posted by ZUKUNASHI at 23:22| Comment(0) | 国際・政治


1 You know you have had Covid
2 You suspect you may have had Covid
3 You have been alive during the last three years living on the earth
4 You never got better after having Covid
5 You have residual abdominal pain
6 You have altered sense of smell
7 You have an altered sense of taste
8 You have blurred or impaired vision
9 You have menstrual or period problems
10 You have anxiety
11 You have chest pain
12 You have difficulty thinking
13 You have a lingering cough
14 You have depression
15 You get dizziness
16 You have fatigue
17 You become easily fatigued
18 You have occasional fever
19 You have regular diarrhoea
20 You have unusual constipation
21 You have acid reflux
22 You have headaches
23 You have head ache
24 You have memory issues
25 You have joint pain
26 You have muscle pain
27 You have pain
28 You have nerve pain
29 You have new allergies
30 You get pins and needles
31 You get numbness
1 コビドにかかったことがある
2 コビドにかかったことがあると思われる
3 過去3年間、地球上で生きていたことがある
4 コビドにかかった後、一度も良くなったことがない
5 腹痛が残っている
6 嗅覚に異常がある
7 味覚に異常がある
8 目がかすむ、または見えにくい
9 月経または生理の問題がある
10 不安を感じる
11 胸痛がある
12 考えることが困難
13 長引く咳がある
14 うつ病になったことがある
15 めまいがする
16 疲労感がある
17 すぐ疲れる
18 ときどき熱が出る
19 下痢をすることが多い
20 いつもと違う便秘である
21 酸が逆流する
22 頭痛がする
23 頭痛がする
24 記憶に問題がある
25 関節痛がある
26 筋肉痛がある
27 痛みがある
28 神経痛がある
29 新しいアレルギーがある
30 (血行がさまたげられて起きる手足の)しびれがある
31 しびれがある

22 You have headaches
23 You have head ache
24 You have memory issues
25 You have joint pain
26 You have muscle pain
27 You have pain
28 You have nerve pain
29 You have new allergies
30 You get pins and needles
31 You get numbness
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 23:12| Comment(0) | コロナ・ワクチン後遺症




posted by ZUKUNASHI at 22:22| Comment(0) | ウクライナ


Moscow responds to criticism over grain deal suspension
Washington chose to ignore Ukraine’s assault on Russian ships involved in securing the safety of sea routes, a top diplomat said
Russia’s decision to suspend the grain deal with Ukraine was prompted by Kiev’s reckless actions, Moscow’s ambassador to Washington said on Sunday, while describing Western condemnation of the move as unwarranted.

Russia halted its compliance with the agreement, brokered by the UN and Türkiye, after Kiev conducted a major drone attack on ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet involved in securing safe passage for agricultural cargo.

Speaking to reporters, Anatoly Antonov said: "Washington's reaction to the terrorist attack on the port of Sevastopol is truly outrageous,” adding that the US refrained from condemning “the reckless actions of the Kiev regime.”

Antonov noted the West’s “complete disregard” of Russia’s allegations that the bombing of Russian ships was organized with the involvement of the British military. The UK Ministry of Defence has denied the accusation.

Amid “attacks and provocations against Russian military and merchant vessels involved in the Black Sea Initiative”, Moscow cannot continue operations without paying attention to security issues, Antonov insisted.

The envoy also addressed “insinuations” that Russia is causing global starvation, saying Moscow has repeatedly highlighted the importance of supplying the poorest countries with agricultural goods.

“However, under the grain scheme, a good half of all dry-cargo carriers went to developed countries. At the same time, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Sudan and Afghanistan received only about 3% of agricultural products,” he noted.

On Saturday, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that it was suspending the implementation of agreements on the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports, citing a Ukrainian “terror attack” against ships of the Black Sea Fleet and civilian vessels involved in ensuring the security of the grain corridor.

US President Joe Biden denounced Moscow’s decision as “purely outrageous,” claiming it would “increase starvation.” “There’s no merit to what they’re doing. The UN negotiated that deal and that should be the end of it,” he said.

Meanwhile, commenting on Russia’s decision to suspend the grain deal, Andrey Ermak, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s chief of staff, accused Moscow of “blackmail.”

The breakthrough deal between Moscow and Kiev was reached in Istanbul in July with mediation by the UN and Türkiye. It aimed to unlock agricultural exports via the Black Sea from Russia and Ukraine, which had come to halt due to the conflict between the two nations. The deal was praised as critical for easing the global food crisis and helping the world’s poorest nations to avoid starvation.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, repeatedly accused Western nations of taking over grain exported from Ukraine, instead of allowing it to be delivered to developing countries. Moscow also warned that it could quit the grain deal if an agreement to ease restrictions on its food and fertilizer exports were not implemented.







「しかし、穀物スキームの下では、すべてのドライカーゴキャリアのかなりの半分が先進国に行きました.同時に、ソマリア、エチオピア、イエメン、スーダン、アフガニスタンは、農産物の約 3% しか受け取っていません」と彼は指摘しました。


米国のジョー・バイデン大統領は、モスクワの決定を「純粋に法外」であると非難し、「飢餓を増加させる」と主張した。 「彼らがしていることにメリットはありません。国連はその取引を交渉したので、それで終わりになるはずです」と彼は言いました。


モスクワとキエフの間の画期的な合意は、国連とトルコ共和国の仲介により、7 月にイスタンブールで成立した。両国間の紛争により停滞していたロシアとウクライナからの黒海経由の農産物輸出を開放することを目的としていた。この取引は、世界的な食糧危機を緩和し、世界の最貧国が飢餓を回避するのを助けるために重要であると称賛されました.




Russia closes Black Sea ‘grain corridor’
Navigation through the route is currently impossible because Ukraine is using it for military operations, Moscow has claimed
The Russian military has shut the so-called “grain corridor” used to ship Ukrainian agriculture products through the Black Sea. The move was provoked by the actions of Kiev, which has used the route to launch attacks, the Russian Defense Ministry explained, on Monday.

The announcement follows a Ukrainian drone offensive, in the early hours of Saturday morning, which damaged some Russian ships used to police the Black Sea. Moscow has blamed the UK for the incident, near Sevastopol, and said a British Navy unit masterminded operations from the port of Ochakov. London has dismissed the accusation.

“Any navigation through the security corridor designated under the Black Sea [grain shipment] initiative will be halted until the situation around the Ukrainian … terrorist attack on the military and civilian vessels in Sevastopol is cleared up,” the Russian Defense Ministry outlined in a statement.

Officials also said that Kiev had specifically committed not to use the corridor for military purposes. At the same time, it maintained that Russia is not withdrawing from the deal but only suspending it for an indefinite period of time.

Earlier on Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia was ready to compensate for the missing Ukrainian grain exports to the poorer nations from its own stocks. He also warned that the grain deal has become “much more risky, dangerous” now since Russia cannot guarantee maritime security in the waters of the designated grain corridor.

Russia is “still in contact” with other parties, including the UN and Türkiye, Peskov said, adding, however, that Moscow was not ready to be talked into resuming its participation in the deal.

A dozen ships carrying Ukrainian grain were cleared to leave Turkish ports earlier on Monday. The Joint Coordination Centre (JCC) in Istanbul agreed on a plan to inspect a further 40 vessels, despite Moscow’s decision to suspend the deal. It is unclear whether it will follow up on its plan now.







Zelensky ‘nullified’ grain shipping deal – Russian Duma speaker
Vyacheslav Volodin says the agreement on Ukrainian grain exports can’t continue on the “old terms”
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has rendered the internationally brokered grain shipping agreement void by using the safe passage in the Black Sea to strike Russian warships, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the State Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, said. Moscow claims that Kiev dispatched attack drones via the route designated for grain vessels.

“The resumption of the grain deal is impossible as long as the safe corridor is being used for terrorist attacks,” Volodin wrote on his Telegram channel on Tuesday. “With his actions, Zelensky has nullified all of the agreements that were brokered by Türkiye and the UN.”

The senior legislator said the use of the safe corridor for the attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is “unacceptable” and that the grain agreement “cannot exist on the old terms.”

Under the deal struck in July, the sides agreed to unblock the export of grain and other agricultural products from Ukrainian ports. Ukraine, a major producer, is among the vital suppliers of wheat, corn, and barley.

On Saturday, Moscow accused Kiev of sending aerial and seaborne drones to strike warships in the city of Sevastopol in Crimea, which hosts a naval base. A minesweeper was damaged in the raid, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

The ministry claimed that the drones moved along the corridor set up for grain ships, and that one device may have been launched from a civilian vessel hired to transport grain. Moscow also said that a British Navy unit masterminded the attack. London has dismissed the accusation. Russia subsequently announced the closure of the corridor on Monday.

Zelensky accused Russia of blackmail and “deliberately exacerbating the food crisis.”

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that only 3-5% of grain that had been shipped through the safe corridor went to poorer countries.

The UN, however, reported last month that 27% of the ships went to “low and lower-middle income countries” such as Egypt, Kenya, and Bangladesh. It said that 26% went to “upper-middle income countries” such as Türkiye and China, while 47% went to “high-income” nations such as Spain and Italy.
Vyacheslav Volodin氏は、ウクライナの穀物輸出に関する協定を "古い条件 "で継続することはできないと述べている。


この上級議員は、ロシアの黒海艦隊への攻撃に安全な通路を使用することは "容認できない "と述べ、穀物協定は "古い条件では存在できない "とした。




ゼレンスキーは、ロシアについて、脅迫し"意図的に食糧危機を悪化させた "と非難した。



posted by ZUKUNASHI at 21:32| Comment(0) | ウクライナ

バイデン 石油会社をやり玉に

Biden threatens new tax to end ‘war profiteering’
The record profits of the oil industry are the “windfall of war,” the US president has said
US President Joe Biden has vowed to impose new taxes to restrain the “excess profits” of American oil companies, insisting they must help lower prices for consumers, while accusing them of reaping undue benefits from the conflict in Ukraine.

The president took the oil industry to task during an address on Monday, speaking alongside Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Treasury head Janet Yellen. He argued that companies have seen “profits so high it’s hard to believe” since fighting erupted in Eastern Europe earlier this year, and must start acting beyond their “narrow self-interest.”

“Oil companies’ record profits today are not because they’re doing something new or innovative. Their profits are a windfall of war – the windfall from the brutal conflict that’s ravaging Ukraine and hurting tens of millions of people around the globe,” he said, adding that they have “a responsibility to act in the interest of their consumers, their community, and their country.”


posted by ZUKUNASHI at 17:27| Comment(0) | ウクライナ


Sergey Karaganov: We are witnessing the birth of a new world order where West will have to live within its means
It’s time for the Global Majority to take their rightful place at the top table

By Professor Sergey Karaganov, honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and academic supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow

At last week’s Valdai Forum, in Moscow I was invited to speak at a session entitled “The Crumbling World: Lessons for the Future from the Political-Military Crisis of 2022.” The event has become a leader in the international intellectual community in dealing with global affairs of the present and future. But the title of the session gave me doubts, even if I didn’t protest.

The crisis did not start in 2022, it started in the mid-1990s – just as the Second World War really began with the post-First World War Treaty of Versailles, which was unfair and laid the foundations for what later transpired.

Almost three decades ago, the West refused to strike a just arrangement with post-Soviet Russia. Instead, as it seemed to many at the time, it created a new domination system based on so-called “rules.”

Others later referred to it more accurately as global liberal imperialism. But it was built on sand. It contained a World War III landmine that would sooner or later explode. Veterans like me tend to store memories, often misremembered, but I have been on the record since 1996-1997 that a world based on NATO expansion and Western domination would lead to war.

US-led hegemony began to crumble in 1999 when, in a daze of impunity, the bloc violated Yugoslavia. The crumbling went further when, in euphoria, it went into Afghanistan, then into Iraq and lost, devaluing its then military superiority and moral leadership. At the same time two even more important processes were taking place. Russia became convinced – after Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty – that it was impossible to build a just and lasting peace with the West, and began to restore its military might.

Thus, once again, as Moscow had done in the past, it began to kick at the foundations of Western domination in the global economic, political and cultural spheres, which was based on military superiority. This dominance lasted for 500 years and began to crumble in the 1960s. In the 1990s, because of the fall of the USSR, it seemed to have returned, but now Moscow has started to shake its foundations again.

At the same time, the West missed the rise of China. In parallel, an even more surprising mistake was made. In the late 2000s, it began to restrain both China and Russia simultaneously, pushing them towards a single political-military bloc that combined their core interests.

A manifestation of this was the 2008 economic crisis, which took place against the backdrop of the aforementioned processes and undermined confidence in the West's moral, economic and intellectual leadership.

Since the late 2000s the West has been creating the conditions for a Cold War. But there was still a window of opportunity to agree with Russia and China on the terms of the new world. It existed somewhere between 2008 and 2013. But it wasn’t used. Since 2014, the US-led bloc has intensified its active policy of containment of China and Russia, including promoting a coup d'état in Kiev to prepare proxies to try and undermine Moscow.

The West – losing military, political and moral ground and even its moral core (look at Western Europe’s move away from Christianity) – went on a hysterical counterattack. War was becoming inevitable, the question was where and when.

Covid was used as a substitute for two years. But once its effect had been diluted, a clash here or there became inevitable. Realizing this, Russia decided to strike first.

This operation had several aims: to prevent the West from creating a military offensive bridgehead on Russia's borders, which was rapidly taking shape, and to prepare the country for the long-term effects of conflict and rapid change. This requires a different model of society and economy – one of mobilisation.

The next goal is to purge the elites of pro-Western and “comprador” elements.

But perhaps the main thrust of the offensive from the perspective of world history, not just Russian history, is the struggle for the final liberation of the planet from the 500-year-old Western yoke, which has suppressed countries and civilizations and imposed unequal terms of engagement on them. First by simply plundering them, through colonialism, then neocolonialism, and later through the globalist imperialism of the last 30 years.

The conflict in Ukraine, like many events of the last decade, is not only about shattering the old world, it is also about creating a new, freer, fairer, more politically and culturally pluralistic and multi-colored world.

The global meaning of the fight in Ukraine is the return of freedom, dignity and autonomy to the non-West (and we propose to call it by another name – the Global Majority, which was previously suppressed, robbed and culturally humiliated). And, of course, a fair share of the world's wealth.

Russia cannot fail to win this war, although it will be difficult. Many of us had not counted on such a strong willingness on the part of the West to fight militarily, and on such a determination from some Ukrainians – who had been transformed into the likeness of the German Nazis previously set against Moscow – to fight desperately, and at their level of armaments. Probably, given the general global trends and the global balance of power, we should have struck earlier. But I don't know the level of readiness of our Armed Forces.

I think that in 2014 we definitely should have acted more decisively, abandoning hopes of an agreement.

We are living in a dangerous period, on the brink of a full-fledged third world war that could end humanity's existence. But if Russia wins, which is more than likely, and the hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown nuclear conflict, we should not look at the coming decades as a time of dangerous chaos (as most in the West are saying). We have been living in this period for a long time.

It will be, if we choose a world of constructive creation and the attainment of freedom, justice and dignity by peoples and nations.

The old system of institutions and regimes has already collapsed (freedom of trade and respect for private property). Meanwhile, institutions like the WTO, the World Bank the IMF, the OSCE and the EU are, I am afraid, reaching their last years.

New bodies are beginning to emerge to which the future belongs. They are the SCO, ASEAN+, the Organisation of African Unity and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The Asian Development Bank is already lending many times more than the World Bank. Not all new institutions will survive, and let us hope that a number of them will survive, especially in the UN system, which urgently needs reform to primarily represent the Global Majority in the secretariat, rather than the West.

The main thing is to prevent a losing West from stalling history or derailing it through a world war.

Not only Global Majority countries, but Western countries can live quite happily in this world. The West will simply lose the opportunity to plunder the rest of the planet and it will have to shrink a bit. They will have to live within their means.

I am afraid that this new world taking shape now will be created beyond my intellectual or physical life. But my young colleagues and certainly their children will see it.

But this beautiful vision has to be fought for, first of all by preventing a third world war, because of the attempted revenge of the West. Again, it was in Europe that the first two world wars were unleashed. Russia is now fighting, among other things, to ensure that the prerequisites for a third are not ripe. But conflicts will occur in an era of rapid change. So the struggle for peace should be one of the main themes of our intellectual community and the world at large.

セルゲイ・カラガノフ ロシア外交防衛政策会議名誉議長、モスクワ高等経済学院国際経済・外交学科教授

先週モスクワで開催されたValdai Forumで、私は「The Crumbling World」と題するセッションに招かれ、講演を行った。2022年の政治的・軍事的危機から得られる未来への教訓" というセッションに招かれた。このイベントは、現在と未来の世界情勢を扱う国際的な知的コミュニティーのリーダー的存在になっている。しかし、このセッションのタイトルには、抗議はしないまでも、疑問を感じた。





























英語から翻訳-セルゲイ・アレクサンドロヴィッチ・カラガノフは、ロシアの政治学者であり、ヴィタリー・シュリコフによって設立された安全保障分析機関である外交・防衛政策評議会を率いています。彼はまた、モスクワの高等経済学校の世界経済・国際問題学部の学部長でもあります。 ウィキペディア(英語)
出生地: ロシア モスクワ
生年月日: 1952年9月12日 (年齢 70歳)
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 15:11| Comment(0) | 国際・政治






posted by ZUKUNASHI at 14:48| Comment(0) | Covid19

米政府はビッグテックと連携し、ソーシャルメディアを検閲していた - Intercept

US government worked with Big Tech to censor social media – Intercept
Documents show how Homeland Security sought to dodge the First Amendment ban on censorship
The US government worked hand in glove with social media platforms to censor online “misinformation” – such as the factually true Hunter Biden laptop story – The Intercept revealed on Monday, citing internal Department of Homeland Security documents obtained through leaks and public records requests. Moreover, the DHS plans to continue censoring opinions about Covid-19, “racial justice,” and US support for Ukraine going forward.

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse,” Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein write in Monday’s report.

One of their major revelations is that tech companies – including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft and LinkedIn – met with the FBI and other government agencies every month, before and since the 2020 election. Facebook even set up a special portal for “takedowns” that requires a law enforcement email to access.

The process is also outlined in emails between DHS officials, Twitter, and the NGO Center for Internet Security, while meeting notes show that the government called on tech platforms to “process reports and provide timely responses, to include the removal of reported misinformation from the platform where possible.”

Many of the documents surfaced due to the lawsuit by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican currently running for the US Senate. Among them was the revelation that two FBI officials were involved in high-level communications with Facebook to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story: Laura Dehmlow, the section chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and Elvis Chan, a special agent in the San Francisco field office.

The factually true story published in October 2020 was denounced as “Russian disinformation” by Democrat Joe Biden and most corporate outlets, and the New York Post was suppressed on both Facebook and Twitter.

Another document from March shows Dehmlow telling Twitter executives that subversive information on social media could undermine support for the US government.

Created in 2019 in response to claims by Democrats that “Russian influence” on social media somehow got Donald Trump elected in 2016, the FBI’s FITF would later expand its purview to “disinformation analysis” about Covid-19.

A draft of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review – a strategy document leaked to the Intercept – shows the DHS intends to target “inaccurate information” on topics including “the origins of the [Covid]-19 pandemic and the efficacy of [Covid]-19 vaccines, racial justice, US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of US support to Ukraine.”

Jen Easterly, a Biden nominee heading the DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), texted a Microsoft employee in February, saying she was “trying to get us in a place where Fed can work with platforms to better understand mis/dis trends so relevant agencies can try to prebunk/debunk as useful.”

At a conference in November 2021, Easterly argued that “the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important.”

CISA meeting minutes also show Election Security Initiative director Geoff Hale urging the use of third-party nonprofits as a “clearing house for trust information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”

The Biden administration has sought to dismiss Schmitt’s lawsuit as lacking standing and argued that social media voluntarily removed posts without any “coercive” influence from the government – which would be prohibited under the First Amendment.

“If a foreign authoritarian government sent these messages, there is no doubt we would call it censorship,” Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told The Intercept.
米政府はビッグテックと連携し、ソーシャルメディアを検閲していた - Intercept
米国政府は、ソーシャルメディアのプラットフォームと手を組んで、オンラインの「誤報」-例えば、事実無根のハンター・バイデンのノートパソコンの話-を検閲していたことが、リークや公文書請求によって入手した国土安全保障省の内部文書を引用して、The Intercept が月曜日に明らかにしました。さらに、DHSは今後もCovid-19、「人種的正義」、米国のウクライナ支援に関する意見の検閲を続ける予定だという。



このプロセスは、DHS関係者、Twitter、NGOのCenter for Internet Securityの間の電子メールにも概要が記載されており、会議のメモには、政府がテック系プラットフォームに対して、"報告を処理し、可能な限りプラットフォームから報告された誤報を削除するなど、タイムリーに対応する "よう求めていることが示されている。





インターセプトにリークされた戦略文書「Quadrennial Homeland Security Review」の草案には、DHSが "Covid]-19パンデミックの起源とCovid]-19ワクチンの効果、人種正義、米国のアフガニスタン撤退、米国のウクライナ支援の本質 "などのテーマについて、「不正確な情報」を対象とする意向であることが示されている。


2021年11月の会議でイースタリーは、"最も重要なインフラは認知インフラであり、誤報や偽情報に対する耐性を高めることは、信じられないほど重要だと思う "と主張しました。

CISA会議の議事録には、Election Security InitiativeのディレクターGeoff Haleが、"政府のプロパガンダと思われないための信頼情報のクリアリングハウス "として第三者のNPOを利用するよう促していることも記されている。


米国自由人権協会(ACLU)の元会長であるNadine Strossen氏は、The Interceptに対し、「もし外国の権威主義的な政府がこうしたメッセージを送ってきたら、間違いなく検閲と呼ぶだろう」と述べている。
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 09:51| Comment(0) | デジタル・インターネット


Biden administration discussing reduction of Saudi military aid – NBC
Riyadh could also be excluded from drills and regional conferences over its reluctance to increase oil output, sources claim
The Biden administration is considering rolling back military aid to Saudi Arabia as punishment for the decision by OPEC, which is de-facto led by Riyadh, to reduce oil production, US officials have told the news network NBC.

The measures could include a freeze on the delivery of Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia, the broadcaster reported on Saturday. The $3 billion deal, under which Riyadh would have received 300 Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical Ballistic Missiles (GEM-T), was approved by Washington in August. It is seen as crucial for the Saudis to resupply missiles for their Patriot launchers, as the country is being targeted by frequent missile and drone attack from Houthi rebels in Yemen, in response to a long-running bombing campaign by Riyadh.

Another option on the agenda is excluding the kingdom from upcoming military drills and regional conferences, including those dedicated to attempts by the US and its allies to create a joint air defense system in the region, the sources said.

However, two US officials and another informed source pointed out that no decision has yet been made in Washington. Much will depend on the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) summit in December, they said, adding that if the meeting leads to an increase in production, the Saudis could avoid US retaliation altogether.

According to NBC, some military leaders in the US are against reducing defense cooperation with Riyadh. They argue that leaving Saudi Arabia, which has been Washington’s key ally in the Gulf for decades, without Patriot missiles and other American equipment, could jeopardize US troops and civilians in the country and undermine the stability of the whole region. Commanders have already shared those concerns with the Biden administration, the sources said.

The US has been urging the Saudis to increase oil production for months, saying lower prices would hurt Russia and make it harder for Moscow to bankroll its military operation in Ukraine. However, the OPEC+ group, which includes Russia, outraged Washington earlier this month by announcing an oil production cut of two million barrels a day starting in November.

There will be “consequences” for Saudi Arabia because of the move, US President Joe Biden warned. When asked by CNN whether it was time for Washington to re-evaluate its relationship with Riyadh, Biden responded: “yes.”

The Saudis have been insisting that oil production cuts were a unanimous decision by OPEC+ members, made for purely economic reasons.
バイデン政権、サウジ軍事支援縮小を協議 - NBC






この動きにより、サウジアラビアに「結果」がもたらされるだろうと、ジョー・バイデン米大統領は警告した。CNNから、ワシントンはリヤドとの関係を再評価する時期に来ているのかと問われ、バイデン氏はこう答えた。"そうだ "と。






Why the US-Saudi relationship is withering
The OPEC+ oil production cut has taught Washington that Saudi Arabia is not merely a client state to be called on to fulfill America’s political needs to its own detriment
Recently, the United States was outraged by Saudi Arabia’s decision, along with the rest of the OPEC+ countries, to scale back oil production by two million barrels per day. US President Joe Biden’s administration, which had banked on the goodwill of the kingdom to facilitate a drop in oil prices in order to isolate Russia with an energy price cap, quickly threatened unspecified retaliatory action against the monarchy, which has been speculated to potentially amount to a freezing in arms sales.

The row arguably puts the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia on their lowest ever trajectory. Despite having completely different ideologies, the United States has long courted the highly conservative monarchy as one of its primary strategic partners of choice in the Middle East, creating a longstanding relationship of mutual gain which involved American access to oil in exchange for security for the Saudi regime, as well as arms and cooperation against its enemies in the region.

This ‘patron-client’ relationship model defined the ties between Western powers, including France and the UK, and the other monarchies of the Gulf, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. London and Paris, the original colonial powers who dominated the region, set up this model by guaranteeing the independence of these nations, following the demise of the Ottoman Empire and establishing them as their ‘clients’, allowing the Western nations to preserve strategic, energy, and military access to the Middle East. As the 20th century progressed, the United States soon became the Middle Eastern countries’ largest patron.

While this partnership has allowed Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States to enrich themselves, 2021-2022 has seen growing signs that, as the world changes, the convenience of such a partnership is starting to wither, with the OPEC row being a breaking point. First of all, the relationship between the US and the Gulf States is, as noted above, a partnership of mutual convenience, and it is just that. The drastically different political and cultural outlooks of the respective countries mean there are zero value-based or ideological connections embedded in their relationship. While the US advocates liberal democracy, Saudi Arabia advocates a hard-line Wahabi interpretation of Islamic law, which is the opposite of the Western value system.

In spite of this, the United States has become increasingly aggressive in its foreign policy, as multiple geopolitical confrontations have been opened up against Russia and China, and it has sought to more readily depend on compliance from ‘friendly countries’ as it seeks to consolidate its global influence, including in this case Saudi Arabia. While countries of the global West may feel obligated to toe the line on the premise of the values the US invokes, states like Saudi Arabia do not see their relationship with Washington in the same way, and probably recognize the US’ ideological crusading as a long-term liability to themselves. What happens to Saudi Arabia, for example, if the US no longer has use of it? Saddam Hussein was one such ‘client’ before he became an enemy.

As the Gulf States are ultimately concerned with preserving their own value systems and independence, they have increasingly diversified their relationships in recent years with tilts towards Russia and China. Beijing, with its enormous demand for energy, has also become a lucrative alternative to the West. Similarly, stable ties with Moscow also allow for cooperation in the common interests of oil-exporting countries, which has also had the effect of reducing Western influence and dominance over those countries.

On recognizing this, why would Saudi Arabia and the states of OPEC voluntarily undermine their own oil revenue merely to suit the geopolitical interests of the United States? The world is in the middle of an energy price crisis exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine. Saudi Arabia sees that the US and some of its allies want to purposefully try to lower the price of oil in a bid to try and hurt Russia. However, that is not how the market works and, by extension, such a move is also an assault on Saudi and OPEC interests. While the kingdom is officially neutral in regards to Russia-Ukraine, it also recognizes that the success of an energy price cap would embolden the West to push harder against Russia, which also serves to undermine the kingdom’s geopolitical independence.

In other words, if the US succeeded in dividing OPEC by unilaterally demanding a price cap on oil products, it would defeat the very purpose of the organization itself to protect the respective economic interests of those countries. The United States has been a useful partner to Saudi Arabia, but it is not a friend. It is not part of a ‘bloc’ or ideological coalition, as let’s say the UK is, but merely has seen the West as the most useful and lucrative partner to fulfil its own political needs. As those needs change, Saudi Arabia’s preferences are also subject to change. Washington is therefore learning that the kingdom is not a client state to be called on when needed, and thus this very close and often contradictory partnership is starting to strain.







posted by ZUKUNASHI at 09:28| Comment(0) | 国際・政治