Weaknesses of the National Security Strategy 2022 – Part 1. Equating security with superiority in a “race to the top”


It wasn’t easy to write about the National Security Strategy 2022 because just reading the document was so repulsive that I came down with a fever the next day.[1] Every time I analyze it I feel an iron claw gripping the back of my neck. It’s also not clear exactly who wrote it. I called my US Congressman’s office to ask about National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s involvement in writing it, and was told that there was no definite author, but it would have come from the National Security Council, likely with Sullivan’s involvement. To me it looks like Sullivan’s work because of the familiar theme he’s expressed in a 2019 interview in which he exhibited a jarring degree of disconnect between the unique goodness he believes exists in US interactions with the world and the brutal reality of USG behavior and its consequences.[2] But then again, a lot of US policymakers perceive, despite the evidence, the US government (USG) in that same rosy way. While it could have been any number of people in the National Security Council who wrote the document which was then approved by President Biden, I’ll refer to it as the Sullivan & Biden NSS.

If you’re a tea bag soaking in tea, the whole world may look brown. Like a tea bag steeped in tea, Sullivan & Biden can’t seem to see outside the lenses through which they view the world, lenses of antagonistic competition, lenses that forever see the world in terms of proving one’s personal, presidential, and national worth by means of creating rivalry, beating others in rivalry, dominating the world, and proving one’s superiority. All of this creates for them feelings of emotional security, physical security, and national security.

Yet competition is not a realistic basis for a National Security Strategy. It’s a basis for hostility. Any National Security Strategy based upon competition is actually a National Strategy of Competition armed with national security. In fact, caring and understanding are the most realistic and practical foundations for national security. Had US policymakers been capable of caring, understanding, and positively tending to Putin’s grievances, the Ukraine conflict would never have erupted.

Not seeking to understand the needs of others, not seeking input from the American, Russian, or Chinese people, Sullivan & Biden make the executive decision that Americans are to consider Russia and China as “adversaries” and “competitors” that must be beaten and, using an Obama-era word, “degraded.” Given all the false US propaganda that comes at us about the USG’s enemies (a topic of several of my earlier essays/videos, such as Part 4S), we’re expected to simply accept these labels of “adversaries.”

Another noticeable feature of the NSS2022 is that terrorism is viewed not together with China and Russia, but with other types of problems in a list: “infectious diseases, terrorism, violent extremism, irregular migration, and other threats.”[3] In other words, while Sullivan & Biden assume Russia and China don’t have any legitimate goals or concerns, they perceive terrorists and violent extremists as something even lower than that, something akin to infectious diseases or perhaps violently spastic, crazy individuals who get thrills out of setting off explosions but have no legitimate grievances or understandable rage over the inhumanity promoted within their nations by US foreign policy.

Of course, if Seymour Hersh’s report about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines is valid, Sullivan & Biden like to set off explosions, too, so I guess we can put them on the list next to the infectious diseases.[4] It’s shocking and shameful that the intelligence of the US foreign policymaking establishment is so dismal that it’s not even understood—or allowed to be understood—that terrorists are largely motivated by defensive grievances that absolutely must be addressed for the sake of both peace and justice!

Alarmingly, there’s absolutely nothing in the National Security Strategy that speaks of non-violent conflict resolution, that speaks of trying to understand adversaries, that speaks of helping them meet their own needs. There is absolutely no recognition that the goals and needs of enemies might be legitimate. The idea of trying to understand adversaries never appears.

For Sullivan & Biden, such a goal is irrelevant, because the goal is simply to beat adversaries. They’re not trying to create peace and justice. They’re trying to create superiority, and in their minds, since the USG is superior, peace and justice will naturally flow—not from cooperation and understanding—but from the placement of the USG, with its allegedly superior intelligence, skills, morality, and vision, in the highest position of world power. Of course, the USG track record offers a dismal showing in this area. USG coups abroad have typically resulted in oppression, the downfall of democracy, and decades of brutal oppression, torture, and murder.[5] USG superiority in Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in decades of chaos, brutality, and murder, with USG incompetence painfully apparent.[6]

The NSS 2022 rests upon a number of unwarranted claims, all of which tie into the obsession with competition and all of which act to further the propaganda that Americans are in a state of urgent competition with adversaries, that it’s allegedly crucial we defeat them, and that our taxes and resources must be ready to devote this decade to world war.

Claim 1. The US is in the midst of a huge competition between two groups of nations; the US wants to win the competition so it can shape the world according to its vision of freedom, openness, prosperity, and security; shaping the world will bring us national security. Sullivan & Biden’s opening two paragraphs state:

“The 2022 National Security Strategy outlines how my Administration will seize this decisive decade to advance America’s vital interests, position the United States to outmaneuver our geopolitical competitors, tackle shared challenges, and set our world firmly on a path towards a brighter and more hopeful tomorrow.

“Around the world, the need for American leadership is as great as it has ever been. We are in the midst of a strategic competition to shape the future of the international order. Meanwhile, shared challenges that impact people everywhere demand increased global cooperation and nations stepping up to their responsibilities at a moment when this has become more difficult. In response, the United States will lead with our values, and we will work in lockstep with our allies and partners and with all those who share our interests. We will not leave our future vulnerable to the whims of those who do not share our vision for a world that is free, open, prosperous, and secure.”[7]

Free, open, prosperous, and secure? Are Sullivan & Biden out of their minds? How can it be said the USG supports freedom and openness when, with the creation of the CIA, it began routinely and massively covertly interfering in Europe’s campaigns and elections on the heels of WWII in order to ensure right-wing election wins that would vote in favor of membership in NATO, the symbol, as I’m beginning to see it, of the USG’s military, political, and economic conquest over Europe but falsely portrayed as a protector of democracy?[8]

How can it be said that the USG supports freedom, openness, prosperity, and security when it routinely initiates character assassination programs with false propaganda, as it’s doing now against Putin, and then covertly topples democratically-elected leaders, beginning with Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh, Guatemala’s Jacobo Gúzman Arbenz, Chile’s Salvador Allende, and Congo’s Patrice Lumumba, and replaces them with brutal dictators who terrorize, torture, and murder their populations for decades, with the help of US arms and the US support for brutal internal security services?[9]

How was the US 2003 invasion of Iraq a step forward for freedom? Zahra Ali, author of Women and Gender in Iraq, reports a common sentiment she hears from Iraqis since the US invasion: “‘Before we had one Saddam; today we have a Saddam at every street corner.’”[10]

How was USG support for the 2014 coup in Ukraine supportive of freedom? A democratically-elected leader was toppled in a coup that began as a peaceful protest but turned violent because of the actions of ultra-right-wing movements that were entirely unrepresentative of the Ukrainian population! Americans, including Biden’s Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, were caught on tape deciding for Ukrainians who their next leader would be.[11]

How can it be said that the USG supports openness when different perspectives about the current Ukraine conflict, Putin, Covid, or any of the US invasions, coups, character assassination programs, and election interference programs were hushed up by policymakers and the media? Even Hersh’s groundbreaking February 2022 report on the identities of those US policymakers responsible for the Nord Stream explosions has been given no significant attention but has instead been ignored by US policy and media makers and kept right out of mainstream media. Putin’s actual words and high-minded principles go unreported and false ones are attributed to him by US media “experts.”[12] How can the USG possibly claim to support openness?

And prosperity? What prosperity? The US war budget sucks dry the American people, and US wars impoverish nation after nation abroad! Robert Kennedy Jr. recently reported that 57 percent of Americans couldn’t lay their hands on $1,000 if they needed to in an emergency.[13] Many Americans are working two jobs just to make ends meet! Many are living in tiny apartments. Many are homeless. Schools are overcrowded. National parks are underfunded. Hospitals are underfunded. Mental health research seems to be at a standstill and the mental health system is largely broken or worse than useless. You can’t even see the painted lines on some roads. Of course, US policymakers come from certain prosperous social and business circles, so it’s likely they’re referring only to their own prosperity.

And Security? You’ve got to be kidding! The USG is always on the lookout for any so-called “competitor” who might disagree with the USG or might become as powerful in some way as the USG. If the USG felt secure, it wouldn’t have the need to pop one in the jaw to every possible competitor on the horizon. The USG makes the world increasingly insecure because of its frenzied habit of seeing other nations as rivals and enemies if their government refuses to obey USG dictates.

The USG also makes life more insecure for Americans who are hated more than ever because of the USG’s hostile, dominating ways. The 1979 American hostage crisis in Iran wouldn’t have happened had the USG not made the world more insecure by toppling Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah. 9/11 wouldn’t have happened had the USG not made the world more insecure by occupying Saudi Arabia with its military troops, by waging unjustified war against Iraq, by imposing a decade of fatal sanctions on Iraq, and by helping the oppressive Egyptian government wage war against Islamists who only wanted a government that was just, humane, and not corrupt.[14] No, the USG is making the world increasingly insecure for Americans and the entire world.

And the problem is visible in the very first paragraph of the NSS: Sullivan & Biden want to simultaneously “outmaneuver our geopolitical competitors” and usher in a “brighter and more hopeful tomorrow.” They think the first will lead to the second. But they’ve got it wrong. The two goals are at odds with one another. The authors and supporters of the NSS 2022 don’t seem to grasp that its hostile, competitive efforts are going to destroy the very security, prosperity, freedom, and openness that it’s supposedly fighting for. They also don’t grasp that its hostile efforts—efforts that consume massive amounts of fossil fuels and that litter the planet with bomb craters, chemical waste, bioweapons, and radiation—will undermine any efforts at protecting the environment and climate, even though this is supposedly one of the goals it shares with its “allies and partners.”

Sullivan & Biden speak of winning “a race to the top,”[15] but what is it that awaits them or any of us there? You get the feeling nothing more than what Dr. Seuss’ Yertle the Turtle saw when he climbed higher and higher onto the backs of other turtles: a better view and a more likely fall into the mud.[16]

The 48 pages of the NSS contain the words “competitive,” “competition,” “competitors,” “compete,” “outcompete,” or “out-compete” at least 71 times. Surely, it’s an obsession, an indicator of the mental state of Sullivan & Biden, the psychological atmosphere in which their heads and the heads of the US foreign policymaking establishment have been soaking for decades, not an indicator of reality. As described in the earlier essay Part 4B, competition is a psychological preoccupation.[17]

I grew up with two sisters. We never saw each other as competitors—not once. But imagine how base our lives would’ve become had we viewed each other as rivals: secretly stocking up on food from the pantry and refrigerator to ensure Number 1 got enough to eat, hoarding the toilet paper to make sure Number 1 was never left stranded, ripping up each other’s homework to make each other get a failing grade, lying to Mom and Dad to make the others look bad and Number 1 shine. What a waste of time and energy that would have been. What a waste of life. Imagine if our parents had raised us the way the USG tries to influence the behavior of other nations: through bribes, intimidation, and threats, rather than through role modeling and positive lessons for caring, joy, honesty, and fairness.

Relations with other nations isn’t the exact same thing as in a family. Some could be hiding a missile or grenade behind their backs. Some always have that fat wallet ready to bribe. But international relations also shouldn’t be that different from a family. There is another way, another way to seek safety, justice, and harmony, that doesn’t revolve around this antagonistic competition, these threats, the grabs for wealth, and the shallow, venal alliances.

As described in the previous essay Part 4B, according to Eduard Spranger’s values, or lenses with which to view life, the political lenses which see life in terms of superiority, inferiority, and domination—with tendencies towards both competition and prejudice, are only one of at least six lenses possible.[18] For some reason, the USG is dominated by a certain type of person representative only of those who wear the political lenses. It’s not that they understand reality, political affairs, and history better than others, it’s that the lenses they wear cause them to see the world in this way. For those who wear those lenses, the NSS 2022 must seem so natural and sensible. Yet to the rest of us—many of us at least as well read and experienced in foreign policy and history—the NSS 2022 is like an alien form of life, totally weird, a peculiar, repulsive, dangerous, and disheartening way of viewing international relations.

The president of the so-called National Endowment for “Democracy,” Damon Wilson, expressed a similar view when he testified before the US Senate Armed Services Committee in 2019. At the time, he was executive vice president of the highly pro-NATO Atlantic Council. Apparently speaking for all Americans and allied foreign populations, he testified: “Our nation and its closest friends agree that the great challenge of the 21st century will be the competition between the free world and authoritarian corrupt state-led capitalism, chief among them China and Russia.”[19] It’s a quote and an attitude that I analyze and refute in several earlier essays/videos, including Parts 4B, 4C, and 4D.

Sullivan & Biden again state: “a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next.”[20] Who decided that nations are in a state of competition? Why are their minds creating this drama? If you were a zebra in a herd of zebras, all eating grass, would you say you’re in competition with one another? Or would you say you’re part of a herd? Why should the emphasis in perceiving the situation be shifted towards the antagonism and selfishness of competition? Why not just go about eating your grass, trying not to step on others or get stepped on, and working together to signal warnings and move as one if a carnivore appears?

And “to shape what comes next”? It sounds like a line out of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century’s 2000 document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”: “If America does not shape this new epoch, we can be sure that others will shape it for us—in ways that neither further our interests nor reflect our ideals.”[21] Note that this attitude of “shape them before they shape us” is not a reliable indicator of actual circumstances and truth. It’s an indicator of the authors’ psychological state that includes extreme anxiety, xenophobia, and competitiveness, a habit of viewing the world with a skewed perspective based on the limits and contours of one’s own psychology that’s preoccupied with the themes of domination, superiority, and inferiority.

It’s important to realize that this anxiety-driven “shape them” attitude could very likely be responsible for creating a negative Pygmalion effect—when you bring out the worst in someone because you expect it and therefore make your worst fears become a reality. For example, if the USG possesses negative expectations of Russia that are unrealistic or exaggerated, these expectations cause the USG to feel threatened, which in turn cause the USG to take “preemptive defensive” actions that are actually quite aggressive and threatening to the enemy: expand NATO into Slavic lands, help topple Ukraine’s leader and install a pro-NATO leader, deploy missile launchers to Romania and Poland, push to get the best pipeline deals in former Soviet republics Georgia and Azerbaijan, bring Georgia into NATO, ship weapons to Ukraine to attack the people of Donetsk and Lugansk so they can’t secede, initiate joint Ukrainian-NATO cooperative actions.

The USG is quite skillful in bringing out the worst in its enemies, especially since its preferred method of dealing with them is to issue threats or to try to outfox them behind the scenes and in the world of propaganda, staged protests, foreign election interference, coups, and the arming and training of proxy militant groups. Rather than increasing American security, these threatening “defensive” actions actually diminish American security because they bring out negative and even violent behaviors in others who feel provoked by the threatening US actions into taking greater measures of self-defense. The negative thoughts and claims of this attitude can bring to life the very negativity and belligerence in the USG’s opponents that the USG is supposedly seeking to prevent.

When Russia took military action in Donetsk, Lugansk, and Ukraine, paranoid US policymakers felt they “knew it all along”! They “knew” that Russia was aggressive, belligerent, and seeking conquest! But actually, Russia was none of these. It was the USG’s aggressive “defensive” actions that threatened and provoked Russia to take military action out of self-defense and defense of the people of Donetsk and Lugansk. And it was the USG and NATO’s reported goals of establishing a military base on the Black Sea itself that led to Crimea becoming a part of Russia.[22]

According to Russia, there was a referendum and Crimea voted for this union. According to the USG, Russia invaded Crimea and took it by force. While my own guess—based upon the enormous amount of proven lies about Putin in the US media—is that there really was a referendum, either way, the consequence of Crimea joining Russia resulted from the US/NATO military threats to Russia on the Black Sea.

US policymakers had better get out of their groupthink fast: their determination to shape the world before others do and to win “the race to the top” is undemocratic, disrespectful, shallow, and highly provocative to other nations. It would be better for the USG to focus more on how it can reduce threats to its so-called adversaries.

In order for US policymakers to have sufficient trust and empathy for Russia, it would very much help if more personal, genuine contacts could be made between Americans and Russians in a positive atmosphere conducive to friendship and genuine understanding, even online if this were felt to be safer. In particular, cooperative dialogue between both nations’ policymakers that is moderated and facilitated by highly talented experts in human relations and dialogue—experts who are genuinely impartial—could help both sides better understand each other’s fears, perhaps even switch sides in role playing exercises, and create solutions for security that will help all sides feel safe, including all the factions within each side and in Ukraine.

An interactive problem-solving approach could transform the conflict from a fight to be won to a puzzle for all to work on together, with sincere enthusiasm for finding missing puzzle pieces and making the pieces fit into a beautiful picture.[23] These types of friendly and caring attitudes, rather than attitudes of distrust, scorn, and derision, should also be encouraged in college and other programs that train Americans for foreign policy work.

In fact, in December 2021, Russia proposed certain negotiation and security ideas, but, according to Putin, these were ignored by the USG.[24] It would be helpful to take a kind look at these proposals as well as any proposals for Ukraine created by other nations, including China,[25] and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses together. The same approach should be taken with regard to tensions with China, Mid-Eastern terrorists, and other so-called adversaries.

While it would be foolish of either side to be so trusting as to lay down all arms, it’s equally foolish and dangerous to be too suspicious, too prejudiced, and too competitive, thus provoking tension with one’s “pre-emptive defensive” measures, measures that are truly aggressive. Some types of people jump to the big guns when the conflict is serious, but the truth is, this conflict is way too serious for guns—as are all conflicts. It’s time to bring in—not the big guns, not the fat wallets of bribery and coercion—but the big minds, hearts, and souls, the parts of ourselves that can truly create harmony, solve problems, empathize with others, and, most of all, help each side of the conflict and each faction within each side of the conflict, feel respected, cared for, and safe.

Kristin Christman has been independently researching US foreign policy and peace since 9/11. Her channel focuses on US-Russian relations at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuNEw9-10lk-CwU-5vAElcg. Kristin graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth College with a BA in Russian, and she holds Master’s degrees in Slavic languages from Brown University and public administration from SUNY Albany. She has been a guest with former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter and UNAC coordinator Joe Lombardo on Cynthia Pooler’s program, Issues that Matter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlaLNJih7UPeace Review: A Journal of Social Justice recently published her article on suicide, culture, and peace in their special edition on suicide, Vol. 33 No. 4.  [email protected]

[1] National Security Strategy 2022, Oct. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov.

[2] Isaac Chotiner, “Inventing a Post-Trump Foreign Policy: An Interview with the Former Obama Adviser Jake Sullivan,” Crossroads 20, no. 1 (Feb. 2019), The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, Dartmouth College, 2-3.

[3] NSS 2022, 19.

[4] Seymour Hersh, “How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline,” Feb. 8, 2023, https://seymourhersh.substack.

[5] William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, rev. ed. (London: Zed Books, 2014);

James D. Cockcroft, Latin America: History, Politics, and US Policy (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1998);

Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes (New York: Doubleday, 2007);

Steve Kangas, “A Timeline of CIA Atrocities,” http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html. (Kangas was killed in 1999.);

Philip Agee, Jaime Galarza Zavala, and Francisco Herrera Aráuz, “La CIA contra América Latina: Caso Especial: Ecuador,” Dec. 2014, https://www.cancilleria.gov.ec;

Stephen Kinzer, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2013).

[6] Craig Whitlock, The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2021);

Seymour M. Hersh, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib (New York: HarperCollins, 2005);

Zahra Ali, Women and Gender in Iraq: Between Nation-Building and Fragmentation (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 2018);

Blum, Killing Hope.

[7] NSS 2022, 2.

[8] Blum, Killing Hope, 27-33; 104-108;

Seymour Hersh, The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House (New York: Summit Books, 1983), 270.

[9] Blum, Killing Hope;

Cockcroft Latin America;

Kinzer, The Brothers;

Ken Silverstein, “Diamonds of Death,” The Nation, April 23, 2001, https://www.thenation.com.

[10] Ali, Women and Gender, 139.

[11] Democracy Now! Interview with Steve Cohen, “A New Cold War? Ukraine Violence Escalates, Leaked Tape Suggests US Was Plotting Coup,” Feb. 20, 2014, https://www.democracynow.org;

Ria Novosti, Interview with Dennis Kucinich, “NATO ‘Anachronistic Nightmare’ and Should Be Disbanded—US Politician,” Apr. 9, 2014, http://en.ria.ru.

[12] Kristin Christman, Part 4F. US experts’ lack of empathy and lack of truthfulness cause them to twist Putin’s motives for military action in Ukraine; Part 4H. To authoritarian US policymakers, those who prefer international law to the US-led unipolar world are dangerous, undemocratic, and aggressive; Part 4I. US “experts” falsely claim that a “prosperous, democratic Ukraine” is supported by the US and opposed by Putin; Part 4K. US “experts” display skills in creative fiction, but they fail in history, research, reading comprehension, and truth; Part 4L. Without substance or proof, shallow US journalism condemns Putin’s alleged goals; Part 4M. “Experts” who advocate the expansion of NATO and capitalist privatization dismiss Putin’s accusations and instead falsely claim that Putin craves empire and emulates Peter the Great; Part 4Q. US and NATO policymakers blame Putin, and not themselves, for violating the post-cold war settlement; Part 4S. Obtuse US and UK “experts” issue libelous statements re: Putin’s concept of unity, Countercurrents, essay series May 13, 2022–September 22, 2022, https://countercurrents.org.

[13] “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains why he is running for president,” CNN, April 29, 2023, https://www.youtube.com;

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: ‘We need a peaceful revolution,’” Unherd, May 2, 2023,  https://www.youtube.com.

[14] Noah Feldman, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003), 20, 140;

Sayyid Qutb, Milestones (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service (P) Ltd., 2016), 11, 57-59;

Fawaz A. Gerges, Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy (Orlando: Harcourt, 2006), 40-41, 272.

[15] NSS 2022, 10.

[16] Dr. Seuss, Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories, (New York, NY:  Random House, 1986).

[17] Kristin Christman, Part 4B, “A competitive, threat-orientation towards international relations: psychological patterns described by Lakoff, Spranger, and Allport, Countercurrents, May 2022, https://countercurrents.org.

[18] Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (New York:  Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1979), 439-40.

[19] Damon Wilson, Testimony given to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Hearing on the Implementation of the National Defense Strategy, Jan. 29, 2019, https://www.armed-services.senate.gov.

[20] NSS 2022, 6.

[21] Project for the New American Century (PNAC), “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt, Project Co-Chairmen; Thomas Donnelly, Principal Author. Washington, DC, 2000), vii.

[22] Eric Zuesse, “Surprise, Surprise….The Washington Post Publishes a Commentary Full of Lies against Putin,” CovertAction Magazine, Feb. 2, 2022, https://covertactionmagazine.com;

Vladimir Putin, “Address to the People of Russia on the Donbas Problem and the Situation in Ukraine,” American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank, Feb. 21, 2022, https://www.americanrhetoric.com.

[23] Susan Cross and Robert Rosenthal, “Three Models of Conflict Resolution:  Effects on Intergroup Expectancies and Attitudes,” The Journal of Social Issues, Fall 1999, www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is­_3_55/ai_58549261.

[24] Vladimir Putin, “Address to the People of Russia on the Donbas Problem and the Situation in Ukraine,” American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank, Feb. 21, 2022, https://www.americanrhetoric.com.

[25] Jan Oberg, “Three important Chinese documents about global peace—ignored, twisted or turned down by the West,” Mar. 2, 2023, https://transnational.live.

Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter


Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

Join Our Newsletter

Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News