Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow




Gefira #48 Western Europe to become a Third World subcontinent

Illegal immigration into Europe continues #alwaysandeverywhere

A chi apparterrà la Germania del futuro?

Il crollo demografico dell’Italia; Dal 2080 gli Italiani saranno una minoranza nel proprio paese

The case of Bulgaria or the euro is called dear-euro 

The smiles of Ursula (her surname is von den Liar) and other commissioners are fading again: the impudent Bulgarians don’t want the euro, they took to the streets and fought back in mass protests against the oh-so-wonderful single currency, against the decision of some of their politicians to join the eurozone as soon as possible. Of course, the Brussels rhetoric immediately labelled the protesters as Putin’s stooges, who are said to make up over 50% of Bulgarians (according to the BBC, ZDF and the like). By the way: What power Putin must have over the minds of people throughout Europe! Lumping all opponents into the same box has long since become boring. The Brussels narrative is simply tedious.

Yes, over 50% of Bulgaria’s population is wrong, and this must be corrected by the EU or, as Merkel once said, “reversed”, because anyone who does not accept just one idea, a single idea of the Brussels juggernaut/Sovkhoz, is either far-right or a dishonourable supporter of Putin. The oh-so-wonderful EU values are under threat from Orbán, Fico, Le Pen, and now also – the new “far-right” Polish President Nawrocki, and a growing crowd of people who, like Trump, would all like to end the war in Ukraine. The “values” of the EU are leading us to war, boosting the profits of Rhein Metall and other defence companies. The “values” of the EU only serve the corporations.

But wait: what is the real situation with the euro, which was dubbed the dear-euro after its introduction in Germany because everyone saw how much prices were rising? Well, it’s best to ask Slovaks, Lithuanians and Latvians: How did you fare after the introduction of the dear-euro? They will all answer: Bad, prices rose and we can no longer afford many things.

But here again: In which country was the euro not introduced, which was welcomed by the majority of the population? In Hungary!!! Where the evil Orbán has cut himself off from the migrants! Ay-vay! How that doesn’t fit into the scheme! Hungarians think for themselves and have their opinion on the single currency, even if most of them would be categorized as far-right and pro-Russian by the Western media.

The Bulgarians are resisting the euro, but proud Danes and Swedes said a decisive “no” to it years ago and it was completely unproblematic for Brussels. But if the Poles and Czechs stick to their currency, this is seen by the Commissioners as a kind of immaturity and inadequacy. If an even weaker country like Bulgaria dares to follow the only true path, it is vilified and condemned.

EU bureaucrats do not understand the European nations. Rather, they have infected them with their intellectually and morally wrong thinking construct and cannot see that the majority of Europeans have become immune to it.

The WHO towards dictatorship

While the spotlight of the leading media focuses our attention on the evil Putin, evil Trump, evil far-right, evil climate change, etc., agreements are being concluded that limit the sovereignty of all countries in the world. Agreements in the shadow of the supposedly more important events that will determine our future: the WHO international pandemic agreement. 

Did you or your elected representatives have a say in this? Was there a public debate on this in your country?

This agreement was drawn up on the basis of the experience from the COVID-19 pandemic, when countries were “unable to cope” with the crisis (according to the WHO). The main points of the agreement on the control of the world include, among others:  

  1. the sharing of pathogen samples and genetic data, which gives the WHO access to materials from many countries to enable a “fair” distribution of medicines; 
  2. subordination to WHO regulations – a binding international obligation that imposes absolute obedience to the WHO on individual governments;  
  3. promotion of the development of global certification systems in the healthcare sector – i.e. the introduction of digital health passports.

The agreement is not limited to epidemic situations. The WHO has developed the “One Health” system, which aims to unite the health of animals, humans and the environment. In this way, the World Health Organization is expanding its competencies to include possible climate or agricultural policies

The main sponsors of the WHO are worth mentioning:  

  1. the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 
  2. Gavi (vaccine alliance)
  3. UNICEF 
  4. EU 
  5. Germany and the USA 

In this way, agreements are created above our heads, agreements that can have a direct impact on our lives in times of crisis. The pandemic agreement leads to the centralization of power and the weakening of national sovereignty. If the WHO sounds the alarm, our lives will be determined by people who have not been chosen in any electoral process. Think about what happened in 2020-2022. Some countries, like Sweden, have managed to break free from the prevailing narrative. Now it’s getting a bit more complicated. There is hope, though: the agreement needs to be ratified by the individual states, and the Trump-led United States may not choose to do so. This would undermine the effectiveness of the whole project. We, therefore, hope that countries that have expressed their concerns about the agreement (like Poland and Italy) will also resist the WHO. 

Pearl Harbor 2?

The Western European elites along with the American democrats were just overjoyed! Ukrainians carried out Operation Spider’s Web and hit targets deep inside Russia, thousands of kilometers away from Ukraine, by means of drones that were smuggled into the Federation and remotely controlled. Damage was inflicted on industrial objects in places located in the Murmansk and Irkutsk regions. The former is close to the northern parts of Finland, the latter is as far east as Mongolia! Quite an exploit on the part of the Ukrainians. Surely, they will have been aided by the Western intelligence or else they would never ever have been able to precisely locate the targets, some of which were military aircraft.

Though the action is a feat – rumour has it it took one and a half years to prepare it – its political and military impact is questionable. The assault seems to be orchestrated with yet another round of Istanbul talks. Why? Did Kiev want to disrupt the negotiations or merely gain a better position at the negotiating table? The Western journalists and politicians were just beside themselves with joy; some began comparing the event to Pearl Harbor, a Japanese attack on the American navy on 7 December 1941. The comparison shows the general stupidity of the people running the media and being in charge of the Western countries. Their historical knowledge is certainly as small as to be deplorable, but even in this case they should have reflected for a second or so. If they had reflected, they would have immediately remembered that within a few months of Pearl Harbour Americans successfully retaliated at the Battle of Midway, and within a few years of Pearl Harbor Japan was on its knees. Are those journalists and politicians aware of this sequence of events? Is there among them at least one man like Admiral Yamamoto, who after the Pearl Harbour attack said: We have awakened a sleeping giant?

What did the planners of this operation think they could achieve? Did they hope to compel Russia to give in? Did they really? Maybe they thought the Russian nation would be scared out of their wits and beg Putin to put an end to the war and ask for peace terms? If they thought so then, again, they have a very poor knowledge of even recent history. It was during the Second World War that the Americans and the British mercilessly and ruthlessly carpet bombed German cities and… and they only strengthened German resistance and caused the Germans to rally around their leaders. The same is true of Russians, the some has always been and will always be true of any nation.

In this attack, Ukrainians claim to have destroyed a number of bombers. Russians own up they lost a few aircraft. As usual the numbers differ: the attacker overrates, the attacked underrates the hits. Be it as it may, the number is not important. Not only because the number of lost aircraft is not likely to change the course of the hostilities, but first of all because the loss of the airplanes translates into a loss of something far more significant. For why were the Russian bombers successfully hit? Because they stood on tarmac, without any type of cover. Why did they stand on tarmac for all to see from outer space? Was it because the Russians were too self-confident or because they were incompetent? Neither. The aircraft stood on tarmac because it was agreed between the United States of America and the Russian Federation (New START, 2011) that military airplanes capable of carrying nukes are to be visible to the other party of the agreement through satellite monitoring as a kind of reassurance that no surreptitious attack was being prepared or was under way. It seems that the West has compromised this part of the said agreement only to spite Russia. Now, the Russians might as well start concealing their strategic aircraft. How will that benefit the West?

As could be expected, the attacks strengthened the willingness of the Russians to punish Ukrainians and especially to punish the West. President Vladimir Putin is under enormous domestic pressure to retaliate. Russian patriots call for launching an Oreshnik missile at London, as everybody knows that the British are the enablers of the attack. Putin is being compared by the Western media and politicians as being another Hitler, yet, he shows a lot of restraint. Imagine another leader of the Russian Federation and his response to such an attack… If it is true that a few days earlier Ukrainians were close to pulling off a drone attack on a helicopter with the Russian president and if that attack had been successful, then a retaliation for both events might follow, turning the local hostilities into another world war. Who wants such a course of events?

How can Ukraine gain by it? How can Europe gain from it? Imagine a full-scale war in Western Europe. Will all those Moroccans and Afghans, Algerians and Kenyans fight for France and Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden against Russia? Please… Already, they live in separate societies and regularly go on the rampage in the Western cities. They will never ever identify with their adopted countries. After all, they haven’t come to France and Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden to experience war and deprivation. To the contrary, as we are told they have escaped from their countries because of war and deprivation. Do the likes of Starmer, Macron and Merz understand it? Fat chance of that!

Europe is on a crusade. Europe is fighting the Crimean War Number Two (the first one took place between 1853-1856). Europe, seeing the oncoming disaster, is throwing temper tantrums, like a teenager. Let us pull off something to show that we matter! Yet, again, if the journalists and politicians knew just a bit of history they would remember the charge of the Light Brigade – a spectacular debacle of a British unit during the Crimean War. And they might remember the crusade led by Emperor Napoleon and how it ended, or the crusade led by Führer Hitler, and how that one ended. In both cases the invading troops were multinational, in both cases they had initial success and in both cases the crusade was miserably lost.

Operation Barbarossa (attack on the Soviet Union) and Operation Typhoon (Battle of Moscow) would eventually come to a grinding stop, while the counteroffensive blows known as Operation Uranium (encirclement of the German troops at Stalingrad) and Operation Bagration (pushing the Germans back to the Vistula line) broke the back of the invaders. What do Europeans and Ukrainians expect might happen now?

Isn’t it all childish? Ukrainians hit targets as far as Mongolia, and yet they cannot avoid losing 20% of their territory… Ukrainians have destroyed several Russian aircraft, and a bridge and what not, and yet their population has been halved while their infrastructure has been put mostly out of order. It’s like giving your enemy a sting, and receiving a knockout in return. Pities. Pathetic. Fatuous.

VOLVO vs. JAGUAR – blind submission to an ideology is not worthwhile 

Now that the decisive factor for the quality of an advertising campaign has been the inclusion of a “progressive” message in it, it is time for corporate boards to reflect on this. The promotion of gender ideology and the like has had the opposite effect than expected. Companies have realised that their own strategies are hurting them, so they are gradually returning to what really attracts customers. The most recent example of this is the British car brand Jaguar. The company is abandoning its collaboration with advertising agency Spark44, whose adverts have been widely criticised for their departure from the traditional brand image. The campaign, entitled “Delete Ordinary”, no longer featured the famous Jaguar logo, no longer showed cars and focused on LGBTQ aesthetics, bright colours (beautiful British pink) and a variety of questionable models. This was seen by the brand’s customers as inconsistent with Jaguar’s legacy of luxury and sporting character.

In 2024, Jaguar sales have halved compared to 2023. It is therefore not surprising that the company has decided to make a change. 

Volvo, on the other hand, knows how to make good adverts. The company presented the film by Hoyt Van Hoythem, a cameraman who has worked on productions such as Interstellar and Oppenheimer. The material has received a very positive response. It promotes family values and encourages children, which can be seen as a defiance to the prevailing perversities these days. 

Volvo achieved an all-time high in vehicle sales last year, with sales rising by 8%. The figures speak for themselves. 

Trump’s Problems 

Yes, it’s what we first associate with Trump’s policies: Tariffs. Now someone dared to question them and it was the US Court of International Trade (CIT). On 29 May, this court ruled that most of the global tariffs imposed by Trump were illegal because he had overstepped his authority. It said Trump had improperly invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and therefore the court claims that trade deficits are not an emergency that justifies the president’s unilateral actions. Naturally, the administration scoffed at this decision and stated that it will lodge an appeal. This means that the case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

However, it appears that the long-term impact of the CIT decision will be limited as the US government has the tools to continue its tariff policy. Trump can apply alternative legal bases and increase pressure on industry tariffs that are not subject to the above-mentioned regulation. Therefore, key tariffs on major trading partners such as the EU, China or Japan are likely to remain in place even if the Supreme Court does not overturn the CIT decision.

What is perhaps even more important in the US is a series of legal changes that have just come into force. It’s “One, Big Beautiful Bill,” a law aimed at cutting taxes, stopping immigration, securing borders, promoting energy policy and cutting spending on certain social programmes. Trump called it “perhaps the most significant legislation in the history of the country.” Not everyone has such a positive attitude towards it. Suffice it to say, this bill was passed by the House of Representatives by a mere one vote (215 to 214).

On the one hand, the US could save USD 1.6 trillion thanks to the law by cancelling a range of expenditure. Spending on the green transition or gender transition, for example, would no longer be sponsored. On the other hand, the law increases the federal debt ceiling, defence spending and requires other new spending. There are also numerous tax benefits, including the elimination of tip and overtime taxes, benefits for cars made in the US and a 15% tax cut for families earning less than $80,000 a year. It is calculated that the law will result in 80% of households paying lower taxes in 2026, which should be an incentive to stimulate the economy. Yes, it’s true, but the national debt of USD 36.2 trillion will increase by around USD 3.8 trillion over the next decade – according to the US Congressional Budget Office.

Elon Musk expressed his disappointment with the law, saying it undermines his efforts to reduce government spending. His ways with Trump parted, Musk had to go and Trump repeated the mistakes of his first term when he too often made “purges” in the staff around him.

Trump: a leader blinded by his administration

“I’m not happy with what Putin is doing, he’s killing a lot of people and I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin, I’ve known him for a long time I’ve always got along with him, but he is sending rockets into cities and he’s killing people, and I don’t like it at all, ok? We’re in the middle of talking and he’s shooting rockets into Kiev and other cities. I don’t like it at all. […] I don’t like what Putin is doing, he’s killing people. And something happened to this guy and I don’t like it,” [emphasis added] said President Donald Trump as he was taking questions from reporters on the tarmac in Morristown, New Jersey, on 14th May. Within several seconds the American president repeated the word killing three times and gave vent to his anger, gracing it with the interjection what the hell.

A highly emotional speech. Words and phrases that do not become a politician, especially a politician of that caliber. You may like them or not (the chances are you don’t), but neither Russia’s President Vladimir Putin nor Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov have ever let themselves blurt words loaded with so much negative emotion and level them at any of the Western politicians. That says a lot about the quality of diplomacy on either side of the dividing line.

As is known, Americans are conducting talks with Russians over the war in Ukraine, and President Donald Trump has spoken more than twice over the phone with President Vladimir Putin. With this in mind, what purpose did the words spoken by the American president serve? Did he want to make his Russian counterpart be more disposed to talks and concessions? What the hell – to use Trump’s vocabulary – did the American president think he would attain in his dealings with the Russian president, almost yelling that his interlocutor appears to be a madman – “what the hell happened to Putin” – and a killer – “he’s killing people”?

One possible explanation is that President Donald Trump did not particularly mean what he said, but, acting under pressure from the media controlled for the most part by the Democratic Party and wishing to appear tough he simply wanted to make a show of anger. That might be so. Still, as said above, the Russian side does not behave remotely like that.

Be it as it may, the president’s temper tantrum is one thing: the same event exposed something of larger gravity. After Donald Trump had finished with this public show of anger and displeasure aimed at Vladimir Putin, a journalist revealed to him that “a Russian commander reportedly said Putin was almost caught in the middle of a drone attack from Ukraine.” Watching the footage of the event, one can clearly see that President Donald Trump was taken by surprise. He managed to mumble something along the lines of “I haven’t heard that,” then came up with an explanation of Putin’s behaviour, saying that “maybe that would be a reason” [behind Russia’s attacks on Ukraine in the middle of the peace talks], and added, somewhat confused, “I don’t know. I’ve not heard that.”

It transpires that a journalist had heard about a drone assassination attempt on the Russian president, but the American president had not! Where did the journalist have that information from? Did the CIA know about it? If it did not, then the agency is good for nothing. If it did, then why was the president not briefed about it? If the American president was not briefed about an assassination attempt on his Russian counterpart, was it intentional on the part of the agency? If it was, then it means that the administration is working against Donald Trump just as it did during his first term. The question remains how large a part of the administration is sabotaging the American president’s decisions and which part of it is providing the head of state with misinformation or which part of the it withdraws information from him entirely or partly. If such are the circumstances, then Donald Trump is going to fail during his second term as president precisely as he failed during his first term. If he desires to make a difference and be remembered by momentous decisions that he managed to execute, he’d better muster enough courage and determination to purge the government agencies without regard for anything and anybody, or else he will go under.

One can wonder what the thoughts of the Americans presidents were after this short encounter with the journalists and after he had learnt that he had not been informed properly about the current events. What inferences did President Donald Trump draw from all this? The government agencies – especially those gathering intel – are eyes and ears of any leader. Deprived of proper sight and hearing, a leader is doomed to failure. It is not the first time that President Donald Trump says things which reveal that his perception of reality is distorted, and it is distorted by the agencies that should keep the president in the picture. We all remember the number of casualties that Donald Trump announced some time ago: he appeared to believe that there were much more Russians dead and wounded than Ukrainians. It somehow did not bother the president to challenge such data on grounds of reality: if Russians are suffering to a much greater extent, why then Ukrainians cannot push them back? Why then Ukrainians are retreating? Why then Russians are unwilling to bring the hostilities to an end as soon as possible? Does Donald Trump not have proper mental faculties?

A leader of a superpower who acts on misinformation or lack of information (information which is otherwise available to a simple journalist) is at best pathetically ineffective, and at worst – downright dangerous.

“Free Palestine!” is synonymous to “Heil Hitler!”

That’s at least what Benjamin Netanyahu believes and what Benjamin Netanyahu openly said in one of his recent addresses. He meant every word he said, for the Israeli Prime Minister also equated Hamas with Nazis. His precise words were: “For these neo-Nazis ‘Free Palestine’ is just today’s version of ‘Heil Hitler!’ They don’t want a Palestinian state – they want to destroy the Jewish state, they want to annihilate the Jewish people.”

Why so harsh words? Why equating Hamas with the NSDAP? Israel’s prime minister as well as Israel’s authorities must have been living in distress for the last several months watching the anti-Israeli resentment unfold across the Western world. American students, Western governments, the Western press have become anti-Israeli – an unthinkable phenomenon heretofore. Tel Aviv could always rely on the support of the Western world in Israel’s conflicts with the Arab world and all of a sudden such a bitter surprise. The American Christian Zionists were (and these continue to be) pro-Israeli; the intellectuals (many of them of Jewish extraction) were pro-Israeli; the common people were pro-Israeli as they were imbued with the compassion for the Jews because of the latter’s suffering during World War Two. The very few who did not dare to comply with the pro-Israeli trend were swiftly and effectively silenced with accusations of anti-Semitism and the resultant consequences like social ostracism. Something, however, has changed. Neither the intellectuals nor even the governments are unconditionally supporting Israel’s policies.

Since the Western world’s historical awareness has been raised on the holocaust narrative, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw it fit to resort to the same narrative also this time. It has worked for so many years, it ought to work also now. But will it?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have also been tempted to draw the comparison between Hamas and the NSDAP as he – along with other Israeli politicians and journalists – has learnt that it was the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel’s government that began to be accused of making use of methods of pacification of Palestinians that Germans applied against Jews during World War Two. That must have come as a kind of shock: the tables of historical interpretation have been turned on the State of Israel. The historical narrative so skillfully used as a very effective tool of blaming and shaming Western nations and thus eliciting from them the readiness to approve every item of the policy of the State of Israel has lost its spell. A psychological backlash to Tel Aviv.

Though in the same speech Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enumerated the heinous atrocities that Hamas fighters committed – like beheading men, raping women and burning babies alive – it all seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the West, even though it is not the first time that Israel’s prime minister showcases to the world the many crimes perpetrated by Hamas. Or maybe precisely because of it.

The international political mood seems to have changed in favour of Palestinians. No amount of evidence revealing the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas appears to carry weight. Maybe because in war no side to the conflict is to be trusted: each side is innocent in its own eyes while the opponent is guilty of everything. Maybe because the evidence of journalistic footage exonerated Hamas and incriminated IDF. Maybe because the Israelis have eventually overplayed their hand with the ceaseless narrative of them being always innocent of the conflicts occurring in the Middle East.

Equating “Free Palestine” with “Heil Hitler” is this kind of hyperbole that produces an effect that is other than the desired one. People have grown tired of the Hitler-epithet. Whoever is disliked by the media or the authorities or the powers that be, the Hitler-epithet or the Hitler-argument is a default epithet or default argument. If you want to win a debate, use the Hitler-card before your interlocutor or opponent rolls it out. If you want to make people hate a leader, necessarily equate him with Hitler. (Russia’s president comes to mind immediately, doesn’t he?) This tactic worked for a long time, but now it seems to have lost its forcefulness. You can play the same trick only so many times.

French Rafale aircraft got killed at the hands of their Chinese counterparts (just as German Leopards and American Abrams got crushed at the hands of Russian drones)

Of course we are making reference to the recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India. A skirmish or even a battle as it supposedly involved more than 100 planes with five of the Indian aircraft being downed (Islamabad’s claim) or none of them being down (Delhi’s claim).

Pakistan and India have not been on friendly terms for decades now. Be it the disputed region of Kashmir or the support that Islamabad lends to insurgents who cause trouble in India, there are intermittent clashes and skirmishes now and again. Some are minor, some are major. An attack launched by insurgents or terrorists (the name depends on the point of view) from Pakistan’s territory into Indian territory on 22 April this year left some 26 casualties. Delhi felt compelled to retaliate, at least symbolically, at least not to lose face before its own population, not to mention the rest of the world. So, on May 6/7 lots of aircraft were sent to hit 9 targets in Pakistan (5 of them in Kashmir). Islamabad did not intend to let itself be ridden roughshod and scrambled its air forces to punish the intruder. From the ensuing skirmish or battle the Pakistani air forces are said to have emerged victorious, which of course is denied by Delhi.

Up to now the event is one of the many that have occurred between Pakistan and India, and – of course – more are to be expected in the foreseeable future. What was special about the outburst of conflict this time was the fact – or speculations – or suppositions which made the headlines that Pakistani aircraft made in China successfully clashed with the Indian aircraft made in France. The aerial duels were fought between China-made J-10 (Chengdu) and the French-made Rafale, Mirage (and also Russian-made SU-30 and MiG 29). One Rafale and one Mirage are said to have been downed, which is now confirmed, now dismissed by the world media. Obviously, truth is not to be had in the nearest future, but still the event rings some interesting alarm bells.

One, Chinese aircraft made a successful debut in a military conflict. Even if their success is disputed or downplayed, their presence attracted the attention of military experts.

Two, the French aircraft manufacturer may have received a dent to its prestige. Again, even if the news are doubtful and challenged, current and prospective customers might have second thoughts.

Third, the news about downing at least one Rafale and one Mirage might be dismissed, but the fate of the German Leopards and American Abrams in Ukraine – the two tanks that were reputed to be crème de la crème – might support suspicions that Rafale aircraft are not as good as they are advertised, either.

Four, China shows its strength not only in economy but also in its military capacity. The reader will have remembered about the Chinese cosmonauts (or astronauts) orbiting the earth and working on the Chinese space station, a fact not properly emphasized by the media. The Western consumer of information, upon being asked about space exploration, will most likely associate it with Americans and Russians, barely the Chinese. And yet…

Five, technological prowess of the Chinese aircraft only proves that China’s industry and engineering is as advanced as their Western counterparts if not better. Washington’s trade war against China is a sign of America acting in panic mode: the Hill has belatedly realized that the Asian dragon is on America’s heels, poised to move in for the kill.

Six, the world is split between the West and the Rest (BRICS and the “non-aligned” to use the political term from the latter part of the previous century). This Rest might stop purchasing military equipment from the West and begin to opt for the Chinese offer in this respect. Why, if the J-10 aircraft matches the capabilities of the French Rafale or Mirage, and is at least twice as cheap ($40-60 million against $100-120 million), then why overpay? To make the choice of the provider easier, countries around the world must also take into consideration that buying American or generally Western military equipment comes with a tag of the piece of equipment being or not being allowed to be used for particular purposes. So, Pakistan could have used American F-16s against India in the conflict referred to above… only that it could not, because the sale contract stipulated that these aircraft were not to be used by Islamabad against India without American prior permission. Beijing does not attach such restrictions to its military products.

The whole event may be denounced as Pakistani or even Chinese propaganda, which it might be. Yet, it is the small changes that accumulate over time and bring about a breakthrough, a colossal change. Fifty years back no one thought China would challenge the United States: today the United States feels seriously threatened. Chinese automobiles, Chinese cell phones, Chinese this, Chinese that are all flooding the world market. High time for the Chinese military equipment to do the same. The outsourcing once initiated and practiced for decades in with United States along with the de-industrialization propagated in the European Union hugely contribute to the change of the global balance of power. While the West is obsessively preoccupied with ethnic replacement, (anti-)racism, culture cancel, and rainbow sexuality, the Middle Kingdom is going about its business of becoming the world’s superpower. Also militarily. 

gif loading

We are quoted by:

VIDEOS

.

gefira actual main video
video youtube 1
.
video youtube 2
.
video youtube 3
.

 
UK flag German flag Spain flag x
Menu
More