that time.
Since Luke is not referred to as a “former physician”, it is reasonable to believe that he may have retained some of his “medical” knowledge and perhaps even continued to use it as a disciple of Jesus.
However, to understand how the English word “physician” (ἰατρός – iatros in the Greek) was used over 2000 years ago in the Greek/Roman world, we need to look at some history of Greek-Roman medicine as it was practiced back then, which is very different from how the terms “doctor” and “medicine” are used today in the 21st Century.
During the First Century when the authors of the New Testament portion of the Bible lived, the practice of medicine was highly influenced by ancient Greek medicine, and the Greek physician Hippocrates. Much of Hippocrates’ work was compiled into The Hippocratic Corpus.
During the time the New Testament was being written, the city of Tarsus, where the apostle Paul lived, had a major medical school practicing Greek medicine.
Pedanius Dioscorides – The Father of Pharmacognosy
Dioscorides receives a mandrake root, an illumination from the 6th century (c. 512) Greek Juliana Anicia Codex. Source.
One of the most famous students to study at this school was Pedanius Dioscorides, a pharmacologist, physician, botanist, and author of De materia medica (“On Medical Material”). He was a military physician in Nero’s Army
Dioscorides was known as “the father of pharmacognosy“, but all of his “medicines” were plants, not the patented chemical medicines that we think of today when we hear the term “medicines.”
Plant “medicines” were also the foundation of other non-Western sources of ancient medical systems, such as Chinese Traditional Medicine, and the Indian Ayurveda system of medicine, both of which have been around for 4000-5000 years. (Source.)
Cover of an early printed version of De materia medica, Lyon, 1554. Source.
Dioscorides wrote a five-volume book De materia medica (“On Medical Material”), which became the precursor to all modern pharmacopeias, (Source: Rooney, Anne 2012. The History of Medicine. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 121), and was widely read for more than 1,500 years.
It was translated into Arabic in the 13th Century by Ibn al-Bayṭār, an Andalusian Arab physician, botanist, pharmacist and scientist.
He systematically recorded additions made by Islamic physicians in the Middle Ages, which added between 300 and 400 types of medicine to the one thousand previously known since antiquity. He was a student of Abu al-Abbas al-Nabati. (Source.)
Famous Roman Physicians
Here are the bios of a couple of other famous Roman physicians who were alive during the time the New Testament was being written, from Wikipedia’s entry on Medicine in ancient Rome.
Asclepiades of Bithynia
Asclepiades studied to be a physician in Alexandria and practiced medicine in Asia Minor as well as Greece before he moved to Rome in the 1st century BC. His knowledge of medicine allowed him to flourish as a physician. Asclepiades was a leading physician in Rome and was a close friend of Cicero.
He developed his own version of the molecular structure of the human body. Asclepiades’ atomic model contained multi-shaped atoms that passed through bodily pores.
These atoms were either round, square, or triangular. Asclepiades noted that as long as the atoms were flowing freely and continuously, then the health of the human was maintained. He believed that if the atoms were too large or the pores were too constricted, then illness would present in multiple symptoms such as fever, spasms, or in more severe cases paralysis.
Asclepiades strongly believed in hot and cold baths as a remedy for illness; his techniques purposely did not inflict severe pain upon the patient. Asclepiades used techniques with the intent to cause the least amount of discomfort while continuing to cure the patient.
His other remedies included music therapy to induce sedation, and consuming wine to cure headaches and a fever. Asclepiades is the first documented physician in Rome to use massage therapy.
Aulus Cornelius Celsus
Celsus (25 BC–AD 50) was a Roman encyclopaedist who wrote a general encyclopaedia about many subjects. His exact place of birth as well as when he lived are unknown; however, it is known he lived during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius.
The only surviving work from his larger encyclopaedia is De Medicina. This work contains eight volumes, two of which are on surgery.
De Medicina provides some of the best accounts of Roman medicine during his time.
Its contents proved to be valuable even into the 15th century after Pope Nicolas V rediscovered it, becoming the first medical book to be published in 1478. It is still debated if he practiced medicine himself or just compiled the works of the time, much of it from Greek sources. This is important because at the time Greeks were looked down upon by the Romans and thus so was the work of doctors.
In his book he discussed the two different schools of thought at the time relating to medicine he calls “Empirics” and “Dogmatics”.
Empirics followed empirical observation while Dogmatics needed to understand the theory behind how a treatment works.
Celsus is also credited with writing on four of the five characteristics of inflammation, redness (rubor), swelling (tumour), heat (calor), and pain (dolor). Galen would write about the fifth, loss of function (functio laesa).
The Role of “Elders” in Ancient Greek-Roman Medicine
De agri cultura, also known as On Farming or On Agriculture, is a treatise on Roman agriculture by Cato the Elder. It is the oldest surviving work of Latin prose. Source.
Cato the Elder was a Roman soldier, senator, and historian who lived about 200 years before the New Testament was written, but his influence on Roman culture and medicine would have certainly been felt by those living in the First Century when the authors of the New Testament were living.
Cato the Elder despised every aspect of Greek society the Romans decided to mimic including sculptures, literature and medicine. He regarded the welcome given in Rome to Greek medicine and physicians as a major threat.
In Rome, before there were doctors, the pater familias (head of the family) was responsible for treating the sick. Cato the Elder himself examined those who lived near him, often prescribing cabbage as a treatment for many ailments ranging from constipation to deafness.
He would issue precise instructions on how to prepare the cabbage for patients with specific ailments. He also used cabbage in liquid form.
For example, a mixture of cabbage, water, and wine would be embedded in a deaf man’s ear to allow his hearing to be restored. Cato would treat fractured or broken appendages with two ends of a cut reed that were bandaged around the injury. (Source: “Household Medicine in Ancient Rome“. The British Medical Journal. 1 2140: 39–40. 1902.)
This context may help us understand the “medical advice” given by James, the half-brother of Jesus, in the 5th chapter of his letter recorded in the New Testament:
Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the congregation to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:14-16)
Medicine in the 21st Century
The next time you read about “Luke the beloved physician” in the Bible, hopefully you will have a better understanding now about “physicians” and “medicine” in the Roman Empire during the time the Bible was being written, which bears no resemblance to doctors and medicines today.
The Western form of “medicine” today is dependent on repeat customers, and is a disease management system, NOT a “health care” system. To actually cure patients would cause them to go out of business! See:
Natural remedies, which used to be called “medicine” in ancient times, cannot be patented, and are therefore a threat to the pharmaceutical industry here in the 21st Century.
I learned this firsthand myself, back in 2005 when we were selling Virgin Coconut Oil and publishing customer testimonials about the health benefits of consuming coconut oil, as well as publishing peer-reviewed literature showing how the medium chain fatty acids in coconut oil can fight diseases.
The FDA came after us and threatened to shut down our business, seize our inventory, and put me in jail for selling “unapproved drugs.”
Why in the world do Americans continue to give money to campaigns to “help find a cure for cancer” as they have done for decades, when MANY cures for cancer already exist, but are banned from being used here in the U.S. forcing people to go to Mexico or Europe to find those cures?
Money given to charities to “find a cure for cancer” usually just goes into the pockets of drug companies to develop more drugs.
We need more “beloved physicians” like Luke, who know the power of Jesus to bring about REAL healing, and we need “Elders” who can also tap into the power of Jesus to heal without the need of modern doctors and medicines. See:
Ireland’s preparations for Sunday’s Nations League match against “Israel” have been thrown into uncertainty after goalkeeper Gavin Bazunu reportedly told teammates that he did not want to participate in the fixture, prompting further discussions within the squad.
The players missed their scheduled training session and press conference in Debrecen, Hungary, as they held lengthy meetings over whether individual players should proceed with the match.
The Ireland squad was due to train at the Nagyerdei Stadium in Debrecen and hold a press conference ahead of Sunday’s Nations League encounter.
Instead, the players remained at their hotel for discussions with head coach Heimir Hallgrímsson and his coaching staff. They had earlier met with Football Association of Ireland (FAI) CEO David Courell.
The scheduled press conference was postponed with only 19 minutes’ notice. Irish and Israeli media had already assembled at the stadium when Irish journalists were informed that the event could be delayed by up to two hours.
The UEFA match delegate was also informed of the delay but was reportedly not given a reason. The team ultimately did not arrive for the scheduled training session.
The disruption followed an initial squad meeting on Friday intended to establish the players’ position on the “Israel” fixture and discuss whether they would stage a protest.
According to reports, a collective boycott was not initially the purpose of the meeting. During the discussions, however, Bazunu indicated that he did not want to participate in the match, with other players subsequently considering whether to join him.
The extent of opposition within the squad remains unclear, and no final collective decision had been announced at the time of reporting.
The developments mark a significant escalation in the controversy surrounding Ireland’s Nations League meetings with “Israel”.
Earlier this week, Ireland captain Dara O’Shea said the squad intended to fulfill the two fixtures, while any decision over a separate protest was to be discussed following Ireland’s opening Nations League match against Kosovo.
The position has since become less certain following the latest internal discussions.
Hallgrímsson had previously acknowledged that Ireland’s players did not share identical views or the same intensity of feeling regarding the “Israel” fixtures. He also said that he would respect a player’s decision if an individual did not want to take part.
Ireland’s match against “Israel” is scheduled for Sunday, September 27, at the Nagyerdei Stadium in Debrecen.
FAI faces pressure over ‘Israel’ games
The latest dispute follows months of controversy over the FAI’s decision to proceed with the fixtures.
In July, an FAI motion endorsing the fulfillment of the Nations League matches against “Israel” passed by 68% to 32%. The association had argued that failing to fulfill the fixtures could expose Irish football to sporting and financial consequences.
The FAI has also acknowledged the strength of public opposition to the fixtures. In September, CEO David Courell said the organization was in a “really difficult position,” arguing that UEFA’s failure to take action over “Israel’s” participation had left the FAI with limited options.
The controversy has extended beyond the football establishment. More than 160 Irish athletes have signed an open letter urging the national team to refuse to participate in the “Israel” fixtures, while protests have been held outside the team’s hotel.
Ukraine is already providing an early glimpse of what may become a much larger post-war phenomenon: highly trained combat personnel, particularly special-forces and other specialists, carrying their battlefield skills beyond the borders of the countries, in which they acquired them, with many of them NATO trained.
History offers plenty of warnings. Africa has spent decades wrestling with the problem of demobilized combatants, soldiers and guerrillas, whose military skills suddenly have little obvious place in civilian economies.
South Africa and Georgia both provide instructive case studies. After apartheid, using the South African example, the labor force had to absorb, integrate or demobilize personnel from competing military and paramilitary structures. Thousands of former combatants faced unemployment and uncertain futures, while the new South African National Defence Force itself eventually had to undergo substantial downsizing, and not only among white troops.
So what happens when the largest European land war in generations finally winds down? What will the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian servicemen do when the battlefield no longer needs them, and the economy cannot reintegrate them?
Many will also have significant trauma, both mental and physical, the former being far harder to identify, it is an unfortunate fact that many former combatants will have developed a taste for killing.
And that is where the story becomes considerably more uncomfortable.
In 2024, UNODC and international organized-crime specialists were already examining the possibility that Ukraine’s enormous post-war veteran population could become a source of organized-crime risk—not because veterans were inherently criminal, but because demobilization, weapons proliferation, inadequate reintegration and the availability of trained manpower could create conditions attractive to criminal networks.
Have Gun, Will Travel is an old American expression, but it may acquire a new geopolitical meaning in the aftermath of the Ukraine war. The world already has a market for soldiers, military trainers, private security personnel and combat veterans. Africa, the Middle East and other conflict zones have repeatedly demonstrated the demand for experienced men with battlefield skills.
Will wealthy states, such as the Gulf monarchies, Western governments, private military companies and international security organizations see this enormous reservoir of experience as a manpower pool to be exploited? Almost certainly in fact, it is already happening in Africa, where Ukrainian “specialists” are aiding terrorist groups, particularly in the Sahel, aiming to overthrow governments that have been causing the French problems.
It is doubtful that so many of these veterans be recruited for legitimate security and peacekeeping missions but rather for the less visible wars conducted through proxies, contractors and allied forces as US Flag Draped in Dover Delaware is not politically expedient.
The next major Ukrainian export may not be agricultural products, weapons, or drones. But battlefield tested military experience.
There is a particularly interesting precedent in Africa. War on the Rocks warned several years ago that the eventual end of the Ukraine war could produce an influx of experienced personnel into African conflicts. And we can now see the reverse phenomenon too: Russia has recruited tens of thousands of foreign nationals into its war, including substantial numbers from Africa.
The fact that Ukrainian personnel or Ukrainian-trained capabilities are already appearing in African theaters would suggest that the post-war question isn’t simply what happens to Ukrainian veterans inside Ukraine? It is also who will recruit their expertise internationally?
The broader literature is already warning about exactly this transition: the Global Initiative has specifically examined organized-crime risks surrounding Ukraine’s eventual veteran population.
Demand for armed warm bodies
That does not require those governments to deliberately create a “mercenary army.” Governments already have incentives to use contractors, partner forces, local auxiliaries and allied personnel when they don’t want to commit their own regular forces.
The postwar Ukrainian veteran question is potentially a major international-security story in its own right.
“The postwar disposition of Ukraine’s enormous veteran population could become one of the most important security questions of the post-war period. History shows that when large numbers of highly trained combatants are simultaneously demobilized, economically marginalized and connected to international illicit markets, some will inevitably find employment in private warfare, political militias, transnational security networks and organized crime.”
Africa provides some very strong precedents
This has happened repeatedly in Africa. Research on Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe found that poorly designed demobilization and reintegration programs could themselves create later security problems.
And the phenomenon isn’t limited to Africa. Research on Colombia found that demobilization of armed groups could increase some forms of crime—particularly robbery—where former combatants were not successfully reintegrated.
Ukraine could produce a much larger version of the problem
This is where the argument becomes interesting.
Ukraine is potentially different in scale, technological sophistication and international connectivity. A future Ukrainian demobilization could involve enormous numbers of veterans. One recent analysis by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime estimates that Ukraine could eventually have up to nine million veterans, alongside millions of displaced people and refugees.
Obviously, nine million does not mean nine million armed or unemployed men. Most veterans will simply return to civilian life. But even a tiny percentage becoming involved in illicit activity could constitute a significant population.
The Financial Times reported that Colombian criminals have sought to send people into Ukraine to acquire advanced drone expertise and bring that knowledge back to criminal organizations in Colombia, and it is now becoming apparent the Mexican cartels are following suit.
The post-Soviet precedent is important too
There is another historical analogy that may be even more relevant than Africa: the breakup of the Soviet Union.
When the USSR collapsed, large numbers of trained military personnel suddenly found themselves outside a functioning Soviet military system. Some went into private security and legitimate military contracting; others became involved in mercenary activity. Former Soviet military personnel subsequently appeared in conflicts in Africa and elsewhere.
Ukraine is producing veterans with skills that did not exist at anything like today’s scale in previous wars—particularly FPV/drone warfare, electronic warfare and battlefield intelligence.
But there is another elephant in the room. The combat in Ukraine has been brutal, well beyond anything else seen in recent decades. Combined with the violently racist nationalist indoctrination by the Ukrainian government, this has created a large number of emotionally traumatised young men and women, for whom killing comes natural.
If enough of these individuals are recruited into the worlds conflict zones, either by state actors or the underworld and terrorists, the results will be absolutely horrific in terms of war crimes and brutality, as evidenced by the massacre of civilians during the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk, and now in Africa.
Those hoping to profit from the monster they have created may well find its teeth searching for them.
Jeffrey K. Silverman is a freelance journalist and international development specialist, BSc, MSc, based for 30 years in Georgia and the former Soviet Union
So, “Britain is back” and ready to provide glorious leadership to the rest of the world, to “solve shared problems we face.”
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham made his debut at the United Nations this week, addressing the 81st session of the General Assembly in New York.
“You can count on us,” assured Burnham. “Count on us to stand up for those long-standing British values of fairness and justice – our shared values – and for the UN Charter.”
Please, don’t make me vomit. Burnham was oozing noble values on the podium of the UN while Saudi warplanes were massacring Yemeni civilians in their homes – warplanes that are directed and refuelled by Britain (and the United States).
This week, Yemeni media reported that over 100 people, including women and children, were killed as Saudi F-15 and Typhoon fighter jets intensified air strikes on residential areas in the Red Sea cities of Mocha and Taiz. Al Masirah TV showed bloody images of two children killed by a Saudi airstrike in Mocha
On his way to the UN, Burnham announced that he had ordered the deployment of RAF refuelling planes to enable the Saudi air assault on Yemen. Of course, the British media described the move as “defensive aid”.
Earlier this month, Downing Street also approved the dispatch of British military advisors to Saudi Arabia. American advisors are also stationed there to assist in the war of aggression against its southern neighbor.
Yemen’s armed forces and the Ansar Allah militia are hitting back hard. They have overrun Saudi forces in key Red Sea positions and have shut down the Saudi oil industry and pipelines with drone and missile attacks.
But make no mistake, this is a Saudi war of genocidal aggression fully supported by the United States and Britain. The war has been going on since 2015, together with a blockade on Yemen that has resulted in an estimated 400,000 Yemeni deaths. A lull in fighting from 2022 was broken when the Saudis launched air strikes on the Yemeni capital’s airport in July. The Yemenis have hit back with a vengeance, targeting Saudi oil installations.
The Saudi monarchy has begged Trump to give more military assistance. But Trump is bogged down and out of his depth with his losing seven-month war with Iran.
This is where Burnham has entered the fray, responding to Saudi pleas for help by signing off on military deployment. This could prove to be a disastrous strategic blunder. No doubt Burnham is trying to ingratiate himself with Washington. His decision to send the RAF into battle this week came ahead of his first meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the UN. The American president gave him a symbolic pat on the head, saying, “he’s going to be a great prime minister.”
Trump had often ridiculed Burnham’s predecessor, Keir Starmer, for supposedly not offering more military support to the U.S. war aims in the Middle East. Burnham is showing himself to be more amenable, that is, pliable.
The British Butler is slaughtering his way into favor with Washington. Women and children are sacrificed in Yemen all to satisfy the sick “special relationship” between the U.S. and Britain.
Burnham is a fraud with this working-class Manchester accent and glib talk about the “need to do more to help people with the everyday cost of living.”
If you can bear to listen to his speech at the UN, it is a masterclass in British disinformation. It takes a special kind of person to deliver such arrant nonsense with a pose of sincerity.
The thrust of his whole address was to blame Russia for everything. From poverty and inequality in British society, to seething discontent among Britons towards their ruling class, to the war in Ukraine. It truly was a consummate performance in misdirection, the kind of charade that British politicians excel at.
He announced that Britain was launching a new National Centre for Information Defence, purportedly to combat Russian disinformation, which he claimed was “a poisonous tide” sowing division and instability among Britons.
According to Burnham, all that is broken and dysfunctional in British society is due to Russian infiltration. Nothing was said about bankrupt British capitalism and the warmongering of the British state fuelling a proxy war in Ukraine or aggression in the Middle East at the expense of social conditions in Britain.
Burnham’s “solution” to Britain’s endemic problems is to increase “national security” and state control over public information – all under the guise of “defending” Britons from being manipulated by Russian propaganda.
The Orwellian condition that Britain is sliding into is awesome.
This British prime minister dares to speak about British values and leadership and condemn Russia while he is approving the supply of long-range air strikes against Russia with British cruise missiles and drones.
The proof of Burnham’s fraudulence and moral bankruptcy is his decision to materially support Saudi warplanes in committing atrocities in Yemen. Murderous aggression is labelled “defense”.
Burnham’s dubious asset as a politician is his ability to articulate justification for slaughter and war with empty platitudes.
A particularly odious point in his UN speech was his claim that English workers allied with Abraham Lincoln in the American Civil War against slavery. As if English mill workers were representative of British “values”. What Burnham conveniently omitted was the much more heinous role of the British ruling class in creating the Atlantic slave trade.
Britain’s historic role in global exploitation and waging genocidal wars is something that damns its governments forever. Its ongoing role in enabling the slaughter in Ukraine and in Yemen is but two of the latest episodes of this British systemic criminality.
These are the British “values” that Burnham deftly concealed this week with his performative debut at the UN.
There have been many tipping points in history; to name just a few examples:
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648
The French Revolution of 1789
The Congress of Vienna in 1815
World War I in 1918
World War II in 1945
Many of these turning points led to shifts in power in Europe. These were merely transfers of power within the world we now call the “Collective” West. Examples include the collapse of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Tsarist Empire at the end of World War I.
These shifts in power were significant, yet what is happening now cannot be compared to past turning points, as they encompass the entire globe. The reins of power are not being handed over within the West; rather, there will be a shift in power toward the East and the “Global South.”
From Tipping Point to Entropy
The scale, the number of nations involved, the geographic scope, and the speed at which the current geopolitical crises are unfolding are truly astonishing.
Ukraine as a War Platform for the U.S., NATO, the EU, and Russia
Russia Will Prevail Militarily
Looking at the military reports from the front lines, it becomes clear to any observer that Russia will achieve its military objectives. While Russia might have relinquished the Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia had a peace agreement been successfully concluded in the spring of 2022, such an agreement is unrealistic under the current circumstances, as Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson have been part of the Russian Federation since September 2022. It is currently unclear how far the Russian military advance will go. I have commented on this in my article “The Summer Peace Died,” to which I refer. For the situation on the front lines, I once again refer to Military Summary; I have been following this channel for nearly five years, and it provides objective reporting.
Catastrophic Mobilization Situation in Ukraine
There are thousands of videos showing young men being hunted down like animals on the streets throughout Ukraine in order to forcibly recruit them. Recently, however, videos have also been circulating that show some of those forcibly recruited being transported to the front lines without uniforms and even in handcuffs, like criminals—to prevent them from escaping. I’ll leave it to the readers to ponder the combat effectiveness of these men against battle-hardened and motivated Russian soldiers.
Armed guards transport mobilized Ukrainian men to frontline in order to prevent them from deserting. This is described as normal by the Ukrainian officer. Videos also show them in handcuffs. Zelensky & Western politicians call this freedom & democracy. pic.twitter.com/f6AGyuMpRX
The latest move by the Ukrainian military leadership is to forcibly conscript women. Given this situation, it’s no surprise that Scott Ritter stated that the Ukrainians are losing 30 times more soldiers than Russia. We hear nothing in the West about this inhumane treatment of their own soldiers in Ukraine.
Ukrainian volunteers, who later disappeared without a trace, are said to have used drones and artificial intelligence to count the number of soldiers’ graves throughout Ukraine. They counted 2,000,054 graves. Added to this are the dead buried by their own people in mass graves and the wounded—the Ukrainians’ losses do indeed appear to be astronomical. Nevertheless, Zelenskyy claims that only 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. A few weeks ago, I attended a funeral in Russia. The soldiers’ graves are easily identifiable by the Russian flag and the flag of the fallen soldier’s unit. There were soldiers’ graves, but no sea of flags like in Ukraine.
Ukrainian volunteers, who later disappeared without a trace, reportedly used drones and artificial intelligence to count military graves across Ukraine. Their estimate was 2,000,054 graves. Yet Zelensky claims that only 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. Does that mean pic.twitter.com/LeplE4H3n6
Military Victory Does Not Solve Russia’s Geopolitical Problem
Whatever needs to be achieved militarily, Russia will achieve it; however, this does not resolve Russia’s geopolitical problem on its western border, because the goal is not new territories, but peace in the West—a goal that Russia has literally been striving for centuries and has never been able to achieve. Time and again, Russia has been attacked from the West and has regularly paid a high price in blood, money, and industrial capacity—resources diverted to military spending rather than civilian purposes. As a result, Russia’s social development has been repeatedly set back.
If Russia wants to keep pace with the major powers in terms of its civilian economy in a sustainable manner, reliably securing its western border is an absolute prerequisite. Although Russia is the only industrialized nation in the world that is self-sufficient and thus capable of waging a war lasting decades, such a confrontation would massively hinder the country from achieving its actual development goals.
The U.S.’s Lack of Credibility in Negotiations with Russia
The U.S.’s lack of credibility in the eyes of Russia is multifaceted. On September 15, Foreign Minister Lavrov said, verbatim:
“If the Americans hadn’t backed away from the Anchorage agreements, if Europe hadn’t pulled them away from those agreements, we would have been living without war for a year now.” – Sergey Lavrov, September 15, 2026
Under this agreement, Russia would have made major concessions. Russia would have retained the Donbas, frozen the conflict in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, and relinquished further territories. Objectively speaking, this was a bad deal for Russia, but it demonstrated the Russians’ considerable willingness to compromise. The Russians assumed that this verbal agreement was binding as a gentlemen’s agreement. However, gentlemen’s agreements should only be made with gentlemen. The Americans taught the Russians otherwise. The Russians are dismayed about this incident and have had to admit that no agreements are possible with the U.S. government. Personally, I’m surprised by the fact that this realization came so late. Even written agreements with the U.S. government are not to be trusted. This was evident in the breach of the Memorandum of Understanding that the Americans signed with Iran in June. Thus, one must conclude that this conflict—or any conflict in which the U.S. is directly or indirectly involved—must be fought to the bitter end. A bitter lesson for every contractual partner of the U.S.
The Risk of Escalation is Significant
Ukraine is desperately trying to officially draw NATO into this military conflict. It is astonishing that European countries—above all Germany and the United Kingdom—are not only signaling their willingness to do so, but are actually doing everything they can to prepare their people for a war with Russia.
Instead of naming many people, we’ll use Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg—former cabinet minister and Member of Parliament for North East Somerset—as an example. In this excerpt from an interview, he compares the situation with Russia—without naming it—to the situations during World War I and World War II:
European leaders are currently pivoting from “this is not our war” to “it’s your duty to die in a war with Russia.” pic.twitter.com/h2M0CBpk0g
Young people are thus being called to arms to prepare for war against Russia. In Germany, such efforts have failed miserably. Of the more than 300,000 young Germans surveyed, only 0.17% volunteered to serve in the Bundeswehr. Furthermore, it came to light a few days ago that the Bundeswehr itself could not even find 5,000 volunteers for a battalion in Latvia.
It is incomprehensible what these European countries are up to besides spreading propaganda. Even combined, the European countries do not possess military forces that would give them even the slightest chance of standing up to the Russian armed forces. The Russians are by no means impressed by this farce in Europe—they are disgusted by it. I assume that this war propaganda in Europe serves only to perpetuate the anti-Russian narrative.
Both President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have repeatedly emphasized that they have no interest in attacking NATO targets outside Ukraine. However, if European countries are foolish enough to send even small European military contingents to Ukraine, the situation could change abruptly.
The greatest risk of escalation at the moment is that the Europeans, presumably in collaboration with the Americans, are planning a false flag attack in Europe in order to somehow trigger Article 5 of the NATO Charter. According to geopolitical analyst Warren Thornton, preparations for false flag attacks are in full swing. He writes on X:
THE FALSE FLAG
These are the areas that are the targets. The Mallorca airport in Spain. The Sorrento Continental Hotel in Italy. The Promenade De Anglais, Nice. The area to be launched from west of Sardinia. The agencies involved CIA, French Naval Intelligence Services and the… pic.twitter.com/ThDYyuZBOz
I can’t say whether this theory is correct, but it’s by no means far-fetched that the Europeans would attempt something so outrageous.
U.S. Military Campaigns in the Middle East Beginning in 2001
Looking back over the past 25 years, the U.S. has sought to reshape the Middle East according to the Wolfowitz Doctrine since 2001. None of the wars the U.S. launched during this period (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc.) were successful. In fact, it was already evident back then that the hegemon lacked the resources, military strategy, strength, and credibility needed to act successfully. However, if one’s view is that the actual intent was destabilization and chaos, then they were extremely successful. Nevertheless, they returned to the plan in collaboration with Israel, apparently after Israel had succeeded in completely undermining American policy.
Israel: Genocide and Greater Israel
The immediate starting signal for the “Genocide” and “Greater Israel” projects was given on October 7, 2023, when a military operation by Hamas was turned into a false flagattack to justify the genocide against women, children, and other civilians in Gaza and, later, in the West Bank and Lebanon. This, in turn, served as the starting signal for the continuation of the Greater Israel project; initially, Syria and Lebanon were attacked. Although the Western press not only downplays Israel’s genocidal and imperialist actions but also fully supports and fuels them—including through the media of “neutral” Switzerland—Israel is viewed with increasing criticism by the general public in the Western world. According to Pew Research, 60% of Americans view Israel negatively. The Western media thus conveys an image that finds no resonance among the general public.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the podium to address the plenary session on Thursday, delegates to the UN General Assembly left the hall in droves.
NEW
UN General Assembly delegates stage a mass walkout as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes the podium to address the hall pic.twitter.com/EcTpBBvjjM
It is important to me to continually remind my Western readers of what is actually happening in Gaza right before our eyes—eyes that many choose to close.
Major Escalation in the Middle East—Loss of Control
Starting in February 2026, events began to accelerate even further. Since then, everything has gone wrong for the West and Israel in the Middle East. The Global South has already wrested the initiative from the West. While Iran initially limited itself to responding to American-Israeli aggression, it is now the Iranians and the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement who are setting the pace.
Ansar Allah managed to bring the entire western coast of Yemen under its control in a very short time and thus controls not only the Bab al-Mandab Strait but also the island of Perim Mayyun off the coast. With virtually no Western media coverage, the advance continues, and it is quite possible that Aden will soon be captured.
Furthermore, the Saudis’ East-West pipeline was paralyzed and targets near Riyadh were attacked. So far, the Saudis have been unable to mount a serious military response to this large-scale attack, as they do not seem capable of doing so on their own, and repeated calls for help to Trump and others have been in vain. The Mecca Alliance, which unites Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey in a military alliance, also appears to be a thing of the past, as even these “friends” refused to provide assistance.
President Macron’s grand announcement that he will send troops to Saudi Arabia won’t change any of that. “Arabia” is called Saudi Arabia because this country is ruled by a family—a tribe—the Sauds. A tribe that is protected by the Americans. However, there are approximately 100 other tribes within Saudi Arabia. It’s very possible that they could join forces with Ansar Allah and overthrow the House of Saud. The House of Saud no longer has any income and seems unable to continue buying off—as it has done until now—all those who could pose a threat to them. There’s a chance that the Saud house of cards will collapse, and if that happens, I wouldn’t give a penny for the remaining Gulf states.
Alastair Crooke also pointed out on several occasions that this dynamic could spill over into Iraq, another millennia-old civilization alongside Iran. If that happens, Kuwait will likely fall as well. Another smoldering conflict can also be detected in Jordan. It is therefore quite possible that the entire structure in the Middle East established by the British a good 100 years ago could collapse within a few months, without the Americans being able to stop this tsunami in any way. Arabia to the Arabs, Persia to the Persians, and the Americans out for good. If this happens, Israel will go from perpetrator to target; one certainly cannot speak of it as a victim in this context. How the emerging great powers of the Middle East will deal with the genocidal Zionists should be left to those who have suffered the greatest losses, for Palestinians are Arabs.
Europe
Chaos is once again rearing its head in Europe. Germany is the first country—once the world’s leading exporter and the major power in the EU—that is in danger of becoming politically ungovernable. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has been labeled as far-right and Hitler-like by the previously dominant parties and excluded from government participation by a so-called firewall, not only won landslide victories in two state elections in eastern Germany but also leads the CDU by a clear margin in national polls (30% to 20%). Chancellor Merz’s approval rating stands at 10 percent—a barometer that reveals the people’s dissatisfaction and would have driven any truly democratic chancellor to resign. Whether the Germans, in light of this political situation, will clench their fists and do nothing, as they have in the past, remains uncertain. The chancellor’s downfall would be good for Germany. The AfD is the only major party seeking dialogue and peace with Russia, which is not only desperately needed by this once-thriving industrial nation but is also a prerequisite without which it cannot survive economically. The alternative to real and fundamental political change in Germany is the war against Russia sought by Chancellor Merz and the ruling political elites. The last time Germany went to war against Russia in 1941, Adolf Hitler sent 3.7 million soldiers eastward and failed, despite the Germans’ genocidal behavior, which cost the lives of approximately 17 million civilians. As already explained above, the Federal Republic of Germany today finds itself unable to assemble a brigade of 5,000 volunteer soldiers for the Baltic states. This does not seem to concern the chancellor, which is a clear sign of the madness that has taken hold of him. This is strong evidence that he is acting in the interests of a power located outside Germany. One would be a naughty person to believe that this has anything to do with his BlackRock past. Those who managed to install him as chancellor can pat themselves on the back, as they’ve snagged a puppet at the bargain price of a few million.
The following clip shows how the new leadership in Berlin is presenting itself—the Left has taken over. No words needed:
The situation in the rest of Europe is no more encouraging. The presidential election in France will take place in April 2027. Macron is no longer eligible to run, and Marine Le Pen has a significant lead over the other candidates. The situation is thus similar to that in Germany: a party that is denounced as far-right by the parties currently in power, yet is the most popular among the people. Le Pen’s position on peace with Russia is unclear—she seems to be speaking with a forked tongue: on the one hand, she wants a negotiated peace, but at the same time supports the training of Ukrainian troops. A seasoned politician who positions herself to capture as many votes as possible. France’s financial situation is grim, with no silver lining. The rise in the interest rate on 10-year French bonds over the past twelve months has been even steeper than in any other European country.
Trump
President Trump’s policies only seem difficult to understand at first glance. His constant flip-flopping on Ukraine, Iran, and Israel is counterproductive and damaging to the U.S.’s reputation on the world stage. The reason behind Trump’s current actions is the midterm elections in November. Trump is struggling with the high oil prices he himself has caused, which he can prevent from spiraling out of control by manipulating the futures markets. However, actual market prices are 30% to 50% higher than the manipulated, fantasy futures prices. The fact that futures prices are indeed manipulated is evident, for example, in diesel prices at gas stations, which are moving in only one direction and have reached unprecedented levels worldwide. Diesel is the lifeblood of the American economy, and high prices are one of the biggest drivers of inflation, since virtually all goods are transported by trucks, agriculture depends on it, and large parts of industry rely on diesel. Trump’s latest farce: He’s blaming Zelenskyy for the high diesel prices because Ukraine is attacking Russian refineries; he’s doing this solely to divert attention from the biggest price drivers—the blockades of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab.
Somehow, Trump wants to turn things around, but it seems that he will lose the midterm elections coming up in about six weeks. According to Polymarket, an American online prediction market where users bet on the outcomes of future events—with market prices reflecting collective probability estimates—the probability that the Republicans will lose their majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate stands at 66%. Should this come to pass, Trump will likely face impeachment proceedings. He then runs the risk of going from a lame duck to a dead duck and being replaced by his turncoat vice president, Vance—not a promising outlook for the United States.
Trump’s latest appearance this week before the UN General Assembly was a testament to his psychopathic nature: He announced—nota bene after the election—that he would either make Iran a rich country or obliterate it completely.
Trump is every bit as bad as Adolf Hitler. In his speech at the Berlin Sportpalast on September 4, 1940, Hitler said, “We will wipe out their cities.” Trump wants to wipe out a 5,000-year-old civilization—without any legal basis, of course—acting like a god. In doing so, Trump is publicly calling for the genocide of an entire civilization. One might wonder whether he belongs in prison or in a psychiatric hospital, but the fact that he can make such statements before a global audience with impunity shows the depths to which Western civilization has sunk. I refer to a speech I gave in Switzerland on September 3.
The Financial Markets
I have made numerous comments on the instability of the financial markets. Now my dire predictions seem to be coming true. In addition to the overvaluations in the stock markets, I have repeatedly pointed out the unsustainable situation in the bond markets. Among the more astute market participants, fear is beginning to set in. Mr. Bessent has lost control of interest rates. On August 28, 2026, I looked at the average interest rate the U.S. had to pay on its debt; at that time, it stood at 3.35% (May), resulting in an annual interest burden of 1,340 billion. Today, this average interest rate stands at 3.49% (August); the debt mountain currently stands at 40,070 billion, meaning it has already increased by another 70 billion. Annual interest payments have thus risen by 56 billion to 1,396 billion per year in this short period of time.
Over the past 28 days, the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond has risen from 4.722% to 5.185%, an increase of 0.46%. It does not appear that this trend will change. If this pace continues, not only will the government bond market collapse, but so will the towering mountains of debt in the AI sector. The same picture is emerging in Europe and Japan as well. The question isn’t whether the collapse will happen, but when—and who the U.S. will let go first: the Japanese or the Europeans. That is my personal opinion. When it comes to timing, I’m regularly wrong, which has taught me not to be active in these markets. I have the great privilege of meeting regularly with one of the world’s most successful investors. At our last meeting, he agreed with me in principle but remarked that I couldn’t possibly imagine what tricks and means the Americans still have at their disposal to delay the inevitable.
The scale of this crisis will dwarf anything humanity has ever seen. Compared to today, the 2008 crisis was a stroll through a sunny park with a delicious picnic. Such a collapse in the West will also affect the countries concerned’s geopolitical freedom of action; suddenly, everyone will be very preoccupied with their own problems. No one knows whether this will lead to an escalation in the geopolitical arena. What is certain, however, is that the “experts”—who are still driving the markets forward with their jubilant cheers—will solemnly declare that this simply could not have been foreseen—as always.
Entropy
All of these individual tectonic shifts lead to what can be described as entropy, a term from thermodynamics. Applied to geopolitics, I describe the situation as a massive, irreversible state of disorder and uncertainty within the various international systems. Existing power structures, rules, institutions, and hierarchies are losing their cohesive power, and a new order that would promise stability is not in sight.
For the collective West, which until recently held the reins firmly in its hands, is unwilling to make compromises so as not to jeopardize its position as a hegemon.
The Global South, taken by surprise by the rapid pace of events, has not yet devised a coherent, unified, and effective policy to wrest power from the West.
It appears that the Global South, under the military dominance of Russia, China, and—most recently, Iran as the fourth major military power—is in the process of adapting to the new circumstances and coordinating its efforts, which will ultimately lead to its victory.
How long this will take, however, and whether the West will use nuclear weapons to maintain its hegemony remains to be seen—though I would like to express my doubts on this point. So far, only Adolf Hitler believed that Germany should go down with him. Let’s hope that cooler heads are in control of the apocalyptic buttons.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on US President Donald Trump to enact sanctions against Russia amid its deadly attacks across Ukraine, which have become increasingly frequent as cold weather starts to set in.
In Deutschland haben viele Menschen heute eine ganz falsche Vorstellung von dem, was der Kern der Ideen der Nazi war. Heute meint man in Deutschland, „Nazi“ würde bedeuten, dass alle in Uniformen herumlaufen und dass gegen Juden gehetzt wird. Da das in der EU nicht geschieht, seien die Vorwürfe aus Russland, in Europa würden die […]
A modest Roman bathhouse on Turkey’s southern coast spent its retirement very differently from how it began. Constructed in the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE, it stopped functioning as a bath sometime after an invasion in the 260s CE and was never used for bathing again. Centuries later, someone gutted much of its […]
Adam Castillo, a former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Myanmar who had lobbied for sanctions relief in exchange for US, was released in recent days after spending over three months in detention. In the same week, Time magazine’s Charlie Campbell sat down with Senior General Min Aung Hlaing in Naypyitaw. The coup […]
Fresh off testifying at Canada’s Allison Inquiry, physicist Denis Rancourt joins Del to examine mortality and cancer data among 5- to 24-year-olds—and what could be behind their striking, lockstep rise.
Login
(@jacksonhinkle) 
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
