An excerpt from the above linked-to article by RT News follows:
The head of Russia’s Investigative Committee, Aleksandr Bastrykin, has called for the creation of an international coalition of states to fight the “dictatorship” imposed by the US on the rest of the world, and to reject the use the US dollar as a reserve currency.
Speaking at a roundtable in Moscow, Bastrykin said that the world urgently needed a new system of checks and balances that would allow equal representation of all nations on the international political arena.
He said an alliance of countries was needed which could act in concert as “a feasible pole to counter the dictatorship imposed by the Americans together with their Western allies,” according to the minutes of the roundtable published on the Investigative Committee’s website.
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
It’s total common sense for Russian officials to think like this. The US (not alone however) is absolutely not interested in law and order in any meaningful way. You have to be brain dead to not know that. It’s interested in domination, which losers like Obama and Hillary Clinton (and all of the American ruling class) refer to euphemistically as ‘leadership’. Well, The mafia godfather is interested in leadership too, and you’d better understand what that means.
William Greider wrote “One World, Ready Or Not” many years ago. It’s a great read. He interviews quite a few people for the book, including some Boeing officials. He was discussing the GATT rules with one and, once they had established as a talking point that, yes, the rules were violated all the time, the official allowed that the rules were not there because corporations have some principled position on law and order, but because it kept the whole corrupt, rickety mafia capitalist system from falling on everyone’s head. In other words, It wasn’t ‘everyone’ he is concerned about, since if that were to happen, the important people would suffer to. Capitalists (the mutated variety) are macho, suicidal, destructive and pathological, but they can often be clever. I’ll never say wise. That’s different.
I remember Michael Hudson (economist) musing about the possibility of (Nazi) Ukraine not paying it’s bill with Russia for energy now that it’s happily being used by the US to destabilize Ukraine and blame Putin for it (Cold War II). I thought “Yep. That’s how it works. You come to dominate by breaking the rules – financial in this case – that all have agreed to beforehand. The ‘more’ law abiding you are, in the US-dominated world, the more danger you are in. And sure enough, Ukraine said it wouldn’t pay. I don’t know how that ended and whether or not Ukraine backed down from that position.
Do I believe that the world will divide into a US-dominated system and an independent Russian-dominated system, or something like that? It could happen if the world had enough time for it, I suppose. I don’t believe that that’s the case. Nor do I believe that a coalition of independent countries able to protect itself from a hyper violent, hyper lawless US would be a righteous congregation. That’s another thing altogether. This dark world’s paradigm is ‘riches for the strongest’. Being a loser in a game that you shouldn’t play doesn’t automatically make you righteous.
Fix your garbage commenting system RT.
An excerpt from the article, “The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia,” by Michael Hudson follows:
==== == = –
Imagine the following scenario five years from now. China will have spent half a decade building high-speed railroads, ports, power systems and other construction for Asian and African countries, enabling them to grow and export more. These exports will be coming online to repay the infrastructure loans. Also, suppose that Russia has been supplying the oil and gas energy for these projects on credit.
To avert this prospect, suppose an American diplomat makes the following proposal to the leaders of countries in debt to China, Russia and the AIIB: “Now that you’ve got your increased production in place, why repay? We’ll make you rich if you stiff our adversaries and turn back to the West. We and our European allies will support your assigning your nations’ public infrastructure to yourselves and your supporters at insider prices, and then give these assets market value by selling shares in New York and London. Then, you can keep the money and spend it in the West.”
How can China or Russia collect in such a situation? They can sue. But what court in the West will accept their jurisdiction?
That is the kind of scenario U.S. State Department and Treasury officials have been discussing for more than a year. Implementing it became more pressing in light of Ukraine’s $3 billion debt to Russia falling due by December 20, 2015. Ukraine’s U.S.-backed regime has announced its intention to default. To support their position, the IMF has just changed its rules to remove a critical lever on which Russia and other governments have long relied to ensure payment of their loans.
– = == ====
See also Michael Hudson’s article titled “Orwell at the UN: Obama re-defines democracy as a country that supports U.S. policy.” Here’s an excerpt:
“In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence or revolution. This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a ‘democracy’. In making this hardly-veiled threat, he redefined the word in the vocabulary of international politics. Democracy is the CIA’s overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is “our bastards”, as Lyndon Johnson said, with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.
“A century ago, the word “democracy” referred to a nation whose policies were formed by elected representatives. Ever since ancient Athens, democracy was contrasted to oligarchy and aristocracy. But since the Cold War and its aftermath, that is not how U.S. politicians have used the term. When an American president uses the word “democracy”, he means a pro-American country following U.S. neoliberal policies, no matter if the country is a military dictatorship or its government was brought in by a coup (euphemized as a Color Revolution) as in Georgia or Ukraine…”