Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the country’s main opposition party, announced a long march to the capital, Islamabad, on Sunday, October 4, as part of its ongoing nationwide movement to demand the release of its leader and former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The march, which was originally scheduled to be held on Sunday, September 27, starting from Peshawar, was postponed on Friday after the party’s top leadership decided it needed more time to mobilize to face the state’s preparations to block it.
Thousands of people have been taking to the streets in different parts of the country demanding the immediate release of Khan, his wife Bushra Bibi, and other party leaders.
Khan’s party and supporters have also accused the Shehbaz Sharif-led coalition government in the country of deliberately ignoring Khan’s bad health condition and trying to “slowly kill him in prison” by keeping him in solitary confinement.
They have also alleged that Khan has been denied access to his family members and party colleagues in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail for almost six months now and demanded that he be transferred out of the jail to a private hospital.
State repression
Meanwhile, the security forces have fortified the capital, blocking all the ways leading to the capital with shipping containers and large deployments after the government called the protests illegal and threatened consequences for the PTI leadership.
Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi had earlier called the march a failure and “a drama” and warned that if the PTI does not abandon its plan to go to Islamabad the state will find a “permanent solution” to stop them.
The security forces had arrested a large number of PTI leaders and workers in order to derail the protests. The PTI last week said that even its elected members of the National Assembly were arrested.
Three of Khan’s sisters Aleema, Uzma, and Noreen Khan were also arrested by the Pakistani authorities last week and jailed for 30 days on charges of being an alleged “threat to public order.”
The PTI released a statement on Monday, September 28, claiming Khan’s sisters have not been allowed to meet their family members or lawyers at Kot Lakhpat Jail in Lahore. Calling the situation of their incarceration “alarming” and a violation of their fundamental rights.
The previous mobilization to Islamabad in November 2024 had also witnessed large-scale state repression leading to clashes between the security forces and the PTI workers. Over a dozen people, including four security officials, were killed in those clashes.
Three years of incarceration
Khan, largely considered the most popular political leader in Pakistan’s politics today, was first arrested almost a year after he was ousted from his Prime Minister’s post in May 2023. He led the Pakistan government from August 2018 to April 2022.
The interim government that assumed power after his removal filed over a hundred cases against Khan, accusing him of the misuse of power, corruption, and violence against the security forces during the May 9, 2023 protests.
However, he was released after a court ruled his arrest was illegal only to be arrested again on August 5, this time after a district court sentenced him to three years in prison in the Toshakhana case, related to the state department that stores valuable gifts given to Pakistani officials by foreign dignitaries. Later his wife Bushra Bibi was also arrested.
Though a higher court later overturned his conviction, he and his wife have remained in Adiala Jail facing charges and even convictions in several other cases.
Many leaders in Khan’s party, PTI, were either arrested or forced to denounce the party and politics in public altogether.
Despite the fact that the PTI was blocked from contesting national elections in February 2024, it emerged as the largest opposition group in the country’s National Assembly after it decided to field its candidates as independents.
PTI and Khan’s supporters maintain that the cases against Khan and his wife were politically motivated and fake.
Ammar Ali Jan, leader of the Left wing Haqooq-e-Khalq Party (HKP) and a member of the Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan (Movement to Save Pakistan’s Constitution or TTAP) formed as a broader alliance to fight for Khan’s release has condemned the continued incarceration of Khan and the repression of movements for his release.
He also questioned the state’s narrative about the failure of the movement, pointing out how it has made every effort to oppress it, including the arrests and fortification of the capital.
Militants and supporters of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva participated, this Sunday, September 27, in demonstrations as part of the national mobilization “Let’s go, Lula,” held a week before the first round of elections. In Rio de Janeiro, “CarnaLula 2026” spanned the length of Copacabana beach.
With a microphone, PT Senate candidate Benedita da Silva spoke about the importance of Carnival as an expression of popular culture and called on those present to also vote for a progressive bloc in the Rio de Janeiro Legislative Assembly and the Federal Chamber of Deputies. She reinforced the discourse that, in this election, not only democracy is at stake, but also national sovereignty. “We will not be anyone’s backyard,” she repeated Lula’s phrase.
In São Paulo, the event began with Carnival parades, circus performances, and bike rides on Paulista Avenue, where candidates gave speeches in defense of democracy. “Denialism will not prevail,” said Senate candidate Simone Tebet. Federal deputy Erika Hilton echoed Tebet, speaking about the importance of electing candidates who will steer Brazil away from fascism and who are in favor of the working class, as well as defending the end of the 6×1 work schedule. Also present at the event, actor Humberto Carrão told Brasil de Fato that he urged voters to decide the presidential election in the first round.
The capital of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, was one of the cities with the largest number of activities in support of Lula’s re-election. Among them was a flag-waving demonstration in the city center, where hundreds of activists unfurled a banner that read “Lula of Brazil.” In a review of the event, Pedro Martins, a member of the Alvorada collective, one of the organizers of the action, spoke of the need to occupy the streets. “It was a spectacular event, with all the social movements gathered. This week was an important week, showing that we need to go to the streets, and only in this way can we turn the vote around and achieve victory,” he told Brasil de Fato.
In Florianópolis and Curitiba, supporters held a bike ride carrying flags in defense of Lula’s candidacy. In Brasília, the gathering was on the Eixão, a fast road that connects the Plano Piloto from north to south.
Lula’s campaign reported that the day’s events were organized in a decentralized manner, with more than 500 activities planned across the 27 state capitals and hundreds of municipalities. The program included walks, motorcades, leaflet distribution, and cultural performances.
Iraq’s Ambassador to Tehran, Yasser Abdul-Zahra al-Hajjaj, announced that Najaf International Airport will reopen to Iranian flights within 24 hours, according to the Iraqi News Agency.
Al-Hajjaj confirmed the airport will resume receiving flights from Iran within the stated timeframe.
The suspension of Iranian flights to and from Iraqi airports, particularly Najaf International Airport, had triggered a wave of condemnation from official, factional, and religious authorities in Iraq. They called for the decision to be reversed, rejecting US dictates.
Iran submits formal complaint to ICAO over US aviation restrictions
Meanwhile, Iran has submitted a formal complaint to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regarding US restrictions imposed on Iran’s aviation sector, the head of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, Abouzar Shiroudi, announced on Monday.
Shiroudi said the organization held consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before filing the complaint, as part of efforts aimed at restoring air routes. In remarks carried by the Iranian news agency IRNA, he said, “It is necessary to use diplomatic and legal potential to protect the rights of the country’s aviation sector.”
He added that “Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, using all legal tools and in close coordination with the country’s diplomatic apparatus, prioritizes the follow-up of necessary measures to remove obstacles and resume all flights on routes that previously operated.”
The remarks follow US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s announcement on September 21 that Iranian airlines “will effectively be forced to cease operations as of September 23, due to secondary sanctions imposed on aviation service providers.”
Nearly 466 days ago, just seven days into the unprovoked and illegal US-backed Israeli military aggression against Iran, The Economist provocatively placed a torn Iranian flag on its cover and asked: “How will this end?”
The image was widely interpreted as a metaphor for the possible collapse or fragmentation of the Islamic Republic in the face of overwhelming military force.
At the time, the narrative surrounding Iran was dominated by predictions of its imminent defeat, the weakening of its leadership, and even the possible collapse of the Islamic Republic under the weight of an aggression that came amid Iran-US indirect nuclear talks.
The article went on to ask whether what it described as Israel’s first war against Iran “will also be the last,” or whether it would “lead to a series of Iran-Israel wars that mire” West Asia in years, if not decades, of further violence.
Written before the United States directly joined the war of aggression by illegally bombing Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities on June 22, the article also suggested that Washington should move beyond “merely defending Israel and deterring Iran” and join the occupying regime in attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
Yet even then, The Economist warned that such a war could spiral into a broader regional war, sending energy prices soaring by targeting Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure or blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global energy supplies.
Iran, however, did not turn the war into a regional war at that stage, nor did it close the Strait of Hormuz. It retaliated decisively and inflicted massive damage on the Zionist regime.
Following a powerful wave of retaliatory strikes against Israeli-occupied territories, the Islamic Republic demonstrated that it retained the ability to impose high costs on its adversaries.
After 12 days of war, Israel and the United States ultimately agreed to a ceasefire. The confrontation and US hostility, however, were far from over.
On February 1, the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, warned that any new war initiated by the United States against Iran would inevitably become a regional war, engulfing all countries across the region.
Less than a month later, on February 28, Washington and Tel Aviv launched a second round of military aggression against Iran, again in the middle of nuclear diplomacy.
On the very first day, the United States and Israel assassinated Iran’s Leader and several senior commanders, apparently calculating that “decapitating” the country’s leadership would pave the way for the rapid collapse of the Islamic Republic and the so-called “regime change.”
That calculation, however, once again proved wrong.
Iranian armed forces mounted a sustained and forceful response, launching wave after wave of retaliatory strikes against Israeli-occupied territories and US military bases across the region.
Far from collapsing under the pressure, Iran demonstrated its capacity to absorb the initial shock, reorganize its command structure, and continue fighting on multiple fronts.
The war eventually reached the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran asserted its control over the strategic waterway, leading to severe disruption in global energy markets and exposing the vulnerability of one of the world’s most strategically important chokepoints.
After 40 days of war, the United States and Israel were once again compelled to accept a ceasefire. This time, the Trump administration even agreed to an Iranian proposal to end the imposed war.
The outcome was a striking departure from the expectations that had accompanied the opening hours of the aggression: instead of so-called “regime change,” Washington and Tel Aviv found themselves confronting an Iran that had endured the assassination of its senior leadership, absorbed unprecedented attacks and continued to resist and inflict blows on the enemy.
Since the April 8 ceasefire, exchanges of fire have continued intermittently, while the Strait of Hormuz has remained largely closed to hostile vessels.
Having failed to achieve its objectives through military means, Washington has increasingly turned to economic pressure, imposing new sanctions and pursuing a naval and aerial blockade against Iran. Yet the Islamic Republic has continued to withstand the pressure.
Also, despite sanctions, threats, political pressure and military aggression, Tehran has maintained that the Strait of Hormuz will only be reopened once the United States ends the imposed war on all fronts.
And now, more than 15 months after that torn Iranian flag appeared on its cover, The Economist has returned with an image that could hardly be more different.
Gone is the question of how Iran will end. Instead, the magazine has placed a new question at the center of its latest cover: “WHEN AMERICA WALKS AWAY.”
The change in imagery reflects a striking shift in the narrative. In June 2025, the focus was on Iran’s survival. Today, the question being raised is about the future of American power in West Asia.
But the transformation in the narrative is not limited to the language used on The Economist’s covers.
Over the past 15 months, the war has also produced a growing record of military, financial and strategic costs for the United States and its military-industrial complex.
Washington launched the war on Iran with many ambitious objectives, including crippling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities in order to undermine and weaken the Islamic Republic.
Yet months of war have instead left the United States facing tens of billions of dollars in expenses, damaged military facilities across the region, depleted stocks of some of its most sophisticated interceptors and other munitions, and casualties among its service members.
The following figures and assessments, many of them coming from US government agencies, American media outlets and Western think tanks, offer a picture of the price Washington has paid for the war — and of the widening gap between the objectives announced at its outset and the situation that has emerged months later.
$43.6 billion — and the bill is still rising
On September 18, The Washington Post reported that the US Central Command (CENTCOM) had estimated the cost of the war at $43.6 billion as of early September.
The figure included $28 billion to replace munitions expended during the war on Iran and more than $4.3 billion for equipment lost or damaged. The breakdown also put Air Force operating costs at more than $6.6 billion, Navy costs at about $2.2 billion, and Army costs at roughly $1.6 billion.
Crucially, the $43.6 billion estimate does not include the future cost of rebuilding or repairing damaged US military facilities across West Asia, according to the report.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also published its own assessment on September 15, estimating that the war on Iran had already cost the Department of War approximately $38 billion as of August 1.
CBO said the figure included the replacement of expended munitions and equipment lost in battle, increased flying hours, other operational costs, and additional fuel costs.
But the most important part of the CBO assessment was its warning about the continuing cost.
It said if the war remained at the relatively low intensity seen in May and June, another month of fighting would cost approximately $2 billion. If fighting returned to the intensity seen in July, the monthly cost could rise to approximately $3 billion.
CBO also stressed that its $38 billion estimate did not include all costs borne by other parts of the federal government and did not include certain costs already incorporated into the regular military budget.
At least 228 US military assets damaged
The financial bill was accompanied by substantial physical damage to US military infrastructure.
On May 6, The Washington Post published a satellite-image investigation finding that Iranian attacks had destroyed at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at 15 US military sites across West Asia.
The Post’s analysis identified 217 structures and 11 pieces of equipment that had been damaged or destroyed. The targets included hangars, barracks, fuel depots, aircraft, radar systems, communications equipment and air-defense systems.
The newspaper examined more than 100 high-resolution satellite images released by Iranian media and independently verified 109 of those images against imagery from the European Union’s Copernicus satellite system and commercial satellite imagery where available.
It found no evidence that the Iranian imagery had been manipulated. The Post also reported that the destruction was “far larger” than what had been publicly acknowledged by the US government.
The extent of the damage was subsequently reinforced by the US government’s own watchdog. In a report released on September 14, the Pentagon Inspector General provided what the Associated Presssaid was the most comprehensive official accounting to date of the war’s impact on US military facilities.
The report said Iranian attacks had damaged or destroyed hundreds of buildings and other structures at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman and Jordan.
The significance of this finding is that the damage was no longer based solely on satellite analysis or Iranian reports. It was acknowledged in an official US government assessment.
Dozens of MQ-9 Reapers and other aircraft lost or damaged
The Pentagon Inspector General’s findings also provided a clearer picture of damage to American aircraft.
According to Stars and Stripes on September 15, the war had resulted in damage to or destruction of as many as 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones, along with four F-15 fighter aircraft and more than six KC-135 tanker aircraft.
The report also noted that the cost of repairing or replacing some of these assets had not yet been incorporated into the Pentagon’s overall war-cost estimate.
In other words, even the $43.6 billion figure should not necessarily be regarded as the final bill.
The actual figure, however, is much higher. More than 50 MQ-9 Reapers have disappeared over Iranian skies, according to independent estimates.
The war has depleted America’s missile-defense stockpiles
Perhaps more consequential than the dollar value of the weapons fired is the depletion of America’s stockpile of advanced interceptors.
In its May 6 report, The Washington Post, citing an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), reported that between February 28 and April 8 the US military had used at least 190 THAAD interceptors and 1,060 Patriot interceptors.
Those numbers represented approximately 53 percent of the US prewar THAAD inventory and 43 percent of its Patriot inventory. By September, the assessment had become even more concerning.
The Stimson Center, in a report published on September 22, said that by August the United States had used approximately 80 percent of its THAAD inventory and around half of its Patriot interceptors.
The same report said the Army had used “virtually all” of its ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) — long-range weapons that would also be important in a potential conflict involving China.
According to Stimson’s assessment, replenishing some of these stocks could take years. CSIS estimated that Tomahawk inventories might not return to prewar levels until late 2030 or early 2031, while Patriot and THAAD inventories could take at least three years to recover.
The costs extend beyond the battlefield
The financial impact has also spread beyond the Pentagon. The CBO said on September 15 that the disruption of oil and gas shipments through the Strait of Hormuz had increased global energy prices, contributing to higher prices for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in the United States.
CBO estimated that the war would leave US inflation in the first quarter of 2027 0.5 percentage points higher than it had projected in February 2026, while core PCE inflation was projected to be 0.3 percentage points higher.
The agency also estimated that three-month Treasury bill rates would be nearly 0.2 percentage points higher in 2026 than previously projected.
The Stimson Center went further, estimating the direct and indirect cost of the war at approximately $220 billion and putting the average household’s share at roughly $1,650. It attributed much of that wider economic burden to higher energy prices.
Stimson said that by September 15, average US gasoline prices had reached $4.32 per gallon, a 45 percent increase since the war began, while diesel prices had risen by approximately 70 percent.
Damage to US military facilities
Beyond the billions spent on weapons, operations and damaged military equipment, Washington also incurred substantial military, diplomatic and emergency expenses.
On September 14, the Pentagon Inspector General, as reported by The Washington Post, said Iranian attacks had caused approximately $184 million in damage to US military and diplomatic facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Separately, the US State Department reported around $113 million in war-related and emergency expenses, nearly $80 million of which was associated with the evacuation of diplomats, their families and other US citizens and eligible individuals.
Around 9,000 US citizens were evacuated from the region during the war against Iran.
Iran’s missile program has begun rebuilding
The depletion of American interceptor stocks becomes particularly significant when considered alongside the continued resilience of Iran’s missile program.
On September 10, The Wall Street Journal reported that Iran had resumed production of ballistic missiles, despite the extensive US and Israeli attacks on its missile infrastructure during the opening phase of the war.
According to the report, US and regional officials said Iran was assembling both liquid- and solid-fuel missiles using stockpiled components at underground facilities.
Intelligence pointed to activity at several underground sites, including the Khojir missile facility, while Iran was also working on new underground assembly locations.
The report concluded that the renewed production underscored the difficulty of fully dismantling Iran’s missile program — one of the stated objectives of the war.
Six months on, the original objectives remain out of reach
This brings the military expenditure back to the central question: what did all of this cost actually achieve? Washington continues to describe the war on Iran as having severely degraded the country’s military capabilities.
But independent Western assessments point to a substantial gap between the original objectives and the situation that has emerged.
The Stimson Center, in its September 22 assessment, said the administration initially went to war with objectives that included ending Iran’s nuclear program, destroying its missile industry, annihilating its navy, and ending its support for the Axis of Resistance.
It concluded that the United States had failed to achieve those objectives. Instead, Stimson said, the mission subsequently narrowed to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a goal that became necessary precisely because the war itself had disrupted shipping through the waterway.
“Six months later, little progress toward those goals has been made, while the mission has largely narrowed to the single task of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway the war itself closed.”
The figures tell the story of that widening gap: $43.6 billion in US military costs; $28 billion needed merely to replace expended munitions; more than 4.3 billion dollars in damaged or lost equipment; hundreds of damaged military structures; depleted THAAD and Patriot stocks; and a weapons-production system facing years of replenishment.
And yet, according to the Wall Street Journal, Iran is already rebuilding parts of its ballistic-missile production capability.
That contrast — between the scale of resources committed by Washington and the difficulty of translating military force into its original political and strategic objectives — is perhaps the most important evidence behind the dramatic change in the narrative surrounding the war.
And now, back to The Economist
This is where the latest Economist cover becomes particularly relevant.
More than 15 months after the magazine placed a torn Iranian flag on its cover alongside the question “How will this end?” the question on its new cover is no longer centered on Iran.
It asks: “WHEN AMERICA WALKS AWAY.”
“America seems to be stuck in the Middle East. It has no easy way out of its war with Iran. Yet the conflict, however it ends, will in fact mark something quite different: the moment when America pulls back from the region—in the sense that it finally relinquishes its hegemony there,” the article reads.
In a September 25 editorial, The Economist’s Deputy Editor Robert Guest makes a similar assessment, writing that the United States has enjoyed decades of dominance in the region, but that this era is now coming to an end.
“Now, as Mr Trump seeks a way out of his ill-planned war, something momentous is occurring. As we describe in our cover package, American hegemony in the Middle East is ending,” Guest writes.
The Iranian Embassy in London announced on 28 September its “categorical rejection” and strong condemnation of speculation regarding Tehran’s involvement in an alleged plot to attack a British military air base used by US forces.
In a post on X, the embassy criticized “recent baseless and malicious speculation circulated by certain individuals and British media outlets attempting to link Iran” to the incident, which occurred in the early hours of Sunday.
Gloucestershire Police had announced on Sunday that a “major incident” was taking place in the Welford area of western England, leading to the evacuation of several buildings near the RAF Fairford air base.
Police stated that army explosive ordnance disposal experts were examining several vehicles and that five men had been detained on suspicion of offenses under the Explosives Act.
Residents were evacuated from 85 homes in the area near the base on Sunday as army bomb-disposal experts used a robot to examine three white vans.
The five men detained in connection with the alleged bomb plot, all British citizens, were released on bail on Monday, suggesting the incident is not serious, in contrast to early claims.
The men will remain under investigation, according to the head of counterterrorism policing, Laurence Taylor.
UK authorities continue to “explore multiple lines of inquiry” regarding the incident, Taylor added.
RAF Fairford has been used as a base by the US Air Force to launch bombing operations against Iran during the war that began in February.
The UK authorized the US to use the base for missions involving B-1B and B-52 bombers.
Britain did not join the US-Israeli war on Iran and initially denied President Donald Trump’s request to use bases in the UK.
However, then-prime minister Keir Starmer soon reversed course, announcing days later that he had agreed to let the US use bases in Britain for what he claimed were “defensive” operations against Iran’s missiles and their launch sites following Iranian attacks on UK interests and Britain’s Gulf allies.
It’s rather forgotten today how Washington’s post-9/11 imperial adventurism was not restricted to military intervention. A core component of the Bush administration’s “Freedom Agenda” – under the auspices of which calamitous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere were waged – was overt sponsorship of civil society-led coups throughout the former Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia. Citizens of these regions, and the world, live with this meddling’s destructive consequences to this day. The seemingly never-ending – and ever-escalating – Ukraine proxy war is a particularly visceral legacy.
The 1983 creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, a US state entity avowedly concernedwith executing overtly what the CIA once did covertly, ushered in a new era of “spyless coups”. Working in close conjunction with USAID and George Soros’ Open Society Institute, NED ever after provided funding, training and material assistance to NGOs, ‘independent’ media outlets, opposition groups, and other initiatives in service of regime change, across every corner of the world.
Come 9/11, NED and its confederates had devised a supremely cunning, cost-effective template for toppling troublesome governments – be they left-wing, nationalist, or even former US puppets who’d stepped out of line. The previous October, longtime Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic was brought down in what the Washington Postbombastically dubbed “an extraordinary US effort to unseat a foreign head of state, not through covert action of the kind the CIA once employed in such places as Iran and Guatemala, but by modern election campaign techniques.”
At the anti-Milosevic effort’s forefront was Otpor! (Serbian: Resistance!), a rebellious NED-funded youth activist group. Through a mix of civil disobedience, non-violent resistance, rock concerts, street theatre, and graffiti, they fomented mass public opposition to the Yugoslav President. When election day came and official results pointed to Milosevic’s victory, an NED-funded “parallel vote tabulation” purported to expose major fraud, sending millions to the streets of Belgrade to peacefully demand the President’s resignation. Milosevic duly capitulated, in the face of seemingly overwhelming people power.
The supposedly heroic struggle of Otpor! and other US-supported anti-Milosevic groups was immortalised in a slick ‘documentary’, Bringing Down A Dictator. Milosevic’s fall provided a precise blueprint for future ‘color revolutions’ – so-called because frequently, the Empire-supported activists who led these mob putsches prominently adopted specific colours for their banners, branding and logos. Initially, US officials eagerly associated themselves publicly with this upheaval. Meanwhile, the mainstream media routinely published remarkably illuminating post-mortems of the revolts, extensively exposing Washington’s guiding hand and oft-enormous financial outlay.
Nonetheless, politicians, pundits and journalists alike universally framed colour revolutions as ultimately spontaneous uprisings by liberal, progressive elements with legitimate grievances, who yearned for democracy and freedom. In reality, they almost invariably produced corrupt, repressive governments that ruled via intimidation and brutality, including political assassinations. Post-colour revolution regimes also typically conducted sweeping privatisation and other ravaging ‘reforms’, destroying living standards for average citizens by prostrating their countries to the EU, IMF, NATO, World Trade Organization, and other mechanisms of Western economic, military, and political subjugation.
Slobodan Milosevic’s NED-orchestrated ouster is nicknamed the ‘Bulldozer Revolution’, due to iconic scenes during the upheaval of a wheel loader helping anti-government agitators occupy state buildings. However, its driver quickly turned against the “Revolution”. Subsequent “shock therapy” decimated Yugoslavia’s mixed market economy, causing his successful independent business to fail, and him to go bankrupt. He subsisted until his dying day on meagre state welfare payments. For most participants, subsequent colour revolutions were similarly an object lesson in being careful about what one wishes for.
‘External Shove’
In February 2005, President George W. Bush gave a swaggering address in Bratislava, Slovakia. He hailed how “in recent times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty.” This included Georgia’s November 2003 Rose Revolution, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution the next year, and Iraq’s Purple Revolution a month prior. “The advance of freedom is the concentrated work of generations,” Bush declared. He looked ahead to Moldova, and “inevitably” Belarus, “someday proudly [belonging] to the country of democracies [sic]”:
“Eventually, the call of liberty comes to every mind and every soul. And one day, freedom’s promise will reach every people and every nation.”
Moldova’s forced transformation into a staggeringly corrupt effective EU-US colony took many years. Belarus conversely remains stubbornly resistant to “freedom’s promise”, as defined by Brussels, London, Washington, and other centres of imperial power. Still, President Bush’s confidence was well-founded. Waves of insurrectionary unrest unleashed by his government’s “Freedom Agenda” had systematically swept away designated enemy governments one by one annually since he took office. Indeed, within weeks of Bush’s speech, Kyrgyzstan’s insufficiently pro-Western leader fell victim to yet another colour revolution.
He would not be the last. Prior colour revolutions had enthusiastically emphasised the importance of techniques of nonviolent resistance – many of which were crafted by Gene Sharp, who was intimately enmeshed within the US military and intelligence establishment for much of his life. However, Kyrgyzstan’s NED-created regime change army, KelKel – directly modelled on Otpor! – attacked police, torched government buildings and even carried out bombings. Their ferocity was actively encouraged and promoted by US-funded TV stations locally. Such belligerence subsequently became a colour revolution calling card.
Ukraine’s Orange Revolution
That colour revolutions represented a formal weapon of war in the Empire’s post-9/11 arsenal was enthusiastically spelled out by arch-neoconservative Max Boot in late December 2004. He gushed how Ukraine’s Orange Revolution days earlier, which brought a pro-Western government to power, was “one of the most inspiring events” of that year. Boot declared the “triumph” and “miracle” of the revolution “should dispel the quaint notion still prevalent in many Western universities and foreign ministries that democracy is a luxury good suitable for rich countries”:
“These revolutions reveal the hollowness of the cliché that ‘democracy can’t be imposed by outsiders’… sometimes, when dealing with an entrenched dictatorship, this requires military intervention of the kind that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. More brittle regimes can be brought down by their own people, but even they often need a little external shove… There was nothing nefarious about the US intervention in Ukraine.”
Boot boasted how Washington had “spent $58 million on democracy promotion in the last two years” in Ukraine. He proposed Kiev receive “expedited NATO and European Union membership,” to finish off the Orange Revolution. “In the meantime, we need to apply elsewhere the lessons of Ukraine” Boot demanded, suggesting “an obvious candidate for a similar transformation is Iran.” He explained, “it’s hard to think of a higher priority than the overthrow of the mullahs,” encouraging the Bush administration to prioritise “liberating Iran.”
‘USAID Help’
Such was the insurrectionary fervour of the time, in January 2006 USAID went to the extent of publishing a glossy magazine, Democracy Rising, revealing in detail Washington’s central role in fomenting “grassroots” rebellions as far afield as Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon. Dedicated sections on colour revolutions to date were replete with stunningly forthright passages. A section on Georgia’s November 2003 Rose Revolution described how NED had financed regime change training for local “lawyers, judges, journalists, members of parliament, NGOs, political party leaders, and others.”
The stated purpose of this investment was to give Georgians “a sense that they should regulate the government.” The Rose Revolution “was the climax of these efforts.” One recipient of US financial support remarked, “without foreign assistance, I’m not sure we would have been able to achieve what we did without bloodshed.” Meanwhile, several pages were dedicated to the Orange Revolution. It noted how thousands of Ukrainian journalists were given training in “investigative reporting”, bankrolled by NED and USAID.
An alumni told Democracy Rising this sponsorship “created a feeling that others stood with them ‘in the trenches’.” Concurrently, NED-affiliated Freedom House flooded the coffers of NGOs “that sponsored voter education, mobilized voters to get to the polls and observed elections.” These organisations “also held meetings, youth dances, rock concerts and karaoke to attract young voters,” and “ran public service ads on TV stations, informing people about their right to vote.” Meanwhile, “democracy trainers from Serbia, Slovakia, Russia and Croatia” were flown into the country.
In the second round of Ukraine’s presidential election, NED-financed NGOs claimed to have been inundated with tens of thousands of reports of fraud from voting stations all over the country, while exit polls they produced pointed to widespread rigging having denied pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko a landslide victory. Vast protests, combined with opposition-organised general strikes, widespread civil disobedience and occupations of government buildings forced a rerun. A US-funded think tank apparatchik asserted:
“USAID help for the poll was absolutely important – the poll results after the second round made people go to the street.”
For all the hype and self-assurance of Democracy Rising, its publication came at a time when colour revolutions were increasingly being viewed with hostility and suspicion at a state and public level throughout the Global South. In every case, the radical outcomes promised by colour revolution leaders and advocates failed to materialise, while US rhetoric about the commitment of resultant pro-Western regimes to democracy and freedom was a perverse fraud.
In Ukraine, US-installed Yushchenko implemented economic austerity, slashed regulations and social spending, bailed out criminal banks, broke open state industry and natural resources for foreign plunder, attacked the rights of Russian speakers, and began preparing the country for locally-feared NATO membership. Within just nine months of entering office, his coalition government – comprised of Orange Revolution activists – collapsed due to deeply corrupt battles with feuding Ukrainian oligarchs over control of key media and industrial assets.
Yushchenko was voted out in the January 2010 presidential election, finishing fifth in the first round with just 5.5% of the vote. As Empire house journal Foreign Policy lamented years later, the Bush administration’s much-vaunted colour revolutions all turned out to be “terribly disappointing.” Each and every time, “elite corruption still continued apace” and “promises of far-reaching change never really materialized.” Damningly, “maladies that typified the preceding regimes quickly came to describe” the governments created by colour revolutions themselves.
‘Revolution Business’
That’s quite some euphemism. In Georgia, longtime Soros acolyte Mikheil Saakashvili granted himself unilateral power in key policy areas, before brazenly exploiting his position to harass and jail business and political rivals. Saakashvili’s targets would be raped and/or tortured in prison, their ordeals filmed for primetime broadcast on local TV networks. Grave questions abound over his personal involvement in several suspicious deaths, including government ministers’. He was voted out in October 2012, despite NED’s best efforts.
Kyrgyzstan’s 2005 Tulip Revolution installed Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who proceeded to run the country as his personal fiefdom for five years. Bakiyev’s relatives profited exorbitantly from legally questionable privatisation of state industries. For example, his family signed a highly controversial $1.8 billion deal to supply fuel to a local US military base, close to Kyrgyzstan’s total GDP in 2003. Elsewhere, Bakiyev’s brother oversaw Bishkek’s security apparatus – arbitrary detentions, bogus convictions, torture, and murders of opposition activists, journalists, and politicians became commonplace.
Bakiyev was himself chased out of not only the presidential palace but Bishkek itself in April 2010, following a massacre of anti-corruption protesters in which up to 100 were killed and at least 450 wounded. Thereafter, Kyrgyzstan was plunged into economic and political chaos for a decade, with numerous governments collapsing along the way. The freest and most stable Central Asian state prior to the Tulip Revolution, it is only since 2020 – following another Anglo-American coup – the country has regained some semblance of stability.
A key player in that upheaval was British ambassador Charles Garrett. He arrived in Bishkek from Macedonia, where as this journalist has revealed from April 2016 he steered what was known as the “colorful revolution”. Illegally obtained, deceptively edited wiretaps seemingly implicating government officials in shocking crimes produced huge protests, featuring widespread arson attacks and brutal clashes between demonstrators and police. Garrett distributed cash to NGOs and activists involved in the unrest from his diplomatic pouch, encouraging them to cause mass havoc.
George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, NED, and USAID were also colorful revolution participants. Some protesters even proudly wore “Soros Army” shirts. Despite a huge public counter-revolutionary fightback, the tumult paralysed the Macedonian economy and state, leading to the installation of a doggedly pro-Western, dangerously dysfunctional administration that engaged in industrial scale graft, jailed political opponents on bogus charges, and changed the country’s name despite widespread opposition. Meanwhile, existing economic problems, including crippling brain drain, were gravely exacerbated.
The unfailingly disastrous results of colour revolutions surely contributed to White House officials abruptly and firmly distancing themselves from the entire enterprise, before the Bush administration’s second term was even over. The “Freedom Agenda” was quietly forgotten. The President – who in October 2004 openly mandated financial assistance to Belarusian opposition activists, and once publicly praised the Rose Revolution as an example to be followed throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia – went so far as to deny the US was in the “revolution business” at all.
‘Alternate Reality’
Colour revolutions have continued apace ever since, with the same strategies being recurrently applied the world over, to varying degrees of success. All along, non-Western governments – in particular China, Iran and Russia – have become increasingly vocal in their condemnation of and opposition to colour revolutions, in some cases passing legislation seeking to curtail the operations of foreign funded NGOs on their soil. Yet, the mainstream media long ago adopted a rigid Omertà on Washington’s culpability for civil society-driven destabilisation overseas.
In a striking example of this paradigm shift, in November 2004, before the Orange Revolution was over, The Guardian published a revealing report exposing the “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev.” The outlet stated unambiguously the revolt was “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.” NED, the State Department and USAID were all fingered as culprits.
Fast forward to July 2015 however, and a Guardian article on Russia’s banning of NED under foreign agent laws quite amazingly relied on a brief quote pulled from the Endowment’s official website to describe its operations. In the intervening time, the Maidan Revolution overthrew Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, setting Kiev on the warpath with Moscow. Washington’s irrefutable involvement was strenuously denied at the time by the mainstream media, and has been ever since.
Following the Ukraine proxy war’s February 2022 eruption, The New York Times took vigorous aim at independent journalists for spreading the “conspiracy theory” Maidan was US-orchestrated, dubbing the proposition an “alternative reality” and “Russian disinformation”. This is despite every prominent Maidan actor – including the individuals who started the demonstrations – receiving NED or USAID funding, leaders of US-bankrolled organisations in the country advertising their intention to overthrow Yanukovych years prior, and theEndowment spending $20 million in the country in 2013 alone.
After the outbreak of war in Ukraine, NED removed its grant records on Ukraine, listing its investment in a panoply of initiatives in the country over many years – many of which ultimately targeted Russia, one way or another. In mid-2024, the Endowment undertook the unprecedented step of removing grant records for the entire world. Today, brief entries on different geographical regions describe in vague terms the Endowment’s specific aims locally, and overall sums being spent. The crucial questions of where, and on what, aren’t clarified.
NED going underground makes the task of tracking and exposing contemporary colour revolutions difficult, but not impossible. In September 2025, mass rioting ignited in Nepal. Major news outlets without exception reported the fiery agitation as an organic burst of dissent by the country’s disaffected “Gen Z”, motivated by corruption, unemployment, and state censorship of social media. Publications barely acknowledged demonstrators committed serious crimes, including torching Nepal’s parliament and the Prime Minister’s official residence, which sent occupants fleeing in helicopters.
Based on publicly available information, the clear insinuations of a colour revolution could be discerned. An NGO that organised the protests, Hami Nepal, had clear links to organisations known to be in receipt of NED funding. Subsequent leaks amply demonstrated the Endowment and USAID expended substantial sums over the years preceding the coup training young Nepalese citizens how to protest, founding NGOs and political parties, and “advocate concerns” on issues such as corruption. Evidently, the post-9/11 “Freedom Agenda” never actually ended.
NBC News reported on Sunday night that eight US Marines were injured two weeks ago when an Iranian missile hit a ship they were operating on in the Strait of Hormuz. The report, which cited unnamed US officials, said the Marines sustained smoke inhalation and potentially traumatic brain injuries, as they had symptoms of concussions, […]
The Iranian authorities routinely refuse to return the seized belongings of political prisoners. The practice is intended to punish former inmates even after they have been released, activists say.
Less than two months after his government hosted the NATO summit — which was framed as proof of Turkey’s pivotal role in transatlantic security — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has proposed full Turkish membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, an entity that has been described as being anti-NATO or a “rogue NATO.” The apparent contradiction […]
A contentious civilian nuclear agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia has ignited a sharp debate over Middle Eastern security, laying bare the escalating friction between American nonproliferation objectives and the kingdom’s strategic ambitions. This month, The Washington Post reported that a classified US intelligence assessment shared with Congress found that Saudi Arabia has not […]
President Trump said on Sunday that he was “rejecting” a proposal from Iran to end the war and fully open the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, comments that came after The Wall Street Journal reported that he’s expecting to resume bombing Iran after the midterm elections. “I’m rejecting their deal,” Trump told reporters, according […]
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.
Livraisons d'armes de Washington contre opérations navales de Pékin, provocations du Congrès américain contre discours martiaux du président Xi Jinping, l'approche des élections générales du 13 janvier à Taïwan a exacerbé les tensions entre les États-Unis et la Chine. Sur place, la rivalité géopolitique se grime parfois derrière d'autres débats : ceux qui divisent la société autour de son « identité profonde ».
Ken-tsai Lee. — Visuel pour l'affiche du Festival de la calligraphie qui s'est tenu à la fois en Chine et à Taïwan, 2011
« Quand on regarde une statue, on peut décider de ne voir qu'une statue. On peut aussi y lire un symbole. Cela varie en fonction des personnes. » Au mémorial de Tchang Kaï-chek, le dirigeant qui a transféré le gouvernement de la République de Chine sur le sol taïwanais à la suite de la victoire des communistes sur le continent en 1949, un responsable tente de relativiser les débats houleux autour de la figure de l'ancien dictateur (1945-1975). Il refuse de donner son nom et de révéler plus de détails sur sa perception du généralissime, figure incontournable de l'histoire de l'île : « Le mémorial est un sujet trop sensible à l'heure actuelle, personne ne répondra à vos questions sans que vous vous engagiez à protéger son anonymat », assure-t-il.
Lieu emblématique de la capitale taïwanaise, le monument s'élève en plein centre du quartier administratif de Taipei, face à la bibliothèque nationale. Le visiteur y accède en passant sous une arche au fronton de laquelle est inscrit « Place de la Liberté ». Il navigue ensuite entre deux gigantesques bâtiments d'architecture chinoise, le théâtre et la salle de concert nationaux, puis monte un peu moins d'une centaine de marches pour enfin apercevoir l'immense statue de bronze représentant l'ancien président. Le mémorial surplombe la place. En son sein, la sculpture est gardée sans interruption par deux soldats, la relève s'effectuant toutes les heures, sous le regard généralement curieux des étrangers de passage. Rares sont les Taïwanais qui viennent assister au spectacle.
Depuis quelques années, toutefois, l'exposition a changé : si on peut toujours y découvrir les grandes étapes de la vie de Tchang Kaï-chek et jeter un œil à ses effets personnels, l'espace a été réduit de moitié et comprend aujourd'hui des segments entiers évoquant les atteintes à la liberté de la presse et la répression sous la loi martiale. Du jamais-vu puisque, jusque-là, les périodes de « terreur » qui caractérisèrent cette dictature — avec ses exécutions d'opposants, ses purges et sa police secrète — étaient tues.
« Ce genre d'exposition devrait être organisé dans des musées spécifiques, pas dans un mémorial », s'exaspère M. Yin Tai, qui, pendant plus de vingt ans, a assuré avec d'autres volontaires les visites guidées. Comme une partie d'entre eux, il s'y refuse désormais. Issu d'une famille ayant fui le continent avec les troupes de la République de Chine, M. Yin, 73 ans, est un partisan du Kuomintang (Parti nationaliste chinois, KMT), la formation de Tchang Kaï-chek, dans l'opposition depuis l'arrivée au pouvoir de la présidente Tsai Ing-wen, issue du Parti démocrate progressiste (PDP), en 2016.
« Après les chiens, les cochons »
De façon inattendue, les deux formations traditionnelles de la démocratie taïwanaise se querellent au sujet de la question de l'héritage historique du généralissime. Sur une île déchirée par la question de ses rapports à la Chine continentale, on aurait en effet pu s'attendre à ce que la formation revendiquant la figure du dirigeant politique ayant opéré la rupture avec la République populaire se révèle la plus hostile à Pékin. C'est tout le contraire. Car, s'il incarne l'opposition aux communistes, Tchang Kaï-chek représente également l'idée d'une continuité identitaire entre le continent et l'île. Soit la vision des choses que défend désormais le KMT, auquel certains reprochent de faire les yeux doux à ses adversaires d'antan. De son côté, le PDP, qui jouit du soutien occidental dans le cadre de l'affrontement entre Washington et Pékin, justifie son projet d'indépendance en insistant sur la différence intrinsèque qui existerait entre Chinois et Taïwanais.
« Nous pensons que Tchang Kaï-chek a apporté plus de bonnes choses que de mauvaises à Taïwan », nous explique donc M. Yin. En défendant la figure du dictateur, il songe sans doute à son histoire familiale. Celle de nombreux descendants de réfugiés du continent, arrivés après la défaite face aux communistes et qui voient encore dans la République populaire de Chine le pays natal perdu. Ces waìshēngrén (« venus d'une province extérieure »), comme on les appelle parfois, représenteraient 14 % de la population taïwanaise, sur la base d'enquêtes déclaratives. Les populations indigènes en rassembleraient 2 % et les Taïwanais dits « de souche » — Chinois dont la présence sur l'île débute avant la colonisation japonaise (1895-1945) — 84 %. Bon nombre de ces derniers estiment que l'existence de Taïwan comme entité à part entière ne fait plus question. Une large fraction d'entre eux votent donc pour le PDP, qui s'est attaché à mettre en valeur une identité taïwanaise à la trajectoire clairement distincte de celle des Chinois du continent.
Une large fraction, mais pas tous. Ainsi cette employée du mémorial, taïwanaise « de souche », selon laquelle l'identité de l'île plonge ses racines en Chine. « Bien sûr, il est nécessaire d'attribuer à Tchang Kaï-chek la responsabilité de ses actions, commente-t-elle sous couvert d'anonymat. Mais il ne faut pas complètement oublier ses contributions à la société. Pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, il a par exemple aidé de nombreux pays et a collaboré avec les Alliés afin de résister au Japon et, plus tard, au Parti communiste. » De sorte que la fonctionnaire se désole des dernières évolutions du mémorial : « Ce n'est pas fait pour que les visiteurs comprennent mieux l'histoire, l'objectif est purement politique. »
Du côté des partisans de l'indépendance, l'existence même du mémorial irrite : « Je pense que ce lieu ne devrait pas exister », explique ainsi Shake, une artiste de 45 ans qui ne voit dans ce nouvel arrangement de l'exposition qu'un compromis du PDP. Membre d'une famille de waìshēngrén — aux racines chinoises, donc —, elle exècre le régime de Pékin : elle s'est fait connaître en érigeant un gigantesque char d'assaut gonflable sur la place du mémorial à l'occasion des 30 ans de la répression des manifestations de Tiananmen à Pékin, en juin 2019 (1). « C'était avant la pandémie. Les touristes chinois étaient encore autorisés à venir à Taïwan. Et le mémorial de Tchang Kaï-chek était un endroit incontournable à visiter. »
Pour l'artiste, le généralissime n'est rien d'autre qu'un « dictateur » : « Je ne pense pas qu'il ait contribué en quoi que ce soit au développement de Taïwan », déclare-t-elle. À l'image de ceux qui craignent une intervention chinoise, cette farouche opposante aux régimes autoritaires attribue volontiers l'essor de l'île… à sa colonisation par l'empire japonais. En dépit de la répression violente et des massacres qui l'ont caractérisée. « La plupart des Taïwanais étaient assimilés aux Japonais. Ils n'ont pas eu les moyens de réfléchir à ce qu'ils allaient devenir. Puis le KMT est arrivé. On s'est retrouvés emportés dans la guerre civile chinoise. » À la suite des exactions du régime de Tchang Kaï-chek, cette colonisation nippone garde une image positive auprès de certains, dont Shake.
« Le nationalisme taïwanais naît à cette époque. L'objectif premier était d'obtenir les mêmes droits que les Japonais, à un moment où les Taïwanais étaient des citoyens de seconde zone. Mais il ne s'agissait pas d'un mouvement indépendantiste », explique Vladimir Stolojan, historien français associé à l'université de Tamkang (Taïwan). Avant de préciser : « Il y a eu une phase de répression puis de grande modernisation. Ceux qui se souviennent de l'époque du Japon sont nés pendant la période la moins sévère. » De plus, le KMT a chassé l'occupant nippon pour installer un régime encore plus dur. Ce que traduit cet adage populaire : « Quand les chiens sont partis, les cochons sont arrivés ».
Ainsi, le mémorial de Tchang Kaï-chek n'est pas le seul sujet de controverse au sein de la société. C'est l'histoire du pays, la conception de son identité qui distinguent les deux principaux camps politiques. S'ils entendent désormais maintenir le statu quo, l'idée même de nation les divise.
À son arrivée, le KMT « déjaponise » puis sinise l'île à marche forcée. Au principe d'une « littérature et d'un art anticommunistes », qui caractérise la politique du Kuomintang dès 1945, s'ajoute dans les années 1960 une attaque contre la culture locale : « L'emploi des dialectes locaux est interdit dans les écoles et les lieux publics, écrit Chang Bi-yu, professeure à l'École des études orientales et africaines (SOAS) de l'université de Londres. Le théâtre traditionnel taïwanais (…) et les arts populaires sont considérés comme grossiers et arriérés, et l'histoire taïwanaise est presque entièrement absente des manuels d'histoire » (2). En réalité, le Japon avait pris des mesures d'assimilation sociale et culturelle identiques à partir de 1937, mais, avec l'arrivée des nationalistes, la culture chinoise détrône la culture japonaise : « Ce qui est chinois devient synonyme de raffinement, de beauté et de grandeur, ce qui est taïwanais est au contraire jugé vulgaire, stupide », poursuit Chang Bi-yu. Le KMT cultive alors l'espoir de reconquérir le continent. À la mort du dictateur nationaliste et, surtout, après la levée de la loi martiale en 1987, cette politique culturelle est assouplie. La vision insulaire du passé s'invite progressivement dans les milieux scientifiques et dans l'enseignement à mesure que l'île se démocratise.
« Lorsque le Parti nationaliste chinois commence à replier ses troupes à Taïwan, il colporte dans l'île les analyses qui façonnent sa vision du présent et de l'avenir », explique Damien Morier-Genoud, maître de conférences à l'université Grenoble-Alpes. « Les études historiques sur Taïwan, de même que les programmes et manuels scolaires d'histoire, se devaient de cautionner le mythe d'une “Grande Chine” plurimillénaire et unifiée. » Il ajoute : « C'est précisément pour faire pièce à cette politique d'endoctrinement du KMT pétrie de chauvinisme et de nationalisme chinois que les opposants au régime, bientôt rejoints par une partie de la communauté académique, se sont attachés à élaborer, à partir des années 1970-1980, un récit nouveau du passé insulaire. »
Altruisme américain
Une polémique autour de la qualification de l'époque japonaise revient ainsi régulièrement : alors qu'avant les années 1990 les livres parlaient d'« occupation » japonaise (rìjù), ceux d'aujourd'hui parlent de… « régime » japonais (rìzhì). Ils soulignent en revanche le coût, pour les travailleurs, du « miracle économique » taïwanais des années 1960, que l'époque antérieure présentait positivement, en l'attribuant à la planification pratiquée par le gouvernement.
Lors de son discours d'investiture en 2016, la présidente Tsai avait promis : « L'histoire ne divisera plus Taïwan. » Elle s'était engagée à œuvrer pour la réconciliation nationale, en poursuivant le processus de justice transitionnelle inauguré par le président Lee Teng-hui (KMT) en 1995. Celui-ci vise à indemniser les victimes de la période autoritaire (1947-1992) et de la « terreur blanche » à la suite des manifestations réprimées du 28 février 1947, connues sous le nom d'« incident 228 » (en référence au jour où l'épisode a commencé, le 28 février, ou 2/28) : l'arrestation violente d'une vendeuse de cigarettes de contrebande avait déclenché une vague d'insurrections contre la dictature, se soldant par des dizaines de milliers de morts.
« De nombreux cas de meurtres n'ont pas été révélés, on ne sait pas qui sont les bourreaux », se désole Shake, qui estime que le processus de justice transitionnelle censé mettre au jour les crimes reste insuffisant. Damien Morier-Genoud nuance : « Le comité a eu au moins le mérite de déclassifier certaines archives importantes pour faire la lumière sur les agissements de l'ancienne police secrète de Tchang Kaï-chek et de son fils Chiang Ching-kuo. Mais ce travail d'investigation prend inévitablement du temps ; outre le respect de la loi et de la Constitution, il doit s'inscrire dans la lenteur et la rigueur qu'impliquent la restitution des témoignages du passé et la réflexion en histoire. »
Dans l'émission « C ce soir » (France 5), le 11 avril 2023, M. François Wu, le représentant de Taïwan en France, justifie le caractère indépendant de l'île par son histoire : « On commence par Tchang Kaï-chek et Mao [Zedong], mais l'histoire de Taïwan commence bien (…) avant. Les premiers pouvoirs installés à Taïwan n'étaient pas du tout chinois, c'étaient des Européens. (…) Il faut rappeler que par le passé Taïwan n'a jamais été purement chinoise, car les Qing n'étaient pas des purs Hans (3). »
Pour ceux qui restent attachés à l'idée d'une Chine unifiée, ou même pour ceux qui doutent de la stratégie de rapprochement avec les États-Unis, ce type de discours s'avère dangereux. Une analyse qu'ailleurs on qualifie de « prochinoise ». Selon MM. Lin Fei-fan et Lii Wen, deux représentants du PDP, manquer de confiance envers l'allié américain reviendrait en effet à se montrer « conspirationniste ». Dans la revue américaine National Interest, les deux hommes politiques regrettent que « des récits décrivant le soutien américain à Taïwan avec scepticisme et méfiance ont également émergé dans le discours public taïwanais (4) ». Une vision selon eux inspirée par Pékin et véhiculée par le KMT. Ils sont convaincus : excepté à Pékin, personne dans le monde ne douterait de l'altruisme américain.
(3) La dynastie Qing (1644-1912), qui conquit Taïwan, était d'origine mandchoue. Groupe ethnique majoritaire dans un pays qui en compte plusieurs dizaines, les Hans sont parfois considérés comme le peuple chinois historique.
A military group affiliated with Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on Friday defected and joined the Sudanese Armed Forces, state news agency SUNA reported.
The force was led by Al-Tayeb Mohammed Ahmed, also known as Al-Tayeb Al-Wahido.
Senior officials from the Sudanese army and the General Intelligence Service received the defecting force.
Al-Wahido said in a press statement he had broken away from the RSF and joined the Sudanese army after witnessing “tragedies” within the paramilitary group’s ranks.
He called on RSF members to join the army, “return to the homeland” and reconsider their positions, saying “there is no cause that justified the continuation of the fighting.”
There was no immediate comment from the RSF on the announcement.
The latest defection follows a series of similar moves from the RSF in recent weeks. On Aug. 31, about 200 RSF fighters, including prominent field commanders, defected and joined the Sudanese army in Omdurman, bringing military equipment with them.
Earlier, on Aug. 19, the army said 318 RSF personnel, including four commanders, defected with as many as 50 combat vehicles.
On Aug. 13, Sudanese authorities announced that 21 commanders and 270 fighters had joined the army with 37 combat vehicles.
Sudan has been engulfed in war between the army and the RSF since April 2023. The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions of others.
China called on Saturday for an immediate end to the blockade on Cuba, in a speech to the UN General Assembly that stopped short of naming the United States.
Vice President Han Zheng urged the “relevant country” to “immediately stop using the threat of force against Cuba” and to “immediately and completely lift the blockade and sanctions.”
He also pushed back against the US on Iran, saying “China holds that the sovereignty and security of countries in the Middle East, including the Gulf, should be respected,” though he did not mention the US at any point in his remarks.
The comments come as a US pressure campaign has largely cut off oil supplies to Cuba. The US oil blockade began in January and has deepened blackouts, with the island’s electrical grid suffering a total collapse earlier this month that left millions without power.
Equality among states
Han said major countries carry special responsibility for international peace and security and should lead by complying with the rules, upholding the rule of law, and “doing what’s right.”
He also cast China as a reliable partner and a steadfast defender of developing nations, saying all countries, “big or small, are equal members of the international community” and that world affairs should be handled through consultation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke at the UN shortly after and made a similar appeal, urging Washington to end its siege of Cuba and ease trade restrictions on the island.
He also said the US should remove Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Trump-Xi summit
US President Donald Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping at the White House earlier this week, welcoming him with military flyovers and a lavish state dinner, according to Reuters.
During the talks, Trump told Xi that China should refrain from providing support to Iran in the US war on Iran. The US ambassador to China claimed on Friday that Trump received assurances from Xi that Beijing would not do so.
This followed reports that China had supplied Iran with shoulder-fired air-defense missile launchers and that Tehran had found ways to evade sanctions on its oil sales with Chinese help.
Beijing has repeatedly rejected the US sanctions campaign against Iran. In August, the Foreign Ministry said that sanctions and pressure “will not help resolve the issue” and that China opposes “illegal unilateral sanctions” lacking a basis in international law.
Chinese support for Cuba
Cuba was the first Latin American country to establish diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China, and 2025 marked 65 years of relations.
China’s practical support has centered on energy. Reuters reported that Beijing financed 55 solar projects in Cuba in 2025, including a 21-megawatt plant near Jatibonico, with 37 more planned by 2028. Cuban media reported that a shipment of 5,000 solar panels arrived in September, the third of its kind in recent months.
Beijing has also committed 90,000 tonnes of rice to Cuba in 2026, of which 30,000 tonnes have been delivered and 60,000 tonnes pledged.
Thirteen people were killed and at least 35 others injured following a blast at a security checkpoint in Dera Ismail Khan, near the border between Pakistan's Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces.
International flights from Iran to several destinations remain operational despite the expansion of US sanctions targeting the country’s aviation sector, according to Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport.
The airport said Saturday that flights to Turkey, Malaysia, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were continuing according to their previously announced schedules.
The announcement comes as Washington escalates economic pressure on Iran and seeks to restrict the ability of Iranian airlines to maintain international operations.
Iranian flights continue despite sanctions
Imam Khomeini International Airport said that, aside from flights already canceled, no additional cancellations had been announced.
The canceled services include flights involving the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Oman, and Georgia.
The airport also said it was working to restore suspended air connections as soon as possible.
The continued operation of several international routes comes despite growing restrictions on Iranian aviation following a new round of US sanctions announced on September 8.
The measures have affected Iranian airlines as well as companies and intermediaries involved in providing services to the country’s aviation sector.
Recent reporting indicates that Iranian carriers have continued operating some international services despite the sanctions, including flights to China, Turkey, Thailand, and Afghanistan.
US measures target Iran’s aviation sector
The US Treasury Department announced sanctions on September 8 against 36 targets linked to Iran’s aviation sector, including 27 Iranian airlines. Washington described the measures as an effort to target what it considers Iran’s remaining unsanctioned carriers and the networks supporting them.
The sanctions form part of a broader US campaign to restrict Iran’s access to international financial and commercial networks.
The measures have also placed pressure on foreign companies providing Iranian carriers with fuel, ground handling, aircraft-related services, and other forms of support.
The consequences, however, have varied by country. While some governments and companies have restricted Iranian aviation connections, other countries have continued to facilitate flights.
Iraq restrictions trigger backlash
In Iraq, the suspension of Iranian flights, particularly through Najaf International Airport, has triggered criticism from official, political, factional, and religious quarters.
Several Iraqi parties and figures have called for the decision to be reversed and rejected what they described as US pressure on Baghdad.
The Iraqi government is also moving toward dialogue with Washington in an effort to secure an exemption that would allow air links with Iran to resume.
Ali Akbar Velayati, international affairs advisor to Iran’s Leader, said the restrictions on Iranian flights were part of an effort by Iran’s enemies to compensate for their battlefield defeat by attempting to dismantle the “unity of the fronts” from within.
The Iranian Ambassador to Iraq, Mohammad Kazem Al-Sadegh, further told Iran’s ISNA news agency that a new decision surrounding Iranian flights to Iraq is likely to be announced soon.
He added that Iran is in contact with Iraqi officials and proposals on the matter have been submitted.
Al-e Sadegh noted that roughly 12,000 to 13,000 people travel between Iraq and Iran via Iranian airlines.
China maintains air links with Iran
China has maintained its opposition to unilateral US sanctions and continued to receive Iranian flights.
Flight-tracking data cited in recent reports showed Iranian services continuing to operate to Chinese destinations after the latest US measures took effect.
The continued connections with China also reflect the broader geopolitical divide over Washington’s unilateral sanctions policy, with Beijing maintaining economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran despite US pressure.
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.
Login
(@jacksonhinkle) 