Russia today

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sun Jan 05, 2025 5:56 pm

Will Russia’s Alleged Downing of Azerbaijan Airlines Flight Overturn the Great Game Board in the Caucasus?
Posted on January 5, 2025 by Conor Gallagher

There are plenty of theories of what brought down Azerbaijan Airlines flight J2-8243 on Christmas Day. The plane, which was traveling from the Azerbaijani capital Baku to Grozny in the Russian region of Chechnya, ran into trouble over Russia and made an emergency landing in Aktau, Kazakhstan, in which 38 of the 67 people on board were killed.

The black boxes from the aircraft are currently being analyzed at Brazil’s Center for Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautical Accidents, but what’s already clear is that some have already made up their minds that Russia is responsible. Media in the US and Europe were of course quick to point the finger. That’s unsurprising; they blame Moscow for every stubbed toe and spilt coffee.

What is surprising is that the president of Azerbaijan — whose country has maintained strong ties with Russia despite the with-us-or-against-us Western pressure in recent years — is on the same page as the Western media.

That marks a major shift. Regardless of whether the alleged downing of the plane was part of a new stage of provocative pressure against Moscow, an accident with Russian air defense missiles, or was some sharp-winged birds, it does appear to be doing real damage to the Azerbaijani-Russian relationship.

And that could have major implications for the South Caucasus where the pivot state of Azerbaijan is the most important transport and logistics hub in the region.

Let’s take a look at what the Azerbaijan president is saying about the incident and examine what it might mean for the region.

Aliyev’s Statements

Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev was once described in a Wikileaks US diplomatic cable as an unpredictable hothead similar to Sonny Corleone, but he has been anything but in recent years. While calmly playing both sides, he’s managed to retake Nagorno-Karabakh (whatever one may think about the method), become a major gas supplier to the EU, and maintain strong ties with Moscow and workable relationships with other players in the region.

His comments about the plane crash therefore raise eyebrows.

Before the black boxes are analyzed, Aliyev is putting the blame on Russia, which he says accidentally shot down the plane, continued to use electronic warfare against it afterwards, and then tried to cover it up. He might end up being right, but these are still bold proclamations coming from the president who just recently stood by Azerbaijan’s alliance with Russia. Here are the relevant quotes from his Dec. 29 interview with Azerbaijan Television at Heydar Aliyev (Ilham’s father) International Airport:

The facts indicate that the Azerbaijani civilian plane was damaged from the outside over Russian territory, near the city of Grozny, and almost lost control. We also know that means of electronic warfare put our plane out of control. This was the first impact on the plane. At the same time, as a result of fire from the ground, the tail of the plane was also severely damaged…

The fact that the fuselage is riddled with holes indicates that the theory of the plane hitting a flock of birds, which was brought up by someone, is completely removed from the agenda. It is possible that when the plane was damaged, when it was hit, the pilot could have perceived it as a collision with birds. Because it would probably never have occurred to anyone that our plane might be fired at from the ground while flying over a country friendly to us. Unfortunately, however, some circles in Russia preferred to put forward this theory. Another regrettable and surprising moment for us was that official Russian agencies put forward theories about the explosion of a gas cylinder on board the plane. In other words, this clearly showed that the Russian side wanted to cover up the issue, which, of course, is unbecoming of anyone. Of course, our plane was hit by accident. Of course, there can be no talk of a deliberate act of terror here. Therefore, admitting guilt, apologizing in a timely manner to Azerbaijan, which is considered a friendly country, and informing the public about this – these were measures and steps that should have been taken. Unfortunately, for the first three days, we heard nothing from Russia except for some absurd theories…

Some believe that the plane was deliberately sent off course by ground handling services in Grozny because the plane was already out of control, and there was a high probability it would fall into the sea. If this had been the case, the cover-up attempts would have been successful, and the so-called bird theory would have been presented as the most likely version…we can clearly say today that the plane was shot down by Russia. This is a fact, and no-one can deny this fact. Again, we are not saying that this was done intentionally, but it was done.

Strong accusations. Notably Aliyev does not once mention Ukrainian drones, which were being launched against civilian infrastructure in the region at the time of the plane downing. That might help explain how Russia accidentally shot at the plane — if that’s indeed what happened. It’s unclear why Aliyev doesn’t mention the possibility that shrapnel from a Ukrainian drone could have caused the damage to the plane.

While Aliyev no doubt has public opinion to worry about after such an awful incident, is it not odd that even if his theory is 100 percent correct, he wouldn’t at least try to soften the blow against his ally Russia and present Ukraine as at least partially responsible? Instead Kiev is largely getting a free pass as public anger is directed at Moscow.

For what it’s worth, Aliyev’s theory of what happened is the same as US officials quoted in American media. Both could be right, although Western media no doubt have an interest in using the incident to drive a wedge between Baku and Moscow.

The question is whether Aliyev is on board with that potential outcome? Could he be looking to play an Erdogan role where he utilizes leverage over Moscow in a similar way that Ankara has?

Viewing Aliyev’s Comments Against Backdrop of Recent Events in South Caucasus

Aliyev’s being so quick to forcefully blame Russia is a bit of a Sonny Corleone reaction, especially for someone who’s played his cards carefully in recent years. Could recent events in the Caucasus help explain his shift? Let’s examine the terrain:

Russian influence has come under increasing pressure there since the start of the Ukraine war.

Georgia looks to have fought off a color revolution attempt for now. Again it’s important to note the ruling party in Georgia is not anti-US or EU, it simply wants to maintain good ties with Russia and not be turned into another Ukraine.

In Armenia it’s another story. It continues to move out of Russian orbit politically if not economically. A US military officer is now the main adviser to Armenia’s defense ministry, the French are training Armenian units and signing weapons deals, and India has replaced Russia as Armenia’s top arms supplier. Yerevan is also seeking security guarantees from Brussels and Washington.

Moscow is observing the Azerbaijan-Armenia peace process from the sidelines (it used to lead the talks), although it still seemingly exerts quite a bit of influence over Baku. The two sides are nearing the conclusion of bilateral negotiations on a peace agreement that could have major implications for connectivity at the Eurasian crossroads. Simultaneously, Türkiye and Armenia are working to normalize relations, a process that Ankara ties to Armenia’s talks with Baku.

The US has weaseled its way into these processes via Armenia and is looking to exploit the situation to weaken Iran and Russia.

There are hang ups to deals between Azerbaijan, Türkiye, and Armenia, including Baku’s demand that Armenia remove an implicit claim on Nagorno-Karabakh in its constitution.

The most challenging issue in Armenian-Azerbaijani talks, however, is the establishment of transport links and specifically who will control them.

The Battle for Control Over Logistics Corridors in the South Caucasus

The so-called Zangezur Corridor – which would stretch parallel to Armenia’s border with Iran and link Azerbaijan to its Türkiye-bordered exclave of Nakhchivan — is the missing link in what would be the shortest land transport route between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. And key to many involved parties is not only the shorter distance but the fact that it’s one of the few routes that entirely bypasses Russia.

The corridor would also be a key intersection point of other burgeoning North–South and East–West routes.

The Middle Corridor, for example, which passes from China through Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, and Türkiye extending to Europe could see major upgrades with the opening of Zangezur.

Image

And so outside involvement and pressure steadily builds on Armenia and Azerbaijan .

The main issue holding up talks between the two is Point 9 of the trilateral statement signed between Azerbaijan, Russia, and Armenia in 2020 following the Second Karabakh War, which reads:

All economic and transport links in the region shall be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia shall guarantee the safety of transport communication between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic with a view to organize the unimpeded movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions. Control over transport communication shall be exercised by the Border Guard Service bodies of the FSS of Russia.

Azerbaijan continues to insist upon this point, while Armenia no longer wants Russian border guards present, and instead argues for solutions like Russia monitoring the corridor from afar. How exactly that would be done isn’t yet clear.

The Armenian prime minister is making statements about entrusting Zangezur’s security to foreign private forces. These ideas are coming as Armenia removes Russian border guards.

On Wednesday at Armenia’s request, the Russians withdrew from the only official Armenian-Iranian crossing, which followed the departure of Russian border guards from Yerevan’s Zvartnots Airport in July,. Since 1992 Armenia’s borders with Türkiye and Iran have been the responsibility of Russian troops.

Meanwhile, the number of EU guards on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border keeps expanding.

Both Azerbaijan and Russia are critical of the EU mission creep, and Baku continues to insist that Yerevan agree to the deployment of Russian border guards along the Zangezur Corridor.

Could that be changing?

Any agreement between Baku and Yerevan (and its Western backers) that excludes Russia would be a major power play from the Turkic axis and a perceived win for the US-Israel axis as it would sideline Russia and Iran.

How the latter two would respond remains to be seen, but what’s clear is how the Middle East conflicts and Ukraine war are bleeding into the Caucasus. It’s easy to see how it could become part of a deal that helps temporarily ease the tensions among the conquering parties of Syria by continuing to focus on areas on overlapping interests or get dragged in nonetheless.

Here’s a brief look at key players positions in this theater of The Great Game:

Iran

Pretty straightforward:

Regional peace, security and stability is not merely a preference, but a pillar of our national security.

Any threat from North, South, East, or West to territorial integrity of our neighbors or redrawing of boundaries is totally unacceptable and a red line for Iran.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) September 5, 2024



From Iran’s perspective the Zangezur Corridor is a nightmare. Neocon think tanks in Washington have long dreamed of using Azerbaijan to destabilize Iran — as they have for weakening Russian influence in the South Caucasus. Ethnic Azeri citizens who are estimated to make up 15 percent of the Iranian population.

Tehran’s concerns about Azerbaijan are further aggravated by Tel Aviv’s support to Azerbaijan (more on that below). Tehran also faces the following economic fallout from the Zangezur Corridor, according to Security & Defence Quarterly::

Azerbaijan used to pay 15 percent of the 350 million cubic metres of gas sent to Nakhchivan through Iran as a transit fee. With the opening of the new corridor, Iran may lose this profit.

An agreement on sale of gas was signed between Türkiye and Iran in 1996. Based on that agreement, Türkiye has been buying gas from Iran for years. While Türkiye pays Iran US$490 for a thousand cubic metres of gas, it can buy the same amount from Azerbaijan for US$335.

If a gas pipeline is built from Azerbaijan to Türkiye through this corridor, Iran’s loss of gas revenue may be huge.

The planned gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan through Iran to Türkiye then to Europe was frozen in 2017 because of financial disagreements. Turkmenistan can now deliver this gas to Europe via Azerbaijan.

The importance of Iran’s pipeline to Armenia has also decreased.

The Strategic Council of Foreign Relations in Tehran, whose director is Iran’s former minister of foreign affairs Kamal Kharazi, condemned the construction of the Zangezur corridor, indicating that the corridor has been introduced as NATO’s “Turan corridor,” a project ostensibly supported by Israel and NATO, which aims to foment ethnic unrest in the areas of Iran inhabited by Turks. As per the aforementioned Council, NATO’s Turan corridor is supposed to directly bring NATO onto the northern border of Iran, the southern border of Russia, and western China and lay the groundwork for their disintegration.

Moscow and Tehran are reportedly set to sign their strategic partnership in the coming weeks, which will alter the calculus of all involved parties.

Türkiye

Türkiye has been the driving force behind many of the Caucasus cooperation projects in recent years, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum natural gas pipeline, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, and the Trans-Anatolian and Trans-Adriatic Pipelines connecting Azerbaijan to Europe via Türkiye.

Erdogan and friends view the Zangezur Corridor as bigger than all that and a key piece in the country’s rise as a Eurasian Great Power. Here’s what Ankara envisions:

A gas pipeline from Baku to Türkiye through the corridor.
Increased leverage in negotiating gas prices with Iran.
Resurrecting the Trans-Caspian pipeline and transporting that gas through Türkiye to Europe (A pipeline through a Nakhchivan corridor could help boost supplies to Europe to upwards of 31 bcm, although that would be years away, and ironically, due to its heavy investments in the Azerbaijani oil and gas sector, one of the bigger beneficiaries of any Brussels-Baku deals could be Russia. Azerbaijan is even importing more Russian gas itself in order to meet its obligations to Europe.
A logistics corridor stretching to China.
A railroad line from Türkiye to Nakhchivan could make Türkiye a regional transit hub in addition to an energy one.
The US-Israel-EU

The US wants to sideline Russia and Iran. The EU does what the US wants.

Therefore, the West (including Türkiye) tries to ensure the flow of resources of the South Caucasus and Central Asia to Europe bypassing Russia and Iran and reducing their influence, as well as that of Beijing. As always, the US permanent state is in lockstep with Israel, and it’s important to note that despite the surface friction between Ankara and Tel Aviv, in the South Caucasus their interests once again align.

Israel supports pan-Turkic ambitions through the Caucasus because Tel Aviv views Turkish influence as preferable to that of Iran — even if it potentially sets “Greater Türkiye” and “Greater Israel” up for a future clash.

Israel too continues to exert influence in Azerbaijan through its role as the country’s main weapon supplier, including air defense systems, all the latest in drones and surveillance tech, as well as cooperation in cybersecurity. Israel is also Azerbaijan’s leading oil importer, a trade which continues to be partially facilitated by Türkiye despite the country’s ban on trade with Israel — or what Erdogan calls a “Zionist terrorist organization.”

China

Beijing wants to expand its influence and open or expand more trade routes. China has signed strategic partnership agreements with Tbilisi and Baku and is pursuing major infrastructure projects, such as that port in Georgia, which causes so much heartburn in the US.

Russia

Russia wants to maintain a dominant role in the Caucasus, including in trade corridors, which become even more important due to Western isolation efforts. It was long in Moscow’s interests to have a simmering conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan as that allowed it to play peace broker and maintain a presence, but it is increasingly being pushed out of these processes.

It still has a military base in Armenia, as well as peacekeepers, and border control, although their numbers are declining at Armenia’s request, and the military base could be next.

Armenia

The corridor would be a boon for Armenia — as long as it doesn’t alienate Russia, which it largely depends on economically. From the Emirates Policy Center:

Russia has also kept Armenia in its orbit through maintaining economic ties. The trade turnover between the two countries increased from $2.6 billion in 2021 to $7.3 billion in 2023. That has significantly ensured the growth of Armenia’s GDP by 12.6% in 2022 and by 8.3% in 2023. Armenia declares that it is not interested in breaking relations with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), affirming plans to actively participate in the organization despite the fact that Armenia has frozen its membership in the CSTO and is reducing its activity in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Moreover, the EAEU-Iran free trade agreement boosts Armenia’s role as the only EAEU member bordering Iran. Close economic ties also give Russia leverage, as many Armenian producers depend on its market, allowing Moscow to impose restrictive measures if needed. Additionally, EAEU membership prevents Armenia from signing an Association Agreement with the EU, creating a long-term economic deterrent against turning to the West.



Despite the economic reliance on Russia, Armenia has largely been infiltrated by American interests and could likely be made to go along with a deal that fits with the US-Israel’s goals.

The key is Azerbaijan, which much like Türkiye effectively plays both sides. It enjoys ties with Russia primarily in energy and logistics while upping its natural gas deliveries to the EU. It has a strong weapons-for-energy relationship with Israel that it uses to help balance its relationship with Iran.

Aliyev’s reaction to the downing of flight J2-8243 could point to a willingness to take some more chances with Russia. Like Erdogan, Aliyev might reasonably believe that Russia needs it at this time and is not in position to take a strong stance or retaliate. Moscow must cooperate with Baku on trade connectivity due to the West’s attempts to isolate it, and that’s a reliance Azerbaijan might now be keen to exploit.

Washington has long tried to resurrect animosity between Baku and Moscow. The US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Mark Libby, who previously worked in Baghdad and as deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affaires at the US Mission to the EU among other posts, was hastily dispatched to the country in December of 2023. One of his first actions was to visit the Alley of Martyrs dedicated to those killed by the Soviet Army during Black January 1990 (these old USSR wounds are gifts that just keep giving for the US, e.g.,“The Holodomor Industry” in Ukraine). Where that obvious ploy failed, the newer wound caused by Russia’s alleged downing of the flight could succeed.

In conclusion, it’s still too early to answer cui bono, but if actions accompany Aliyev’s accusations then we could be looking at another win for the US-Israel axis.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/01 ... casus.html

******

Russia Matters: Russia Plans to Force Ukraine’s NPPs Offline as Its Army Captures Chicago-Sized Amount of Land
January 4, 2025
Russia Matters, 1/3/24

Russia has refrained from direct attacks on the three nuclear plants which are located on the territories controlled by Kyiv and which are now responsible for most of Ukraine’s electricity. Rather than target these NPPS in what could trigger a “catastrophic disaster,” Russian forces have recently focused on crippling these power plants’ abilities to transmit power by destroying the substations connecting them to the grid, according to NYT. In an effort to prevent such crippling, Ukraine has asked the IAEA to have its personnel stay at the substations, but the agency has only agreed to send periodic monitoring missions. Together, the three NPPs can provide 7.7 gigawatts of electricity, more than half of the country’s current generation capacity, according to DiXi Group. Thus, Ukraine is left dependent on three old Soviet nuclear reactors for as much as two–thirds of the country’s electricity generation. It is also highly unlikely that the IAEA will agree to have its personnel serve as human shields at Ukraine’s three NPPs.
Russia gained 227 square miles of territory (589 square kilometers, roughly the size of Chicago) in the month preceding Dec. 31, 2024, according to The Economist. In the past two weeks alone, the Russian armed forces have captured Makarivka, Sukhi Yaly and Zelenivka, Ukrainka, Dachenske, Novyi Trud and Vovkove, according to Ukraine’s DeepState OSINT group. To compensate for being outgunned and outmanned, the Ukrainian armed forces have recently resorted to badly-needed innovations, such as the first attack relying solely on unmanned ground vehicles, which occurred north of Kharkiv City on Dec. 20. In another instance of innovation, on Dec. 31 a Ukrainian naval drone shot down a Russian military helicopter for the first time, according to Ukraine’s intelligence service cited by Bloomberg.
Ukrainian authorities have launched a criminal probe into mass desertions in the country’s 155th mechanized brigade named after Anne of Kyiv and trained in France, according to Kyiv Independent. At least 50 of the brigade’s servicemen disappeared while they were still being drilled in France, according to Telegraph. By the time the brigade entered battle for the first time, at least 1,700 of its troops had gone AWOL, according to this UK newspaper. Figures published by the Ukrainian general prosecutor’s office show that more than 90,000 cases have been opened into instances of soldiers going absent without leave or deserting since Russia invaded in 2022, according to AFP.
The U.S. government has said it will allocate almost $6 billion in additional aid to Ukraine, as Biden rushes to provide Kyiv with fresh firepower before his presidency expires, FT reported. The transfer includes $1.25 billion in assistance from U.S. weapons and ammunition stockpiles, as well as $1.22 billion which allows Ukraine to purchase goods directly from the U.S. defense industry. The package includes ammunition for the high mobility artillery rocket system, air defense munitions and anti-tank missiles.
Russia’s two top diplomats have signaled the pending end of what the Kremlin has claimed to be a self-imposed moratorium on the deployment of medium-range missiles that were once banned by the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. First, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov accused the U.S. of deploying such missiles in Asia and Europe in an interview with Kommersant on Dec. 27. Then his boss, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov weighed in two days later, asserting that “it is obvious that, for example, our moratorium on the deployment of INF missiles is already practically unviable and will have to be abandoned.”
In the waning days of 2024, Vladimir Putin expressed readiness to meet Donald Trump in the new year to discuss ending the Russian-Ukrainian war, but the Russian leadership was also quick to reject some of the key elements of a hypothetical peace deal proposed by Trump’s aides and his Western European counterparts. Among the rejected elements were immediate unconditional ceasefire, the stationing of a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine and the deferral of Ukraine’s membership in NATO for 20 years. In fact, “nothing from the incoming U.S. administration suggests anything of interest to us,” Russia’s envoy to the U.N., Vasily Nebenzya said of the Trump team’s proposals.
A most paradoxical feature of Russian-Ukrainian interaction throughout the course of the war has been that, in spite of the hostilities, Ukraine has continued to allow the transit of Russian gas through its territory. Not anymore. At 8 a.m. on Jan. 1, Russian gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine stopped, following the expiration of the transit contract. The route through Ukraine was one of the last two routes still carrying Russian gas to Europe. Its closure means EU countries will lose about 5% of gas imports in the middle of winter, according to FT.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/01/rus ... t-of-land/

*******

Everything the West Believes about Russia is Wrong!
East Calling stream Dec. 29th, 2024

Zinderneuf
Jan 02, 2025
Cross-post from East’s Substack
The East Calling team provides a detailed economic analysis and discussion about the state of the Russian economy under Putin and also discusses news events of the day! - Zinderneuf
Welcome back, everyone!

Jelena and Zin had a different sort of Sunday stream which begins with a full statistical breakdown of the answer to the question, “has Vladimir Putin taken care of Russia?” Zin gathered quite a lot of slides on economic data specifically to address this topic and to answer the question more thoroughly than Vladimir Putin was able to in a live question and answer session. We also discuss recent news. This includes the Azerbaijani plane crash as well as the other tragedies involving plane crashes around the world that happened in short succession. Pavel Durov has also now cut off access to RIA Novosti, Izvestia, etc giving into Western pressure and further isolating those that live in the West from outside perspectives.

(Video at link.)

https://eastcalling.substack.com/cp/154056428

******

Transcript of ‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 3 January
Transcript submitted by a reader

Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:06
Hi everybody, today is Friday, January 3rd, 2025, and our friend Gilbert Doctorow is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Good to be with you and happy new year.

Alkhorshid:
Happy new year. Let’s get started with what’s going on right now between Russia and the United States. The Russian representative to the UN said that they’re receiving mixed messages from Washington. What does it mean and what do they understand from Washington right now?

Doctorow:
Well, to my understanding, the Kremlin does not take seriously the belligerent remarks coming from General Kellogg and from the other nominated persons around Trump, nominated to positions in the military and foreign relations. These have been out of line, not supportive of the message that Donald Trump was delivering before the election, which was one of finding a peace solution and one that was rather sympathetic, I would say, to the Russian situation. Instead, there has been this belligerency, how they will pound Russia if Russia does not come to the negotiating table under the dictates from Washington.

1:37
That’s what Mr. Trump’s assistants have been saying. Trump himself has been usually quiet, although when he, a week ago, 10 days ago, came out saying that he believed that Biden’s decision to permit the use of American missiles to strike deep into Russia was a foolish and dangerous decision. That already alerted Russia to the fact that Mr. Trump was a man they probably could do business with.

And accordingly, they have put to the side the negative remarks of his assistants and advisors, and they are hopeful that a meeting with Trump can be arranged, a direct meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. They see, in any case, as the Soviet Union always felt, the natural talking partner in global affairs for Russia is a country of its own scale, and that is the United States, and not these pygmy countries that make up Western Europe, who as they now fully realize are simply servants of Washington. They don’t want to negotiate with the servants, they want to negotiate with the master.

Alkhorshid: 3:05
But the situation, I think at the end of the day, there has to be some sort of understanding of the situation in Ukraine, is the situation in Ukraine and the way that the Biden administration is trying to send more aid, more weapons, and right now with the situation that Ukraine has with the European Union, are they really in a better position in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, the position of Ukraine is worsening day by day. And then you have Mr. Zelensky coming out and bravely saying that the final cutoff of gas deliveries via the Ukrainian pipelines to Europe was a major defeat that he had inflicted on Russia. Well, that is– maybe he can enjoy that small comfort. But the reality on the ground is of course, very depressing for any Ukrainian patriots; they are losing badly on the ground. And that’s not that there’s no fighting spirit on the Ukrainian side; there is.

4:18
And they are making small counterattacks here and there along this 1200-kilometer-long line of confrontation. Nonetheless, their small counterattacks are being beaten down by the Russians, and the Russians are advancing daily kilometers here and there on the front. The most important thing is not to consider just their advancing, or what this means for the Ukrainian defenses. They are not giving the Ukrainians time as they fall back to construct defensive earthen works or concrete bunkers or whatever. So the Ukrainians are moving backwards without any defense.

Therefore, this onward march of the Russians westward is likely to continue, and therefore the Russians have had absolutely no interest in talking about a ceasefire. They will not give the Ukrainians a chance to recover, to most importantly, to find shelter from which they can hold their positions. I think– so the war is going very badly for the Ukrainians and any bright spots that Mr. Zelensky tries to present to the Western press are really beside the point.

Alkhorshid: 5:41
It seems that the Russians were approached by Emmanuel Macron and France. They’re talking about negotiating without Ukraine being part of those negotiations. First of all, is Russia interested to negotiate with France, as we saw? Because France was part of that negotiations in Minsk II, and they didn’t respect that.

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t think that Moscow has any high regard for Macron, on the contrary. The political observers believe that he has lost his political power. And I think they anticipate that his government, not the government, but that he personally will fall, will be forced to resign, especially if the latest government fails the vote of no confidence. So on those grounds, whatever Mr. Macron would say would not be taken very seriously by Moscow. But the bigger issue is that this question of France or another country acting as– European country– acting as intermediary, is of no interest to the Russians, for the reason I said a moment ago. They will seek a solution to the war that is embedded in a solution to Europe’s security architecture.

7:09
The boundaries, where the Ukraine exists, what kind of Ukraine it will be, what will happen to the neo-Nazis — all of these issues are relatively minor and are not of interest to Moscow today. They will be regulated, resolved in accordance with the resolution of the big issue of Russia and NATO in Europe and what is the security architecture. And for that, there’s only one interloctor, only one talking partner, and that is Donald Trump in Washington. All of the NATO member states in Europe account for nothing in this. Decisions about NATO were taken in Washington, not in Paris or London or xxxxx.

Therefore, for Russians to get a solution, to negotiate a solution to what Europe’s architecture of security looks like, there is only one person to deal with, and that man is Donald Trump. And since he made plain in his first term and reiterated in his campaign speeches for this election, November 5th, that NATO does not seem very attractive organization for him, particularly when all the member states are not carrying their weight and are dependent on the United States to essentially defend them. Though I think that there is ground for talk and negotiation and compromise between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with respect to the future of NATO.

Alkhorshid: 9:01
Do they see Keith Kellogg’s proposal as a bargaining process or they see someone that is totally disconnected with the reality?

Doctorow:
I think it’s the second. But nobody understands, and I put myself in when I say nobody, including myself, understands fully the logic of Trump’s appointing this collection of neocon personalities in which Kellogg is one of them, and Rubio is another. These high-level positions that he’s designated in this future administration, they are hardliners. And what is the sense of this? The sense that I tried to find some weeks ago is that he wanted to gather all of his enemies in one room and then dominate them or ensure that they could not break free of his control and denounce him in general. That’s one possibility.

10:04
Another was an insurance policy for himself. He’s left everyone slightly uncertain what policies he will pursue once he takes office, And that is for him the best protection against another assassination attempt. As when Mr.– when Tony Blinken can believe that by shipping all of these several billion dollars in arms and financial assistance to Ukraine now in the closing days of their administration, they are doing Donald Trump a favor by strengthening his negotiating position– if that’s what they think, then I think that Mr. Trump has been very successful in bamboozling the people who hate him into hoping for or believing in a possible continuation of their disastrous policies under Trump. If he had appointed only people like Tulsi Gabbard, then I think there would be extra contracts out for his murder.

Alkhorshid: 11:11
In your opinion, right now, Russia, when they look at Donald Trump and this administration, as you’ve mentioned, most of them are neocons and connected with the neocon ideology. Do they, you remember those days when Donald Trump was running for 2024 presidential election, just weeks ago, Do they have the same sort of idea about Donald Trump? They have the same sort of hope about him? Or it’s changing in the Russian mind, in the Russian media?

Doctorow:
The Russian media have for weeks been saying that whoever is elected in the United States makes no difference, that the deep state is running the show, and that we should not expect any miracles from Donald Trump. That was the basic policy line across all of the major media in Russia. This came, that was the first reaction to the very disappointing nominations that Trump made.

And also with looking back to the experience of so much hope that was invested in Trump before his first term in office by the Russian side, all to be disappointed bitterly in what followed when he appointed this whole series of very anti-Russian advisors and implementers. So for these various reasons, Russians were saying, “We will solve the problem of Ukraine by ourselves, thank you. We will crush the Ukrainian army and we will make a peace on our terms. End of discussion.” But in their heart of hearts, they knew that wouldn’t the end of discussion, because it didn’t address the reason why they went to war, which was NATO.

13:03
And if they would succeed in crushing Ukraine and making, imposing a peace that prohibited foreign military installations and personnel operating in Ukraine, that would still not end the existential threat that NATO poses to Russia by its other locations. There is a common border with Poland, by Kaliningrad. There is now this 1200-kilometer-long border with Finland, which has invited in all sorts of American installations and personnel. These threats will continue. There’s also the intentions of NATO and the United States to stir up trouble in Georgia, to stir up trouble in Armenia, to stir up trouble in Moldova.

14:10
So peaceful living will not be possible for Russia even if they succeed in utterly destroying the Ukrainian army. Destroying the Ukrainian army of course is a big deal, but it is not the end of the conflict with the United States-led race.

Alkhorshid:
When it comes to this security of Europe and those agreements that Russia was talking about on December 2021, and they were asking for some sort of security agreement. Right now, is that the same or they’re going to put some sort of, I’m not talking about Ukraine, I’m talking about Europe, or do they have some more considerations about Europe?

Doctorow: 15:03
Those terms were set down in December of 2021 dealing with one president who was a bitter, hardline Cold Warrior. Now, what will be on the negotiating table will be before Mr. Trump, who is somewhat unpredictable, but perhaps, perhaps meant what he said when he spoke so disparagingly about NATO. And perhaps, perhaps can scale down American participation in NATO to the degree where it just collapses for lack of military might. Without the United States participation, full steam, there’s nothing. All the European countries put together count for nothing militarily.

15:52
For any overseas mission, they all rely on them, and several of them, unfortunately, in the last 25 years, they have relied entirely on American air support, logistical support, not to mention weaponry. The armaments in Germany– to look only at the number count is to miss the point of the quality of the count. They are inferior to what Russia fields. They’re unable, NATO in Europe, without the United States, is unable to stand up to Russia. It can do so only by resorting to nuclear weapons, since there are after all France and Britain both are nuclear powers and aren’t dependent on America, the nuclear umbrella, they could pose a serious threat to Russia if they decided to replace the United States as the guarantor.

16:53
But that is improbable. The use of nuclear weapons is [to open] Pandora’s box, which would very quickly result in the destruction, the utter destruction of Europe. Therefore, that’s improbable as a scenario. So as I’m saying, if Trump simply cuts back on American support for NATO, doesn’t have to leave NATO. Leaving NATO is a very difficult trick to pull off because American law requires a Congress– congressional approval, which Trump will not get for this.

But he has his own very extensive powers as chief executive to either implement and execute appropriations that were made to NATO or obligations that were assumed with respect to NATO. He can simply default on his obligations and no one can say a word, and NATO will collapse like a house of cards. There is, therefore, room for Russians to hope that a deal can be struck with Donald Trump. It’s not essential to end this war. The war will end, Ukraine will end with a Ukrainian capitulation. That’s almost certain. But the confrontation and the risks of escalation into something horrible will remain so long as NATO enjoys its present status.

Alkhorshid: 18:25
If we consider the Biden administration, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan, These were those people who were totally connected with the situation in Ukraine. They have done a lot to bring this war to that region. And right now Joe Biden is not functioning, Victoria Nuland is gone.

Two other characters are Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, still in power. Just removing these two figures from the conflict in Ukraine and replacing them by Waltz and Rubio. We know that Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan have a lot of connection with Zelensky and his administration. They’re totally connected. They have a lot of links. But replacing these two figures and by the Trump administration, is that going to bring some sort of change? Is that considerable in your opinion?

Doctorow: 19:30
That’s imponderable. Look, I go back to what I was saying a few moments ago. The appointment of these odious figures to be, to senior positions in the administration, can be what it looks like, which is not good, or it can be something that it doesn’t look like at all, which is following the rule of “keep your enemies close to your chest”.

Alkhorshid: 19:59
Yeah.

Doctorow:
The way to disarm, to defang these people is to have them more close to himself and that he is not dependent on them for advice. He will be keeping counsel with himself and with a very few select people who are not in that circle. For example, Elon Musk, who is probably the person closest to the president and who certainly cannot be expected to pursue any of the Biden policies that people like Rubio would appear to back.

Alkhorshid: 20:35
The situation with the Russian gas, Russia not being able to send their gas directly to Slovakia and other countries. Do you think that– Sikorsky yesterday he was bragging about how strong Ukraine is in cutting off the Russian gas. Do you think that this would bring even more problems within the European Union, or the situation cannot get worse?

21:07
Well, it certainly doesn’t improve relations between Slovakia and Brussels. That’s … clear. Mr. Fitco was rightly angry at everything that Von der Leyen was doing, and she is among those who is calling for an absolute cutoff of Russian hydrocarbons to the European Union.

The poll of Russians, Mr. Sikorsky can make his propaganda points. In general, I think Sikorski is the shit on his pants. The Poles, the top-level Poles, I think are very worried about Russian power today. They may have their orders for tanks and everything else coming in from Korea, but the reality is that Russia has everything now.

And what was true two years ago, that the Polish elite were saying that Russia could just roll over them. I think that remains the case. And therefore, Sikorsky is kind of singing a nice positive sound for the public. I don’t believe for a minute that he feels confident of Polish security in the face of an aggressive Russia, aggressive if Russia feels threatened by anything the Poland is doing.

22:27
Therefore, let’s look at the reality of this cut-off. Russia’s relations with Ukraine over the transit of its gas to Europe, over on the same pipelines and gas reserve system that Ukraine has maintained. This goes back to 2005. There were big conflicts in 2005, 2006, and 2009 over first of all over siphoning off gas that was in the pipeline from Russia with intention of being transferred to Western Europe, but was siphoned off by Ukraine for its own needs without any records, without any offer of compensation. Then there was Ukraine’s inability or unwillingness to pay for the gas they received. And so there were big conflicts and a shutdown of Russian delivery of gas in 2009, which was of course raised as an issue of Russia’s reliability by all the usual propagandists in Washington and Western Europe.

23:36
The fact that the cut, shut-off, took place because they weren’t paid for what they delivered, nobody bothered to talk about. Nonetheless, there was this background of Russia’s difficulties with a pre-2014 Ukraine that was dishonest, thieving, and malicious. And after 2014, it has been, and particularly after the start of the special military operation, when the Ukrainians, who Mr. Zelensky has been calling daily, weekly, monthly for Europe to impose the most drastic sanctions to deprive Russia of its financial means to pursue the war against Ukraine, it was an anomaly that Ukraine itself was facilitating the delivery of six and a half billion dollars worth of Russian gas to Central Europe over its pipelines. Of course, there had been much more delivered over those pipelines prior to the self-prohibition imposed by various European member states on receiving pipeline gas from Russia.

24:52
But there was still this residual six and a half billion, which represented five percent of European Union gas consumption that was passing through the Ukrainian pipelines. Now that has stopped since the five-year contract under which it was being delivered was not renewed. And that is six and a half billion dollars less that Russia will earn from that particular pipeline. It means one billion dollars per year less that Ukraine will earn as transit fees. So he can claim that he is harming the Russians, but he is harming his own economy to the tune of one billion dollars a year.

25:36
Considering the kind of infusion of money he receives from Washington, I don’t think that one billion is a great loss to Mr. Zelensky and his circle. A loss of six and a half billion for Russia is also not what it looks like. It is reasonable to assume that a fair portion of that gas that is not going to be delivered by this pipeline will be delivered as liquefied natural gas to Europe by Russia. Despite all of the talk of cutting back on hydrocarbon imports from Russia, in 2024 the European Union imported more Russian gas by liquified natural gas than it did in 2023.

26:27
So it’s reasonable to assume that some of the gas deliveries not going through the Ukrainian pipeline will now reach Europe in the form of LNG. But that remains to be seen, of course. Overall, to take that six-billion-dollar loss, and I want to say all the Russians are suffering, the Russians have imposed on themselves a much heavier loss of income in arms sales. I believe their annual arms sales were running at 30 billion dollars a year. They’re now running at zero, because all of Russia’s arms production capability is focused on satisfying demand of its own armed forces to pursue the war in Ukraine and to prepare for a war with NATO.

27:14
Therefore, if you want to look at overall costs, let us say this is one fifth, one sixth of what Russia has itself sacrificed to pursue the war without any reference to sanctions or actions by Western Europe or the United States. That’s to put it into perspective.

Alkhorshid: 27:35
If Fico in Slovakia, you’ve mentioned Brussels being responsible for what’s going on, but I would point out that Washington would be responsible for what’s going on with Ukraine. I do believe that they’re thinking that it’s going to be part of the bargaining process for them. And the question is, to what extent Washington is willing to sacrifice Europe in the process of conflict in Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Oh, it doesn’t hesitate for a moment. I think one of the wins for the United States in the whole war in Ukraine is precisely that it’s reinforced, reached probably a never-before level of control over everything that’s going on in Europe. So from that standpoint, for Europe to be weakened, for Europe to feel threatened, and to realize its total dependency on the United States for security. That is all a plus for Washington, in Washington’s book.

28:42
You would think that in a normal world, the United States would want to have strong allies. But regrettably, that wisdom is not understood in Washington, and they much prefer to have slaves. And in the crop of elected leaders in Europe, they have 27, 25 willing slaves, which is very, very sad and is what condemns Europe in its present configuration to a zero role in the world.

Alkhorshid: 29:20
How about Syria? Do we know that Russia would stay in Syria or they’re going to leave?

Doctorow:
I don’t have any special insider knowledge. I look at what’s on YouTube and there are a lot of sensationalist video clips on what Putin is doing, not doing in Syria, what he is doing, not doing in Libya. I cannot comment on this because I don’t believe any of these … widely watched and sensationalist video clips are based on verifiable fact. So I just sit tight and wait to see how it develops. I believe the Russians would like to stay in Syria.

I believe that the government in Damascus would like to have the Russians there as a kind of counterforce in case things don’t go too well with Israel, in case things don’t go too well with Israel, in case things don’t go too well with Turkey. They would like to have another player of weight at their side. So it could be they’ll strike a deal, but I have no insider’s knowledge to judge what is now going on. And Russian media say nothing about it.

Alkhorshid: 30:39
It seems that the deal between Iran and Russia, the agreement that comprehensive agreement would be signed on January 20th, hours before Donald Trump takes office in Washington. Are they talking about what it’s going to be with how they’re going to, what are the … influence, what are the main objectives of this agreement? Because right now nobody knows what’s going to be in that agreement. Are they talking about it in the Russian media or they’re not talking about anything about it?

Doctorow: 31:19
No, they’re not talking about it. I don’t think that the content has been leaked by anybody in the circle of Vladimir Putin. And so we’ll wait and see. The logic is that it will have this big component of mutual defense. The logic is that this will provide substantial assistance to Iran in deterring irresponsible, reckless action by Israel and its US backers. But to what extent Moscow is comfortable with the government in Tehran, we don’t know.

Alkhorshid: 32:03
Yeah. And right now, situation in Ukraine, Joe Biden is leaving Washington and Donald Trump is coming. Are we going to be surprised before Joe Biden leaving? Because the days are just running out. The Biden administration is running out of time right now.

Doctorow:
The logic is that the Russians will increase their offensive and will try to reach the Dnieper before the inauguration. That would certainly facilitate talks with Trump, because they will have achieved most of their objectives in the special march operation. And they would ease the situation for Trump himself because it wouldn’t look like he’s compromising things when they’ve already been lost. That is the logic. But whether I think Putin is willing to take additional losses, which any major offensive would necessarily entail, that again is unforeseeable. The latest Russian achievements is that they took Kurakhove, which is one of the logistical hubs.

They still have not completed their conquest of Pokrovsk, or Krasnoyarsk, as they’re calling it now. But that is clearly going to fall in the next several weeks, meaning that the Russians will have a clean route to the Dnieper, because the major defence points and logistical points will have been lost by the Ukrainians. And it’s a straight run across the plain without any particular elevations or major rivers that would slow them down. The Ukrainians will not be slaughtered in one day. They will fall back and fall back and fall back until they reach the river and find a way across. But I think there’s a reasonable expectation that in the coming month, the Russians could finish up xxxx xxxxx.

Alkhorshid: 34:18
The situation in AfD, Alternative for Germany, and the changes that are happening in Germany, do you think that these parties capable of standing against the policies of Washington in Germany, or they’re not that capable?

Doctorow:
Well, we will see in the elections in February, to what extent they are capable of winning over a substantial portion of the electorate, sufficient enough for the cordon sanitaire that the centrist parties have built around the AFD to prevent it centering the government. I have to say, I’m not very happy that Elon Musk is throwing his money and his prestige behind the AfD. And I would have been much happier if he had backed the leftist candidate, Sahra Wagenknecht and her party, which is, I think, much cleaner than the AfD. For me, the AfD has one particular drawback.

35:33
What we’ve been living through for the last 15, 20 years has been a new generation thinking within Germany about collective guilt and collective responsibility. And it was precisely the Alternative for Deutschland that raised this issue and made it a public issue, that of refusing to accept guilt, responsibility, for what the grandfathers, the Hitler generation had perpetrated in Europe and the destruction of European Jewry. It’s understandable that they would like to see statute of limitations for this responsibility, but regrettably I cannot support that. And regrettably, the decisions that Germany has made under Scholz indicate that there are the same weak points of utter conformism and pursuit of policies that are self-destructive and a unwillingness to heed the voice of conscience in the question of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. These issues raise for me a question of national guilt in present-day Germany.

37:01
And lest anyone think that I am being unfair or unreasonable, I extend the same logic to the United States of America. The whole American nation now bears collective responsibility or collective guilt for the genocide in Gaza. Those who are not protesting against it in the streets, those who are not finding ways of civil disobedience or whatever to express their utter dislike, their utter contempt for the politicians who are facilitating that genocide — this leaves the whole country with a kind of collective guilt.

37:47
I do not believe, I am not a subscriber, to “woke” principles. I personally reject the notion of responsibility of anyone living today for what great grandfathers, for what people 150 years ago did or didn’t do. I think that is unreasonable. But we all have responsibility for what we do or don’t do. And that’s where I say, I’m not happy with the AfD, and I’m not happy with the American political, or the American voters today for their silence, relative silence on the disaster being perpetrated in their name by the Biden administration’s support, unqualified support for Israeli aggression.

Alkhorshid: 38:37
Yeah. Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.

Doctorow:
I thank you for the opportunity to express some unusual news.

Alkhorshid:
And happy new year.

Doctorow:
Fine. You too. Bye-bye.

Alkhorshid: 38:53
Bye-bye.

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/01/03/ ... 3-january/

*****

"Resource-P" No. 5
January 4, 17:06

Image

"Resurs-P" No. 5

Yesterday Roscosmos conducted the first activation of the "Geoton-L1" equipment - the main instrument for observing the Earth's surface with high spatial resolution.
The "Resurs-P" No. 5 spacecraft was launched into orbit on December 25 last year.
The pictures show the first images along the flight path over the territories of the USA, China and the UAE.

Image

Image

Image

Image

It is necessary to increase the orbital grouping of reconnaissance satellites.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9591102.html

Chubais sends his regards
January 4, 9:00

Image

Chubais, who fled abroad, sends greetings.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9590043.html

'Columbian Necktie' is what he deserves for the harm he has done to the Russian people.

*******

New Year's address

Dear comrades!

We congratulate you, who have maintained firmness and integrity in matters of scientific, theoretical and personnel policy, on overcoming all the difficulties and complexities of 2024 and on entering the year 2025, which promises to be a year of new successes for the core group of the Proryv magazine and its branches, consistent in their integrity.

We wish you all good health, a good fighting spirit, and dialectically armed wisdom.

A number of our former comrades, who had not sufficiently assimilated the calls of the magazine “Proryv” to spare no effort in mastering the most fundamental scientific and theoretical depths of Marxism-Leninism, especially its dialectical materialism, to spare no time in promoting the most subtle issues of the theory of building a communist society, as a result naturally moved to the positions that most left-wing bloggers now hold and will hold: “to welcome every sneeze” of the current bourgeois existence, to respond to every tragic moment in the life of the market liberal-democratic and clerical-nationalist community, to briefly tell the average person about the unexpected rise in prices, about fuel oil on the beaches, about air crashes, about corruption, about the defects of the education system, about the decline of morals... Justifications were found for crude publications, calls were heard not to wash dirty linen in public, even if it was found there, to create a party of scientific centralism at an accelerated pace, recruiting whoever comes along with dubious unity of views of potential members of the future Central Committee.

That is, the scientific-theoretical form of class struggle against internal opportunism, in the crucible of which, according to Lenin, Bolshevism was forged, did not bypass the organization formed around the magazine "Proryv". During 2024, the parties repeatedly substantiated their arguments. The demarcation took place. To work, comrades, and practice will show who is who.

Therefore, there is reason to congratulate our organization on yet another dotting of the i's. There is not the slightest reason for despondency for those who continue to implement their personal, intense plans for self-education in the field of Marxism-Leninism and propaganda of achievements on this path. But there is reason to sympathize with those who have chosen the path trodden by a host of leftist bloggers and creators of a series of hastily cobbled together "parties" with communist names, but without Marxist content.

Podguzov, Petrova, Redin

https://prorivists.org/101_nw/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Mon Jan 06, 2025 4:41 pm

Ben Aris: EU under intense pressure to confiscate Russia’s frozen $300bn
January 5, 2025
By Ben Aris, Substack, 12/18/24

The EU is under intense pressure to seize Russia’s frozen $300bn of reserves, as crises in funding the war in Ukraine and finding the funds to pay for reconstruction loom.

The US has made it clear that it doesn’t want to pay for the Ukraine war anymore. It ran out of money for Ukraine completely at the start of 2023, then struggled to get an emergence $61bn aid package through in April, but according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy only 10% of these funds and supplies have actually arrived in Ukraine since, with the rest caught up in committee in the US – a problem confirmed last week by US National Security Advisor of Jake Sullivan.

Washington has already passed laws making seizing the $5bn of Russian assets still on American territory legal. Now it wants Europe to do the same.

The confiscation would be unprecedented. Central bank reserves have been frozen many times, and indeed, the US continues to hold the reserves of Iraq and Afghanistan, but technically they remain the property of the country’s central bank and should eventually be returned after the wars are over. Central bank reserves of another country have never been confiscated before.

In May, the EU approved the use of profits from the frozen assets—approximately €3bn annually—with 90% allocated to military aid for Ukraine and the rest reserved for humanitarian purposes. This compromise ensured the participation of neutral EU countries.

What is driving the renewed debate to seize the principal assets as well is Western officials are increasingly unable to fund Ukraine. At the same time as US funding dries up, the EU has also been slacking on fulfilling its commitments. Europe has pledged a total of €241bn in support of Ukraine since the start of the war in 2022, but it has only delivered half of this amount (€125bn), according to monitoring agencies, and there are no concrete plans to send the rest.

With Europe sinking into recession it has reached the point where EU governments have run out of money to pay for an expensive war that is consuming some $100bn a year, according to Timothy Ash, the senior sovereign strategist at BlueBay Asset Management in London.

Germany has been in a budget crisis all year, and cut its allocation for Ukraine in half from €8bn to €4bn in 2024, with commitments falling to €500mn in the following two years. Likewise, France, which is also suffering from a government debt crisis, cut its allocation for Ukraine from €4bn to €3bn in October and will struggle even to meet that. Finally, the G7 $50bn loan to Ukraine, approved on June 13 at a G7 summit in Italy, has also got snarled up in red tape and was supposed to be distributed this month, but now it has been split into three tranches paid out over three years, with the first tranche of $22bn due in the first quarter of next year.

Ukraine needs about $40bn a year in international funding to make the budget work and keep the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) supplied, but even the Ministry of Finance (MinFin) anticipates this halving to some $22bn a year over the next two years, according to the most recent version of the three-year budget.

And all these problems are made worse by the anticipation that President-elect Donald Trump will cut US funding for Ukraine entirely. In a precursor to the new Trump policy, US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson just shot down a US President Joe Biden proposal to add a fresh $24bn of funding for Ukraine to a congressional spending bill for 2025.

With the sources of funding for Ukraine rapidly evaporating the calculus is changing.

Brussels remains committed to supporting Ukraine, even if several member states are more hesitant. One of the big changes in recent months is the appointment of former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas as the EU foreign policy chief, who is an outspoken Russia hawk. The discussion about seizing the CBR’s money was tabled at a meeting of EU foreign ministers that was chaired by Kallas, who inevitably put the issue back on the agenda. As an Estonian, that sits cheek by jowl with Russia and was occupied by the Soviet Union for 48 years, she is fully focused on holding Russia to account and cares little about the economic or financial consequences.

The Estonians have a particular hatred of Russia following the mass deportations in 1941 and 1949 when thousands were sent to Siberia overnight. Every family in Estonia lost a family member to the deportations, which are marked by a Remembrance Day every year on June 14 that keeps the tragedy fresh in everyone’s memory.

Kallas argued that the assets could be appropriated within a legal framework. “I won’t use the word ‘confiscation’ because it’s actually using assets in a legal way,” she said at the meeting.

Kallas has little power to force the confiscations policy through. The European Commission (EC) has the mandate to set EU trade policy, but foreign policy remains the prerogative of the member states. Several EU countries are not keen on the idea, led by the conservative Germany and Belgium, which would find themselves in the front line. Given all EU decisions have to be unanimous, getting permission to confiscate the CBR’s money will be very hard.

In the meantime, many EU members remain resolutely against a confiscation. Valerie Urbain, CEO of Belgium-based Euroclear, which holds €190bn of the assets, has been particularly outspoken: “We cannot end up in a situation where assets are confiscated and then a few years later Russia comes and demands them back, when the assets are no longer there. If assets are confiscated, then liabilities must also be transferred,” she said in a recent interview with Bloomberg.

Her predecessor, Euroclear’s CEO Lieve Mostrey, similarly slammed the G7 plan to use Russia’s frozen assets to fund the war in Ukraine and finance its reconstruction in an interview with The Financial Times in February.

Bankers are also not keen on the idea as they anticipate years of very expensive lawsuits from Russian entities. The problem is that the decision to seize the CBR’s funds is political, however, its assets in Europe are protected by the same strong property rights as other assets in Europe and so are vulnerable to lawsuits. They want part of the funds, if they are seized, to be put aside to fund the anticipated wave of Russian lawsuits that will tie up the courts for years.

This is one of the objections to the confiscations: either Euroclear will lose in court and be on the hook to repay €190bn it no longer has, or the courts will be pushed to uphold a political decision and massively undermine trust in Europe’s financial system that could lead to massive capital flight. The share of the US dollar in sovereign reserve funds has already fallen to a 40 year low, thanks to the White House’s decision to weaponize its currency via sanctions that has undermined trust in the dollar.

Another problem is the Kremlin is threatening to launch cases in Russian courts and seize billions of dollars in Russian accounts that belong to Western firms. As bne IntelliNews reported, only 9% of western companies have left the Russian market and they still owned significant assets in Russia.

A decree signed by Vladimir Putin in May enables the use of foreign-owned assets in Russia to compensate for damages caused by Western sanctions. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov announced in October that Russia has initiated “mirror responses” against the West.

Reconstruction elephant

But the elephant in the room is where the money will come from to rebuild Ukraine after the fighting stops. Trump has famously promised to stop the war “in 24 hours” after taking over. With the Ukrainian defence in the Donbas slowly crumbling – military analysts predict the fall of the key logistics hub at Pokrovsk in the next 2-5 months that could lead to the collapse of Ukraine’s resistance – the war appears to be in its end game.

Estimates of the damage caused by Russia’s campaign start at just under $200bn for the physical damage and run up to between $500bn to $1 trillion, depending on what is included in the calculation. The Centre for European Policy Analysis released a detailed report analysing the damage sector by sector in April this year.

All the talk and funding plans so far have focused on funding the budget to keep the government and the AFU working, but as the end of the war looms thoughts are slowly turning to how to pay for reconstruction. Currently, there is no plan.

At the Ukraine Recovery Conference in London last year it was suggested that the private sector pays for the rebuild. However, fund managers told bne IntelliNews that was going to be a tough sell.

“Of course, Ukraine is a fantastic opportunity, but I would want to wait for at least a few years,” one famous veteran of Eastern Europe investment told bne IntelliNews. “We need to see the domestic political turmoil that will follow a ceasefire die down first and Bankova prove its commitment to a stable and predictable investment climate. And then there is the threat of a second Russian invasion that also needs to be abated.”

It’s a Catch-22 situation: the investment won’t come until the investment has already come and the post-war bounce-back-boom is well underway.

In the first year it will be up to the EU to prime the pump, however without the CBR’s $300bn budgets will be tight. According to another study by Elina Ribakova, non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, counting out the CBR money there is a total of some $75bn committed in the form of the EU’s Ukraine Facility and other International Financial Institutions (IFIs) commitments. That may or may not be enough. And even getting old of that money will be hard: pre-war Ukraine typically received about $3bn a year from the IMF – half of its three-year Extended Fund Facility commitments, reduced due to Kyiv’s foot-dragging on promised reforms and eventually downgraded to a one-year Stand By Facility.

All these problems are likely to resurface after the war is open as Ukraine remains one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Ironically, Georgia is much further down the road to complying with the EU accession criteria thanks to the Saakashvili administration and the work of the late former-oligarch and reform major domo Kakha Bendukidze.

Damage is already done

In this context, confiscating the CBR’s money starts to look a lot more appealing. There is no other way to fund the investment needed to kick start Ukraine’s recovery and start that bounce-back-boom. And the investors are interested. In a long-forgotten story, there was a banking gold rush in 2006, when foreign investors rushed to Kyiv to snap up banks at crazy six-times book multiples after it appeared that Ukraine’s economy had finally turned the corner. But it all went wrong again in 2008 during the Great Financial Crisis and those same investors have been left licking their burnt fingers.

The biggest question left is what damage will seizing the CBR’s money do? The lawsuits are inevitable, but that problem can be coped with. However, in my personal opinion the damage to the EU’s reputation and the euro has already been done.

In the first week of the war European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen held a press conference where she announced both the seizure of the CBR’s reserves and the introduction of the SWIFT sanctions that effectively cut Russia off from using the dollar. Both sanctions were unprecedented. The SWIFT sanctions had been mentioned in the run up to the war, but ruled out by Berlin in particular. The CBR sanctions came completely out of left field.

Underlying the objections to confiscating the CBR’s money is the assumption that once the war ends things will go back to normal and so preserving the trust in the euro and European banks is paramount. But thanks to the sanctions that trust has already been undermined in the eyes of the Global South bankers and central banks. The dollar is so deeply ingrained as the currency of choice to settle international trade deals that it can probably cope with the dent in its reputation it has taken from its weaponization, but the euro is a lot more vulnerable. Moreover, the reputational damage the EU has taken from its unabridged support of Israel’s campaign in Gaza, versus its backing of a de facto proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has been significant.

Confiscating the CBR’s money will do a lot less damage than feared as the damage has already been done. Bottom line, there is no other way of funding Ukraine’s recovery other than seizing the CBR’s money.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/01/ben ... zen-300bn/

******

Who Benefits from Russia’s War in Ukraine
Posted on January 6, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. This piece is a useful addition to understanding the practical effects of the war in Ukraine, as in who gained economically. The study determined that the sanctions were a big backfire in terms of one of the expressed intents, that of punishing the politically most influential Russians, presumed to consist largely of the very rich, so the would revolt against Putin. Instead, many made out well by being able to acquire Western operations at bargain prices, such as brand name franchises, and launch Russian clones using those assets. Indeed, a few are allegedly more successful than the former enterprises. The Russian McDonald’s successor Vkusno i tochka (which per machine translation means “Delicious and that’s it”) apparently has better tasting food (and perhaps also an improved menu). It also acknowledges that demand within Russia has increased since the war started, again favoring top businessmen.

Mind you, that does not mean some high income Russians were not hurt by the sanctions. But my impression (and readers can correct me) are the ones hardest hit were professionals and small businesses that had strong ties to Europe, such as in had European clients or advised on Russia-Western business operations. This cohort would presumably be the most European-leaning of the Russian middle class. That group had long been problematic for Putin, since it was large enough for Putin to need its support. It was also generally Western-leaning (aspirational shopping, travel, and the Russian tendency to see itself as behind the West and its educated classes to see familiarity with European art and literature as a proof of being cultured). So having the most diehard Europe loyalists decamp to Europe and others witness the rabid outbreak of hostility to Russia across the US and Europe (such as barring Russian athletes and artists from performing) was another shock that worked in Putin’s favor.

By Simeon Djankov, Policy Director London School Of Economics And Political Science and Anastasiia Golovchenko, Research Assistant London School Of Economics And Political Science. Originally published at VoxEU

While tens of millions of Europeans have suffered from Russia’s war in Ukraine, a few Russian businesspeople have gotten richer from it. This column documents four distinct trends in this enrichment: through foreign asset takeovers at heavily discounted prices, via companies operating in import-substituting industries, beneficiaries of the war’s disruptive effects on European markets, and beneficiaries of increased domestic demand. Due to these trends, the number of Russian billionaires went up since the start of the war, while billionaires under Western sanctions got wealthier on average too.

According to the Forbes “200 Richest Businessmen of Russia” list, there were 123 Russian billionaires in December 2021, just before Russia invaded Ukraine. The same ranking on 15 December 2024 has 125 entries, while in the meantime a dozen billionaires renounced their Russian citizenship to protest the invasion or to avoid economic sanctions.

The war spurred scholarship on the imposition of sanctions and their initial effects (Cecchetti and Berner 2022, Lastauskas et al. 2023, Nigmatulina 2022). The central research question in these studies is whether sanctions would have a curbing effect on the economic activities of sanctioned individuals and their corporate entities. The preliminary evidence suggests this is not the case. The analysis in this column, using the comparison between the billionaires lists just before the war started and on the eve of the war’s third anniversary, seems to confirm these previous findings. Of the December 2021 billionaires, a third increased their wealth during the war, a quarter decreased it, few showed no change, while two-fifths were replaced by new entrants. Among the billionaires sanctioned after the invasion by the US, UK, or the EU, 40% increased their wealth, 40% decreased it (but stayed billionaires), and only one-fifth dropped off from the billionaires’ list. In contrast, among non-sanctioned individuals fully three-fifths dropped off the billionaires’ list and only one-fifth managed to increase their wealth. These statistics suggest that the economic sanctions have not had as much of an effect as might be expected. In an earlier study (Djankov and Golovchenko 2024) we showed that part of the explanation lies in the selection process by sanctioning authorities, which focused their punitive measures primarily on richer individuals. These individuals had further to fall in the wealth ratings when sanctioned. Still, the different rates of wealth accumulation or loss between sanctioned and non-sanctioned billionaires imply that the former have managed to adjust faster to the war and perhaps even benefit from it.

In this column, we attempt to discern patterns in wealth accumulation among super-rich Russians in the three years since Russia invaded Ukraine.

Foreign Asset Takeovers

As many foreign companies left Russia under threat of sanctions, some Russian businessmen profited handsomely by acquiring such assets at steep discounts. For example, the Kismet Capital Group bought Avito, a logistics and real estate company, from a Dutch investor. Kismet’s owner, Ivan Tavrin, ranks #55 on the December 2024 Forbes list, with an estimated wealth of $2.4 billion. In mining, Vladislav Sviblov (#116) acquired the Russian assets of Canada’s Kinross Gold and features in the billionaires’ list with an estimated wealth of $1.1 billion. In pulp and paper, Zakhar Smushkin (#64) and Boris Zingarevich (#62) doubled their wealth after buying out their American partner International Paper’s 50% stake. In banking, Vladimir Potanin (#5) purchased Societe Generale’s subsidiary Rosbank, acquiring not only its business in financial services, but also minority stakes in Rosneft, Gazprom, Norilsk Nickel, and Severstal. Victor Kharitonin’s (#20) Pharmstandard bought Henkel’s Russian cosmetics and household chemicals business when the German company exited Russia. Another beneficiary is Vadim Yakunin (#94). His company Protek acquired the Cypriot-owned Bion, a manufacturer of pharmaceutical ingredients. Vagit Alekperov (majority owner of Lukoil) became Russia’s third-richest businessperson in 2024, after the acquisition of assets left behind by exiting Western companies, including Shell’s gas station network and lubricant plant, Eni’s gas stations, and Enel’s power generation sites.

Major foreign technology companies like Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Google, and Apple suspended their Russian operations and sold off their subsidiaries. This void was filled primarily by two Russian companies: Kaspersky Lab, whose founder Eugene Kaspersky rose from #101 to #66 (+70% estimated wealth) on the back of government contracts, and Astra Group, whose founder Denis Frolov entered the list at #121 by taking over software infrastructure development for major Russian corporations and state entities.

The same replacement process occurred in consumer products. Vladimir Melnikov, owner of Gloria Jeans, jumped to #75 (+143%), expanding to 700 stores by taking over prime locations vacated by H&M, Uniqlo, and Inditex (Zara). Arsen Kanokov demonstrated the most aggressive takeover strategy, rising from #160 to #106 (+60%) by acquiring former Starbucks, OBI hypermarkets, and McDonald’s franchises.

Import-Substituting Industries

Businesses in several industries benefited from the war when Russia imposed import sanctions or foreign companies withdrew voluntarily from the market either as investors or importers. For example, Russian pharmaceutical companies secured significant government contracts. The pharmaceutical industry showed remarkable growth, with the aforementioned Viktor Kharitonin (owner of Pharmstandard) doubling his estimated wealth (#20) and his business partner Egor Kulkov entering the Forbes list for the first time (#29) with estimated wealth of $4.2 billion. Among other newcomers to the list are Eduard Netylko (#122), whose company Pulse became Russia’s leading pharmaceutical distributor, and Alexey Repik (#49) of R-Pharm, who bought an Israeli-owned plant in Yaroslav and opened the Research Lab medical centre in Moscow in 2023 for testing generics.

Another import-substituting sector is agriculture. The government responded to sanctions with subsidy programmes for import substitution. Alexander Lutsenko (#53) more than doubled his estimated wealth, purchasing Sodrugestvo Group’s Russian and Belarusian assets from a Luxembourg company. Prodimex Group’s owner Igor Khudokormov (#76) entered the list with an estimated wealth of $1.7 billion, after becoming the main producer and trader of sugar. Pavel Demidov of Dominant Group, managing sugar factories, grain elevators, and dairy plants across seven regions, entered at #115. Vadim Moshkovich (#50), the chairman of RusAgro, a major manufacturer of pork and sugar, saw his wealth increase despite being under Western sanctions.

Yet another subsidised sector is transport. The Russian government allocated subsidies to help airlines purchase leased planes. This support helped the airline S7’s owner Vladislav Filev enter the December 2024 list at #68 (estimated wealth $1.9 billion). The sector’s growth was further demonstrated by Roman Trotsenko (AEON Corporation) who moved from #63 to #48 (+17%). His transport business expanded into aircraft servicing, signing an agreement with Rostec to build maintenance bases for Sukhoi Superjet aircraft. Dmitry Kamenshchik’s DME Ltd., controlling Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport, rose in estimated wealth from #77 to #60 (+22%). Michel Litvak entered the billionaires list at #95 (estimated wealth at $1.3 billion) as OTEKO, the largest private investor in Southern Russia’s port infrastructure, operating both bulk and oil terminals at the Taman port on the Black Sea coast, received large government contracts. Sergey Shishkarev of Delo Group climbed to #119 (+25% wealth accumulation), managing Russia’s container terminals across the Azov-Black Sea, Baltic and Far East basins, along with a network of railway container terminals.

The war’s disruptive effects on European markets

A third set of beneficiaries of the war includes the fertilizer industry, due to the volatility of European markets in products where Russia is a major supplier. Dmitry Mazepin (Uralchem) jumped from #150 to #57, tripling his estimated wealth. Vyacheslav Kantor (Acron Group) jumped from #33 to #13, more than doubling his estimated wealth. PhosAgro’s Andrey Guryev (#16) and his business partner Vladimir Litvinenko (#42) doubled their estimated wealth. Andrey Melnichenko (EuroChem) – while under Western sanctions – maintained his standing at #7. In addition, some of these fertilizer companies produce materials for military needs, where demand has boomed. For example, Uralchem and EuroChem supply concentrated nitric acid and various nitrates to multiple defence enterprises that produce explosives, ammunition for missile systems, anti-tank missiles, aerial bombs, and artillery shells.

Another beneficiary of the disruption in European markets during the war is the energy industry. Despite Western sanctions, Russian oil and gas companies achieved bumper profits in 2022 and 2023. For example, Leonid Mikhelson (owner of Novatekand Sibur) moved to #1, while Gennady Timchenko (Novatek/Sibur/Stroytransgaz/Transoil) became #6 on the Forbes list. Other businesspeople in the energy industry showed even more impressive wealth growth: Andrey Bokarev (Ust-Luga Oil) jumped from #59 to #33 (+56% wealth increase), Mikhail Gutseriev (Safmar) from #60 to #34 (+48% wealth increase), and Nikolai Buinov (Irkutsk Oil) from #66 to #39 (+50% wealth increase). The TAIF Group’s merger with Sibur in 2022 provided access to advanced technologies and broader markets. As a result, its owners demonstrated strong wealth gains: Airat Shaimiev (#91 to #56, +71%), Rustem Sulteev (#109 to #61, +83%), Radik Shaimiev (#98 to #58, +69%), and Albert Shigabutdinov (#111 to #59, +83%).

Increased domestic demand

Spending behaviour during the war shifted towards local consumption due to travel restrictions, limited import options, and Russian banks being cut off from the SWIFT payment system. Sergey Schneider (#93, $1.4 billion) entered the Forbes 2024 list as his discount supermarket Svetofor proved successful amid declining real incomes. Sergey Studennikov of Red&White, jumped from #78 to #38 (+78%, $3.2 billion), capitalising on alcohol consumption in Russia which reached a nine-year high in 2023. Igor Kesaev and Sergey Katsiev, controlling 70% of Russia’s cigarette market through Megapolis, moved from up to #25 (+38%) and #65 (+18%), respectively. Electronics retail DNS Group founders Yuri Karptsov and Dmitry Alekseev rose to #99 and #101, respectively. The Fartushnyak brothers and their partner Alexander Mikhalsky entered the list (at #71, #82, and #100 respectively) through their retail empire including Sportmaster sports stores, clothing chains O’stin, Funday, and Zolla, as well as agriprocessing holding Prodimex Agro (the former Swedish Agrokultura).

Conclusions

The publicly available Forbes billionaire list provides a snapshot of how Russia’s superrich have adjusted their economic activity after the war in Ukraine started and Western democracies imposed individual and corporate sanctions to freeze their assets and ban international travel and business partnerships. The analysis on this limited set of businesspeople shows several ways in which they pivoted to enrich themselves from the war and how the war has provided opportunities for enrichment in some sectors of the economy that were previously dependent on Western investors, imports, or technology.

One open question is whether profiting from the war is a legitimate reason for the imposition of individual and corporate sanctions. This motivation seems to be absent from current sanctions policy.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/01 ... raine.html

******

Lavrov Elaborated On Russia’s Approach To The Global Systemic Transition

Andrew Korybko
Jan 06, 2025

Image

It envisages helping developing countries rebalance their relations with the West while avoiding the neocolonial pitfalls for the ‘green agenda’ that’s being weaponized as a ploy to entrap them.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov elaborated on his country’s approach to the global systemic transition in an interview with Rossiyskiaya Gazeta in late November, which followed him elaborating on its Afro-Eurasian grand strategy in a separate interview earlier that month that was analyzed here. His latest one concerned the need to rebalance the developing countries’ economic relations with the West and cautioned against them being misled by the ‘green agenda’.

Regarding the first, he reminded his interlocutor about how a lot of Western wealth is derived from lopsided deals with the Global South, which is being exploited through neocolonialism. For example, only 2.6% of the US’ $2.5 billion worth of aid to Haiti after its 2010 earthquake reached companies and organizations there while the rest went into the pockets of American contractors. Another damning statistic that he cited is how African countries only get 10% of the global coffee industry’s profits.

The IMF and WTO have been politicized by the West in order to keep developing countries at a disadvantage. Despite high-sounding rhetoric on occasion, the West has yet to meaningfully reform these institutions and won’t ever do so willingly. “Therefore, both we and our like-minded people from the countries of the World Majority believe that it is high time to bring the principles and management system of the Bretton Woods institutions into line with the real situation in the world economy”, he said.

Lavrov added that “the ‘seven’ (referring to the G7) account for less than a third of the world GDP, and the BRICS member states - 36 percent”, thus illustrating how unfair everything has become. It’s therefore strongly implied that BRICS, including its new partner countries, should collectively pool their capabilities and coordinate their efforts in order to bring about long-overdue institutional reforms. This imperative adds context to why Russia wanted to resume relations with the IMF in September as explained here.

As for the second part of Russia’s approach to the global systemic transition, Lavrov explained how the global trend towards green energy shouldn’t come at the expense of investments in traditional energy, which could lead to “shocks in energy markets and aggravation of the problem of energy poverty.” He also strongly implied that the prevailing view on climate change is inaccurate and therefore possibly being politicized. Here are his exact words:

“It is implied that CO2 emissions create a greenhouse effect, which in turn leads to global warming. It is concluded that if CO2 emissions are limited, there will be no increase in temperature or it will not happen as quickly. At the same time, we as professionals must take into account that not all scientists adhere to such assessments.

There is also a ‘school of thought’ whose representatives, using specific facts and very convincingly, show that climate change is a cyclical process, and, therefore, the significance of the anthropogenic factor in the calculations of supporters of the ‘fight against climate change’, to put it mildly, is greatly exaggerated.”

He didn’t directly say so, but the innuendo is that the West is weaponizing the ‘green agenda’, both as part of a ploy to “aggravate the problem of energy poverty” in the Global South via higher costs for traditional energy like he earlier warned and also as an instrument of control at home and abroad. Cynics might assume that Lavrov has ulterior motives in lending credence to these concerns since Russia is an energy superpower, which might be partially true, but he also wants to foil his Western rivals’ plots.

Circling back to the first part of his interview about the need for developing countries to rebalance their economic relations with the West, his attack against the ‘green agenda’ advances that goal by getting such countries to think twice about blindly comply with their neocolonizers’ demands on this issue. Those that prioritize green energy over traditional energy abandon more reliable energy sources, make themselves dependent on unreliable ones, and might thus be setting themselves up for disaster.

If unpredictable environmental changes cause problems with wind, solar, and hydroelectric power generation after developing countries become dependent on these sources, then the West can exploit the situation through emergency financial and other forms of relief with neocolonial strings attached. That would bring those developing countries back to square one by instantly reversing whatever prior progress they’d made on liberating themselves from the West.

It's therefore much better for them to only gradually transition to green energy by relying more on natural gas in the interim, which Russia also has in spades and Lavrov correctly described as “the cleanest of all hydrocarbons”, instead of radically shifting gears like the West wants. Moreover, it would also be wise to diversify their energy production through nuclear power generation, which Russia can also help them with as explained here. This portfolio would most effectively hedge against strategic risks.

Putting everything together, Russia’s approach to the global systemic transition as elaborated by Lavrov envisages developing countries collectively reforming existing financial institutions while avoiding the neocolonial trap that the West is setting for them through its ‘green energy agenda’. The first will deprive the West of the wealth that it extracts from the latter, thus speeding up their long-overdue rebalancing, while the second will prevent any serious reversal on the progress that they make in this respect.

Any reduction in the West’s overall influence and power brought about by the aforementioned rebalancing will work to Russia’s advantage by weakening its rivals. They’ll correspondingly find it more difficult to destabilize Russia, wage proxy wars against it, and obstruct its Afro-Eurasian grand strategy. What’s good for the Global South is therefore naturally good for Russia, thus making them equally important for one another, and wider awareness of this should serve to further expand their ties.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/lavrov-e ... s-approach

Well mister FM, there is a 'school of thought' that the Earth is flat too. And I think whenever we do some digging we find that said 'school of thought' always leads to parties wanting to sell mass quantities of oil and gas. There is no doubt that Western capital is manipulating the public relations to promote it's' solution' to what science overwhelmingly perceives. That the US is not serious about it's stated goals is clear from it's increased oil production. And those solutions aren't worth spit and assure civilizational collapse despite their minor ameliorating effect. Russia and other oil producers should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, the US is mad and greedy but anthropogenic climate change is undeniable and capitalist solutions unviable.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:04 pm

Russia: Caught between BRICS and a hard place

Declan Hayes

January 9, 2025

If NATO does not wish to negotiate in good faith with Russia, then Russia’s options are necessarily limited to more forthright methods of solving the Ukrainian question.

When Russian President Putin eventually gets around to sitting down for tea and muffins with former Syrian President Assad, he will have a lot on his mind. Starting with Syria, Putin will have to think through the consequences of the Russian navy and air force being booted out of northern Syria and, much like Hannibal in reverse, trying to fund refuge in Libya or, perhaps, even in Carthage itself.

Allied to that is the main EU trollops demanding that Russia “be made small again” are Zelensky barnacles from America’s puppet Baltic states. Putin, as he sips his tea and munches on his muffins, should give thought as to why Russia is being pitted against such contemptible nobodies as Baerbock, von der Leyen (nee Albrecht) and Kaja Kallas, Dracula’s Estonian Medusa. Why is it that Uncle Sam has so much contempt for Russia’s diplomats that all they send their way are Estonian blood suckers and bow-legged Germans, who are too thick to be Oktoberfest baristas? If all the world is a stage, that part of it looks like one of those earlier Hollywood Three Stooges comedies, with Kallas, Albrecht and Baerbock playing the roles of Larry, Curly and Moe? Or is it Chico, Harpo and Groucho?

Whatever game Uncle Sam is playing with their EU vaudeville acts, Russia must show it is playing hard ball and playing to win in Ukraine. Far be it from me to give the Russian High Command advice but they have blown Ukraine far too many kisses. Time to give the Yanks a taste of Raqqa, Fallujah and the other Iraqi and Syrian cities America criminally flattened. Bomb them back into the Stone Age, son.

Hyperbole aside, if NATO does not wish to negotiate in good faith with Russia, then Russia’s options are necessarily limited to more forthright methods of solving the Ukrainian question, as well as the related one of NATO’s terrorism within Russia and even as far afield as Africa.

Although Putin professes to believe in jaw jaw over war war, I cannot think of one instance where either NATO or any of its constituent parts acted in good faith. Russia’s problem is that it must show it has the necessary mettle to put an end to all this Ukrainian pussy footing, irrespective of what POTUS elect Trump may think, say or do. The Russian bear must show it has not only claws but a fearsome stockpile of weapons and trained soldiers to use them as well.

Although Russia’s MiG-35 and Su-57 are useful pieces of kit, the Russian High Command must wonder how it might fare against China’s sixth generation fighters and the countless other advanced toys China’s vast economy is developing. The Indian High Command is certainly pondering such things as they drink their Darjeeling, masticate on their French croissants, and listen to the Japanese, British and Italian serpents whispering in their ears that it is curtains if China can out-muscle them.

Not that India is in imminent danger. That can wait until Russia falls and when China, India and other emerging nations have fully cannibalised Russia’s arms exports markets. With Russia off the chessboard, then it will be the time of China and India to bleed, and to recognise the talk of intra BRICS solidarity for the hot air that it is when NATO’s push comes to NATO’s shove.

When we compare GDPs, GDPs/CAP or when we use some of the hard and soft power metrics China uses, we see that informed sources like the Central Bank of France and the CIA’s Orwellian named Institute of Peace (LOL) are right to dismiss the threat to American hegemony that wafflers say BRICS poses and that countries like India are right to stick to the dollar and the Indian High Command are to be commended for seeing all this.

Beyond treating Assad and his wonderful wife with the utmost respect that they deserve, Putin has little more to gain from that meeting of minds as his Russian admirals and generals will have already briefed him in full on the consequences for Russia of Syria’s fall. Because the task for Russia’s High Command is to ensure that Russia does not also disappear down the same rabbit hole that has already claimed Syria, their task is to put Russia totally in the driver’s’ seat in Ukraine by removing from that chessboard all those, like Zelensky and Kallas, who want war without end and without personal consequences.

If that means knocking out all Ukraine’s sources of energy and leveling Kiev’s diplomatic and political quarters, the Russian air force should get on with it, when they are not otherwise engaged assisting the Russian navy sinking every ship and rowing boat that flies a Ukrainian flag in the Black Sea. If German troops want to play in Ukraine, then let them come and ditto if the Romanian navy once again gets notions in the Black Sea. And, as for the Ukrainians spreading terrorism in Africa, that too must come with the heaviest personal costs for those CIA hirelings.

But none of that is my problem as much as it is the issue the Russian High Command has to immediately grapple with. As must Putin when he wishes Assad GodSpeed and visits Syria’s inestimable First Lady. And, though meeting the great Asma Assad is undoubtedly one of the perks of the Russian Presidency, that office comes with the weighty responsibility of making all of Russia’s soft and hard power enemies eat Ukrainian dirt. Once Putin does his duty with the Assads, then it is time for him to get the hard chaws of the Russian High Command do their duty of turning Ukraine into hell on earth.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... ard-place/

******

In January, the State Duma will get to video games
January 9, 9:48

Image

State Duma Speaker Volodin reported that in January the State Duma will pass a law aimed at protecting children from harmful content in video games.
State regulation in the gaming industry has long been expected, and now it is already creeping up. They will know with their Call of Duty...

New bills aimed against foreign agents on the territory of Russia will also be passed.
Apparently we will see the expected tightening of measures aimed at punishing foreign agents with the ruble.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9600318.html

Fragmentation of the Arctic
January 10, 11:52

Image

With the hypothetical annexation of Greenland and Canada, the US would almost equal Russia in terms of influence in the Arctic, while Norway would retain an insignificant role.
Denmark would completely disappear as an Arctic power. American LOMs are already working hard on the topic that it is time for Denmark to get out of Greenland and not interfere with its self-determination.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9602767.html

Google Translator

*****

The fleet is not allowed into Tartus: again on the issues of the Russian presence in Syria
January 9, 2025
Rybar

Here are the next questions about the presence of the Russian contingent in the “New Syria”: for several days now the cargo ship “Sparta” has been unable to enter the port of Tartus , where the 720th logistics point (720 PMTO) of the Russian Navy is located.

The Russian ship is currently standing in the outer roadstead of the Mediterranean Sea , awaiting further decisions. The official reason for the delay has not yet been named, and various versions are being considered, from internal logistical and technical problems to the refusal of the new authorities to grant permission to enter the port.

The second option is most likely. The country is now headed by functionaries of the terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and structures loyal to it. Naturally, relations with those who were bombed by the Russian Aerospace Forces only yesterday will be, to put it mildly , strained.

The essence does not change - we are facing a new reality. Those with whom first the Soviet and then the Russian authorities signed agreements, according to which our troops were stationed at the Khmeimim airbase and in Tartus , are no longer there. There were no agreements on this issue with either HTS or anyone else.

However, new realities have also arrived for the militants of the new Syrian government. Now it will no longer be possible to play the role of "irreconcilable mujahideen" as before, who under no circumstances will collude with the enemy . This is no longer a small Idlib that can be given under the wing of Turkey.

If yesterday's "moderate opposition" could boldly call Russia an occupier , today it is precisely the presence of Russian naval and air bases that will allow the political influence of friendly countries and internal competitors from among the most radical factions to be balanced.

And judging by the presence of the Russian embassy on the territory of the country, the absence of public diplomatic attacks against the Russian Federation and the statements of the leader of HTS himself about the existence of strategic interests between the two countries, Damascus understands this fact.

https://rybar.ru/flot-ne-puskayut-v-tar ... a-v-sirii/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sun Jan 12, 2025 3:53 pm

New U.S. sanctions on Russian oil exports: a crippling attack on the Kremlin’s war economy?

In its closing weeks before the Trump inauguration, the Biden administration is doing its very best to present its successor with a poisoned chalice, meaning to push relations with Russia to the point where it is politically impossible to pursue the path of peace that Trump has made his priority upon taking office.

At the latest meeting at Ramstein, Germany, Secretary of Defense Austin announced a further tranche of $500 million in armaments to Kiev. In the past few days there were further Ukrainian attacks on the interior regions of the Russian Federation using American precision missiles, repeatedly crossing what the Russians have declared to be a red line that triggers escalation. And now on Friday Washington issued new sanctions on the Russian energy sector which, from all appearances could have a devastating impact on Russia’s export earnings.

The latest sanctions have received extensive coverage in major Western media. A Financial Times article yesterday details the various points of attack in the sanctions. These include measures against the Russian oil producers Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas and measures against the 183 oil tankers in what is called the ‘shadow fleet’ Russia created over the past 18 months to evade Washington’s restrictions on its traditional shippers of crude oil and insurers. Other new sanctions will be applied to petroleum traders. And new measures also seek to cut Russia’s production capacity by sanctions on Russia-based oilfield service providers.

The new sanctions package has been jointly developed and will be jointly applied with the U.K., whose foreign secretary David Lammy explained the intent: ‘Taking on Russian oil companies will drain Russia’s war chest – and every rouble we take from Putin’s hands helps save Ukrainian lives.’

As to why the sanctions on Russia’s energy sector are being tightened drastically now, the FT has an answer for us: ‘because oil markets are expected to be oversupplied in 2025.’ That is to say, removal of Russian oil from the global market could not be pursued earlier because it would have driven up prices at the pump in the USA to politically unacceptable levels given the presidential and Congressional elections anticipated in 2024. But now that the elections are past, now that the Democrats have lost both the presidency and Congress, and now that new sources of crude oil have come onto the market, the attitude is ‘bombs away’ and let Mr. Trump deal with the fall-out.

As the FT tells us slyly: ‘…The last-minute move creates a challenge for President-elect Trump, who campaigned on ending the war between Russian and Ukraine quickly and has expressed scepticism of imposing additional sanctions…’ They remind us that Biden’s sanctions are now embodied in law and that it would require an act of Congress to undo them, which is unlikely even under circumstances of Republican control of both houses.

The FT believes that the new measures may cost the Russian government billions of dollars per month, putting in jeopardy its continued financing of the war in Ukraine.

****

So far, so good. The FT has set out as a stenographer would what are the basic elements of the new sanctions package and what are the expectations of the Biden administration and of its friends in London. What is missing is journalistic questioning of how, why the logic of Washington might be faulty and the results might differ considerably from the expectations, as has been the case with all of the myriad sanctions imposed on Russia from the start of the Special Military Operation. Let us give that a try now.

But first, let’s look at how Moscow reacted to the new package of sanctions. Friday evening’s edition of Sixty Minutes, a featured news and analysis program of Rossiya 1 freshly back on air after the nearly two week-long winter break, spent some time discussing the sanctions. The mood was one of consternation but not alarm. The feeling was that Russia had one way or another overcome the thousands of sanctions already imposed and would somehow work around the new ones.

Indeed, that may be the case, but there are other considerations which may be more relevant to the case at hand.

First, although the new sanctions would be difficult, even impossible for Trump to repeal by legislative action, there is nothing to prevent his simply not enforcing them. That would be all the easier given that the United States would have to proactively threaten and punish many actors based in third countries for the sanctions to bite, so that a wink and a nod to them would suffice to negate the effect of sanctions.

Second, this all-out attack on Russia’s oil production and export simply comes too late. In war, as in all other human endeavors, timing is critical. We are told that such severe sanctions were not applied earlier because until 2025 the global petroleum markets were tight and withdrawing Russian supplies would have led at once to high spikes in energy costs that would be felt in all consumer countries, starting with the United States itself. However, to think such sanctions will be useful in forcing Russia to bend the knee and accept American terms to end the war is to ignore the realities of the present situation on the battlefield.

Washington is gaming on the war in Ukraine extending into 2027 and beyond. This timeline was used in the past week’s gathering of Ukraine supporters in Ramstein, Germany as they discussed continuing military and financial aid to Kiev through that year. However, the game is going to be up in 2025 and perhaps fairly early in this year if the ongoing Russian offensive all across the 1200 km line of confrontation achieves its mission of crushing the Ukrainian forces and achieving capitulation. With or without the new deliveries of arms and munitions from the West, Ukraine lacks the men to continue the war for long at its present level of intensity. Kiev admits to 500,000 men not showing up after receiving their draft notices and to a further 100,000 deserters from the armed forces. The reduction of the draft age to 18 for purposes of general mobilization is unlikely to ameliorate the situation given the universal resistance to what is perceived as ‘robbing the cradle.’

Ignorance of the relative positions of the warring parties on the battlefield is precisely the problem that the American administration has made for itself by relying for its tactical and strategic plans on the corrupted information sources of the CIA. The Agency is simply passing along to the Oval Office the propaganda it wants to hear coming from Kiev. My good colleague and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and his colleague Larry Johnson who has years of both CIA and State Department service behind him, have both been saying publicly that the CIA under the direction of William Burns is daily lying through its teeth about this war.

On the other hand, let us assume for a moment that the new sanctions should have a sudden and extreme impact on Russia’s petroleum exports, depriving the Kremlin of needed funds to continue the war. What then?

Yes, in such circumstances, Moscow might pull in its horns and enter negotiations for a ceasefire and possibly for a peace while compromising on some of its objectives. However, it is also possible that the reaction in the Kremlin would be the direct opposite of what the Biden administration expects, namely to escalate the war, sharply and immediately, putting us all at risk of a nuclear exchange.

For strange reasons, the masters of the universe in Washington are ignoring the message of the recently commemorated 7 December Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese demonstrated that at a certain point, when the pain of economic warfare becomes unbearable, the response is to unleash kinetic war, the more devastating, the better. Have Messrs. Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken and Joe Biden given that any thought? I doubt that in their collective hubris they have given any thought to such a scenario.

But let us not be overly gloomy. Mr. Putin never overreacts. It is more likely that the effect of the newest sanctions will prompt President Putin to merely accelerate his schedule for complete victory on the ground in Ukraine. That may mean more deaths and injuries for Russian troops than he wishes, but it would be a price worth paying at this late date.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/01/12/ ... r-economy/

******

Why’s The Russian-Taliban Bounty Scandal From Summer 2020 Suddenly Back In The News?
Andrew Korybko
Jan 11, 2025

Image

The Insider, which is designated as a foreign agent in Russia, wants to complicate Trump’s peace talks with Russia, improve US ties with Pakistan at the expense of ties with India, and pry Tajikistan away from the CSTO.

The Insider brought summer 2020’s Russian-Taliban bounty scandal back to the news after publishing their latest report on this subject last week. They’re designated as a foreign agent by Russia, and two of their article’s three co-authors – Christo Grozev and Roman Dobrokhotov – are wanted by the Interior Ministry. Grozev also used to lead Bellingcat’s Russia investigations, who are also designated as foreign agents and which Russia’s foreign spy chief accused of being in cahoots with Western intelligence.

The aforesaid details are being shared so that readers know better than to take their words at face value. The Insider’s report is full of bombshells about the Russian-Taliban bounty scandal, and regardless of whether or not one believes what they wrote, they’re bound to have a narrative impact. That’s because they claim that Russia did indeed pay the Taliban for each American that they killed, there’s allegedly a connection to regional actors too, and all of this is coming out right before Trump’s reinauguration.

In the order that they were mentioned, The Insider purports to have mapped GRU’s Afghan assassination network, which they present as lending credence to these accusations. Readers can review their report to learn more about what they supposedly discovered, but it boils down to spies using diplomatic and business cover to pass along orders and payments to the Taliban. The impression is that Russia is guilty as charged, which could justify the Biden Administration designating it as a state sponsor of terrorism.

As for the regional actors that are allegedly involved, the primary one is Iran, which The Insider claims arranged the first Russian-Taliban contacts. They also reported that Russia funneled arms to the Taliban from its base in Tajikistan and is plotting to help them against Dushanbe. There’s also a vague connection between GRU’s assassins and India. The first claim could lead to more US pressure on Iran, the second could sow discord between these allies, while the third could derail the likely Indo-US rapprochement.

And finally, the timing of all this is clearly meant to complicate Trump’s efforts to negotiate an end to the Ukrainian Conflict with Russia. Even if the Biden Administration doesn’t designate it as a state sponsor of terrorism in order to maximally impede his diplomacy, the media attention that might be given to The Insider’s report could lead to more manufactured pressure on him to reconsider his plans to meet with Putin. There could also be important implications for Trump’s foreign policy towards the broader region.

Prior to this development, Trump was largely indifferent towards the Taliban, his envoy for special missions Richard Grenell seemed ready to leverage newly worsening US ties with Pakistan to secure Imran Khan’s release as part of a grand deal, while a US-Indo rapprochement seemed inevitable. All of that might change if his administration believes the previously mentioned allegations and thus decides to improve US-Pakistani ties at the Taliban’s and India’s expense in the ways that’ll now be described.

Pakistan and the Taliban are once again on the brink of war after their tit-for-tat cross-border attacks stemming from Islamabad’s accusations that the group hosts terrorist-designated TTP militants and Kabul’s refusal to recognize the Durand Line between their nations. If Trump is manipulated into wanting revenge for the alleged bounty plot, then he might drop Khan’s cause and ignore Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile program in order to use that country as a proxy against the Taliban.

Nearby Tajikistan despises the neighboring Taliban for ideological reasons (it’s strictly secular while they’re Islamic fundamentalists) and due to its persecution of ethnic Tajiks in the north, whose numbers are larger than those in Tajikistan proper, which places them on the same side as Pakistan in Afghanistan. Tajik-Pakistani ties have also strengthened in recent years, especially the past one after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visited Dushanbe in July and then sent his spy chief there right before the New Year.

Tajikistan might more therefore actively diversify from its military-strategic dependence on Russia in light of the latest reports that GRU armed their Taliban enemies from Russia’s base in the country and is now plotting to help the group against Dushanbe, to which end it could redouble such ties with Pakistan. This could serve to create a rift between these allies that the US could then exploit for divide-and-rule purposes for prying Tajikistan away from the CSTO just like it practically already pried away Armenia.

That Russian-led bloc prohibits foreign military bases on members’ soil without prior consensus, yet the workaround as pioneered by the Armenian precedent is to host foreign troops disguised as “observers” or indefinitely suspend membership in the CSTO. This could unfold in the Tajik context if Trump patches up the US’ problems with Pakistan in pursuit of shared anti-Taliban interests, works with it and Dushanbe to arm that group’s foes, and then requests an in-country military presence to facilitate this.

Already troubled Indo-US relations would further worsen in parallel with improved Pakistani-US ones, but this would have the consequence of precluding India’s informal role in any forthcoming US-led regional pressure campaign against China as part of Trump’s expected “Pivot (back) to Asia”. He might therefore be reminded by the Indophilic members of his administration of that country’s importance to the US’ grand strategic, which could get him to reconsider the abovementioned anti-Taliban scenario.

Regardless of whatever happens, there shouldn’t be any doubt that the timing of The Insider’s latest report about the Russian-Taliban bounty scandal and the details thereof are meant to influence Trump’s foreign policy, though it can only be speculated whether they’ll succeed in whole or in part. Upon analyzing their intentions, it appears that they want to complicate Trump’s peace talks with Russia, improve US ties with Pakistan at the expense of ties with India, and pry Tajikistan away from the CSTO.

The most effective way to counter this is for Trump to stay the course with his noble peace efforts; for India to remind the US that documented Pakistani support for the Taliban was much more meaningful in all respects by far than whatever Russia allegedly gave the group in terms of arms and finances; and for Russia to proactively reassure Tajikistan that it’ll never sacrifice its interests to the Taliban and offering more aid to it too in order to preemptively avert the possibility of the US “outbidding” it in the future.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/whys-the ... ty-scandal

Peace talks? What peace talks? I think Trump is going to need some time to digest the fact that he has little to bargain with and that threats won't work.

Azerbaijan Signaled That It Might Be Preparing Its Own Special Operation Against Armenia
Andrew Korybko
Jan 12, 2025

Image

Azerbaijan demands that Armenia demilitarize, denazify, no longer contain it on behalf of foreign (Western) powers, stop obstructing regional trade routes, and allow ethnically cleansed Azeris to return.

Azerbaijani President Ilhan Aliyev gave a nearly three-hour-long interview to several local TV channels last week, during which time he signaled that his country might be preparing its own special operation against Armenia along the lines of Russia’s ongoing one in Ukraine. He of course didn’t use that term, but describing Armenia as a fascist state whose foreign-backed military buildup poses a threat to regional security very closely resembles Putin’s words about Ukraine ahead of large-scale hostilities.

Aliyev began that part of his interview by defending Azerbaijan’s increased military budget as a response to the arms race that Armenia initiated. This is being partially fueled by the “European Peace Facility”, whose military loans are written off after a certain period, he said. Armenia is therefore basically receiving arms from the bloc for free. To make matters even more alarming, an Armenian-EU-US cooperation platform was launched last April, which Aliyev claimed has a de facto military component.

He then declared that “The independent Armenian state is actually a fascist state because this country has been led by proponents of fascist ideology for nearly 30 years.” As evidence of this, he cited its ethnic cleansing of Azeris from Armenia and Karabakh, which the first Armenian President bragged about in a newly unearthed video that was dubbed into Russian here while an excerpt was dubbed into English here. He added that Armenia is also “Islamophobic, Azerbaijanophobic, racist, (and) xenophobic”.

Aliyev upped the ante right after by thundering that “We are neighbors with such a fascist state, and the threat of fascism is not going away. Therefore, fascism must be destroyed. Either the Armenian leadership will destroy it or we will. We have no other choice.” The Azerbaijani leader suggested that “France and other countries that provide it with weapons must terminate and cancel these contracts. The weapons that have already been sent to Armenia must be returned. This is our condition.”

He hopes that his words will be heeded now that “The Soros era has ended in America” with Trump’s return. Aliyev said that “The Biden administration was, in fact, governed by the Soros method of governance. It is no coincidence that one of Biden's last decisions was to present Soros with America's highest award.” He also claimed later on in the interview that “the Soros government” was in power “during the eight years before Trump” in a clear allusion to Obama.

Other Armenian allies who’ve been “shamefully removed from the political scene” as Aliyev phrased it are Assad and Trudeau, while Macron is still hanging on by a thread, and this overall trend might lead to an Azerbaijani-Armenian peace treaty. For that to happen, the Minsk Group would have to be abolished, and Armenia has to amend its constitution due to a clause therein implying territorial claims to Azerbaijan. Aliyev said that Azerbaijan doesn’t need a peace treaty if these conditions aren’t met.

He also demanded that Armenia stops acting as a “geographical barrier between Turkiye and Azerbaijan”, to which end “The Zangezur corridor must and will be opened. The sooner they understand this, the better it is. Why should we have to go to Nakhchivan, an integral part of Azerbaijan, through different ways? We should have a direct connection, and this connection does not question Armenia's sovereignty.” Aliyev implied that Armenia’s obstructionism is part of an imperialist divide-and-rule policy.

The West, specifically France whose “full control over Armenia is also a reality”, is behind this. His earlier words about how “we believe that the Organization of Turkic States can become a serious power center on a global scale” in the “new world order” that’s emerging suggests that Armenia is being exploited as their geopolitical tool for preventing that group from reaching its full strategic potential. This is similar to what Putin claimed three years ago about how the West was exploiting Ukraine to contain Russia.

Aliyev reminded his interviewers that “I once said that they should not upset us and understand that we are the ones who have the say here and that Azerbaijan is the leading economy, the leading military power and the leading state in the South Caucasus. In today's world, the power factor is at the forefront and no one should forget this.” This too resembles Russian rhetoric in the sense of conveying what could soon come to pass if Azerbaijan’s national security and strategic interests aren’t respected.

The final demand that he made was for Armenia to accept the return of the 300,000 Azeris who were ethnically cleansed from Armenia, which he referred to as Western Azerbaijan since “All the toponyms there are of Azerbaijani origin” in Imperial-era maps. The total is “several times greater” when their descendants are included, but “Returning to those areas would not pose a significant problem” since “the majority of the villages where Azerbaijanis lived are now completely empty”, especially in Zangezur.

Although different in substance, Aliyev’s interest in the rights of ethnic Azeris in Armenia make observers recall Putin’s interest in the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, thus representing another commonality between them which hints at Azerbaijan possibly preparing its own special operation. To summarize, Azerbaijan demands that Armenia demilitarize, denazify, no longer contain it on behalf of foreign (Western) powers, stop obstructing regional trade routes, and allow ethnically cleansed Azeris to return.

With Trump about to return in less than two weeks’ time, who Aliyev praised in his latest interview and made sure that his audience didn’t forget that he also did so over the summer before the debate with Biden when it wasn’t popular, it’s possible that America might finally restore its balanced regional policy. Aliyev mentioned that Biden sacrificed relations with Azerbaijan for relations with Armenia and implemented double standards against it vis-à-vis Ukraine as regards the principle of territorial integrity.

If the returning American leader corrects his predecessor’s mistakes, which were made due to Soros’ influence over the Biden Administration as can be intuited by what Aliyev shared in his latest interview, then Armenia might be pressured into complying with Azerbaijan’s demands. That would avert another regional war that Armenia is doomed to lose no matter how much some of its policymakers and citizens have convinced themselves otherwise due to Western political backing in recent years.

The West will not go to war against Azerbaijan, which could turn into a war with its Turkish ally that could tear NATO apart in an instant if it happens, over Armenia. If Trump signals a policy reversal towards the region, then the rest of the West will follow suit, possibly even France too with time. Even if it doesn’t, French arms won’t lead to Armenia defeating Azerbaijan and Turkiye, so the writing is on the wall and it’s therefore better for Armenia to do what Aliyev demands or risk total destruction.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/azerbaij ... t-it-might

*******

Glenn Diesen: Russia’s Pursuit of Technological Sovereignty
January 10, 2025
By Glenn Diesen, Substack, 12/13/24

The global economy, including capitalism itself, is currently being transformed by a new industrial revolution, as the digital and technological world start to merge with the physical one. Russia’s ability to remain a great power and even to survive as a state will depend on the extent to which it can develop technological sovereignty in the new age.

Technological sovereignty refers to the ability of a nation to have control over its own technological infrastructure. As digital giants increasingly transform and take over crucial parts of the economy, a state must have a solid national digital ecosystem to enjoy industrial and political sovereignty. The objective of technological sovereignty is to enhance the competitiveness of the production process, to elevate the standard of living for citizens, and to reduce dependency on foreign powers to the extent it diminishes political sovereignty.

Russia’s strength is its maturing national digital ecosystem, although its weakness is the apparent absence of a clear technological and economic strategy as it moves forward. Because of this, Russia is unlikely to take a leading innovating role in the world, although a follower strategy would be ideal.

Russia switched from a Marxist economy to a neoliberal economic model in the 1990s and has since pursued course correction towards a not clearly defined strategy policy of technological sovereignty. While Russia has made great progress in advancing technological sovereignty, one often gets the impression that Russia’s economic model is ad hoc and largely reactive in response to Western economic coercion. What appears to be missing is a wider debate and clearly formulated strategies about Russia’s technological sovereignty as the most important component of its economic and political future.

This article argues that since the Industrial Revolution and the birth of capitalism, there have been concerns over the concentration of economic power domestically, as well as concerns over excessive dependency on foreign actors. The ability of a state to resolve these issues depends on the strength of its technological sovereignty.

The Domestic Economy: The Distribution of Wealth and Competitiveness

With each new technology that increases productivity, the subsequent increased income will be concentrated in the hands of the capital owners. If left unresolved, this may eventually lead to economic hardship, societal fragmentation and political instability. This challenge posed by technological innovations were also acknowledged by liberal economists, such as David Ricardo:

“My mistake arose from the supposition, that whenever the net income of a society increased, its gross income would also increase; I now, however, see reason to be satisfied that the one fund, from which landlords and capitalists derive their revenue, may increase, while the other, that upon which the labouring class mainly depend, may diminish”.[1]

This trend is exacerbated by rent-seeking, in which actors who hold existing resources or favourable market conditions can extract wealth without adding reciprocal value to production. In the age of economic neoliberalism, it is worth remembering that liberal economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill all recognised the need to limit the power of the rentier class in order for capitalism to function.

An ideal and stable capitalist system would aim to reduce the concentration of wealth, improve the standard of living for people, and increase economic competitiveness by taxing rent-seekers and use the funds to develop infrastructure. During the rise of America’s version of industrial capitalism in the 19th century, government-funded infrastructure and education development improved the standard of living for many and made industries more competitive in international markets, which ideally could have been funded by taxing the rentier class.

Landlords, banks, and monopolies are the most common examples of rent-seekers, which lay the foundation for an oligarchic class that diminishes economic competitiveness by extracting wealth from the production process. Digital giants can fall within all three categories as digital platforms provide the “land” for digital services, they increasingly become providers of banking and financial services, and digital giants have a proclivity for monopolies.

Digital giants naturally form monopolies due to limited ability for diversification and the convenience of having one platform as a shared marketplace. Capital-intensive monopolies emerge due to high fixed costs and low variable costs of establishing and expanding digital platforms, which resembles the economic thinking that led to the creation of 19th-century railway monopolies. The high fixed cost includes the high processing power and access to an abundance of data, while the variable cost of operating in the digital realm is minimal. Subsequently, digital monopolies emerge due to the high entry barrier for competitors and the incentivise for predatory pricing by the dominant company.

Digital giants represent the key infrastructure that can either function as a public utility to increase the standard of living and increase competitiveness, or as rent-seeking monopolies that undermine capitalism. Amazon as a digital platform made over $50 billion in sales in the EU in 2022 and paid zero tax, just like it had the year before. Similarly, Uber is a platform that connects providers (drivers) and consumers (passengers), which results in a large profit for the company that derives from the platform. Furthermore, the data that acts as the lifeblood for the development of AI, is also extracted and sent across the Atlantic.

Digital giants have become the largest companies in the world, with an immense concentration of wealth as there is no need for a large workforce. Furthermore, programming jobs are often outsourced to a global pool of freelancers or replaced with temporary and contract jobs. The “gig economy” is ushering in an era of neo-feudalism in which today’s labourers become the new serfs. As new technology intensifies the concentration of wealth, some national control over the tech giants is becoming much needed. All the largest digital platforms in Europe are American, which is why Europe’s economic future and ambitions for political autonomy will deteriorate over the next few years.

Tech giants will adopt even greater monopolistic tendencies and subsequent rent-seeking abilities due to their economic scope; leadership in one industry provide a competitive advantage in seemingly unrelated industries. Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage is turned on its head as it becomes a competitive advantage to do everything in today’s day and age. Digital giants are more capable of using shared technological infrastructure, common development and design processes, complementary data analytics, and overall synergy effects. A new economy is emerging in which digital companies begin to absorb entire industries. Case in point, in both China and Russia: domestic digital companies have launched self-driving cars, taken over large parts of the taxi industry, food delivery and even launched their own payment systems.

In the Fourth Industrial Revolution, digital giants are becoming even more powerful rent-seekers. The Fourth Industrial Revolution can largely be defined by the digital world manipulating the physical world with self-driving cars, automation, robotics, the Internet of Things, Virtual Reality, additive manufacturing, drones, smart cities, smart infrastructure, blockchain, digital farming, biotechnology and digital health solutions. With artificial intelligence, every aspect of the economy and society will be revolutionised, and the failure to establish a domestic digital ecosystem will result in technological colonisation by foreign powers.

The International Economy: Technological Sovereignty and Political Independence

Industrial capitalism of the 19th century linked industrialisation to nation-building as excessive dependence on foreign technology and manufactured goods undermined political sovereignty. Economic interdependence is required to increase economic efficiency and prosperity, yet the political consequence of interdependence is some loss of autonomy and some gain of political influence. States subsequently seek to manipulate the symmetry of interdependence by reducing one’s own dependence on others and increasing the reliance of others on one’s own economy.

Geoeconomics is largely about manipulating the symmetry of economic interdependence as it enables a state to increase both its autonomy and influence. Advanced technology is at the core of strategic industries, given the reduced ability to diversify, which implies higher revenue and dependence. Friedrich List aptly argued that the logic of economic liberalism for market efficiency must be balanced by the political realism of the world being divided into sovereign states: “As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, the political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles”.[2]

Britain’s hegemonic strategy of the 19th century was, to a larger extent, dependent on a monopolistic position in manufacturing, which produced high revenues and political influence. Barriers to entry, intellectual property rights protection, and anti-competitive practices can be considered rent-seeking activities in which the technological hegemon’s activities result in income. Furthermore, technological hegemony creates asymmetrical interdependence in which access to vital technology can be converted into political influence.

Britain repealed its Corn Laws in 1846, as free trade was instrumental in cementing technological and industrial leadership. Under free trade, Britain’s mature industries (high quality, low cost) could outcompete the infant industries (low quality, high cost) of other countries. Free trade was thus seen as a policy to saturate foreign markets with its manufactured goods and thus obstruct their industrialisation. As argued in the British parliament, with free trade “foreign nations would become valuable Colonies to us, without imposing on us the responsibility of governing them”.[3] David Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage similarly envisioned that the technological competency of manufacturing would be concentrated in Britain, while the rest of the world could compete for the export of agricultural produce: “It is this principle [comparative advantage] which determines that wine shall be made in France and Portugal, that corn shall be grown in America and Poland, and that hardware and other goods shall be manufactured in England”.[4]

Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufacturers laid the foundation for the American System in which the government used protectionist means to industrialise as excessive dependence on Britain would undermine America’s political independence. The lessons learned from the American system were also found in Germany, largely through the work of Friedrich List, who warned against becoming Britain’s technological colony by failing to industrialise: “The mother nation supplies the colonies with manufactured goods and obtains in return their surplus produce of agricultural products and raw materials.[5]

Following the destruction of China in the Opium Wars, Japan also realized that technological sovereignty and industrialisation were required conditions for political independence. Erasmus Peshine Smith, a second-generation economic nationalist supporting the American system, served as an advisor to the Japanese Emperor in the 1870s following the Meiji restoration to assist with the development of a Japanese version of the American system to preserve Japan’s sovereignty.[6]

Russia learned a similar lesson after its defeat in the Crimean War in 1856, largely due to its lack of industrialisation. The subsequent Great Reforms starting in the 1860s eventually led to the industrial policies of Sergey Witte in the 1890s that were inspired by Friedrich List. The lessons of the past were seemingly forgotten as Russia succumbed to neoliberal economic practices in the 1990s. Under Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage, Russia de-industrialised by exporting its natural resources and importing industrial goods. Making matters worse, the revenue fuelled a rent-seeking oligarchic class that reflected growing corruption within the country, which could be cultivated by foreign powers.

Russia gradually began to rediscover economic statecraft and reverse the energy curse by instead using its revenue from energy to temporarily subsidize infant industries until they became competitive in international markets. However, many of these policies were a response to economic sanctions and its increasingly problematic relationship with the West.

A Russian Strategy of Technological Preparedness

Russia should not embrace a policy of economic and technological autarchy that would render its industries uncompetitive, yet it should also avoid excessive dependence on foreign technologies. The overarching goal must be to balance technological sovereignty with economic liberalism.

Russia’s leading digital platforms are already Russian, and the objective should be to pursue technological preparedness. While Russia can pursue innovative leadership in certain areas, Russia should pursue a follower strategy of “technological preparedness” in other areas. Technological preparedness entails the capability to replicate and adapt foreign innovations rapidly into its domestic digital ecosystem and control its own data. Imitation is essential because it is unnecessary for every company and country to reinvent the wheel. Technological preparedness requires the technological know-how, domestic technological ecosystems, skilled workforce, and government support required to rapidly adopt new technologies and implement spin-offs.

A follower strategy has certain advantages as more resources can be devoted to implementation. A technological hegemon will seek to slow down technological diffusion and extend the first-mover advantage, while technological followers will seek to encourage faster technology proliferation. The emergence of a multipolar international system subsequently improves Russia’s position.

The guiding objective should be to develop a domestic digital ecosystem in which Russia controls a majority share of the dominant platforms. China is evidently the most important partner for Russia, although technological partnerships with other rising powers such as India would enable Russia to diversify and thus avoid excessive dependence on a more powerful actor. Case in point, Russian digital giants such as Yandex developed a partnership with foreign partners such as Uber in the self-driving car and taxi industry, which even enabled Yandex to eventually buy out Uber’s share.

Throughout history, states have sought to establish a certain degree of national control over strategic industries such as shipping, energy and agriculture due to national security. National control over digital giants is evidently an issue of national security as they transform all areas of the economy and society, concentrate wealth, and create dependencies at an unprecedented level. China is building its superpower status based on technological sovereignty, while Europe discusses digital industrial policies and nationalising AI due to its disruptive impact. The prevailing argument in Washington is that what is good for Silicon Valley must be good for America. Russia should formulate a similar policy to strengthen technological sovereignty.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/01/gle ... vereignty/

******

250 years ago Yemelyan Pugachev was executed
January 10, 19:00

Image

About the 1937 film "Emelyan Pugaechev".

The 1937 film is now completely forgotten. You won't even find any reviews, and the canvas is extremely large-scale. And it is played with the scope of a genuine national turmoil.

A whole series of extremely surprising discoveries await in the film. It turns out that back in the late thirties, historians saw the Pugachev rebellion very differently than they do now. In the very first frames, we are told things that we somehow don't think about at school. For example, that Peter the Third is the real grandson of Peter the Great, the legitimate tsar.

This tsar was overthrown by a real top-down coup. And then they put him to sleep, shyly making a reservation about the sovereign's supposedly sick intestines. All this was done by a pure German, Sophia Augusta Frederica. Who later, for some reason, called herself Catherine the Great.

Today, it is customary to praise Catherine. Well, of course, the great empress, foreign policy, fought constantly. But in the film she is a vile murderer, an extremely disgusting character even in detail. How badly she speaks Russian! And most importantly, she has completely tortured the people with levies and conscription for new conquests.

The plot of the film has been known since Pushkin's time. What new can you come up with here, the people have risen up against an unbearable burden. Here is a simple peasant Emelka, who escaped from the stocks, declares himself the murdered tsar. And a popular revolt poured out from edge to edge. Until the regular regiments routed him, and dragged the self-proclaimed tsar on the wheel.

But even this is not quite so in the film. Pugachev is shown as a genuine folk hero and he did not want to be called a tsar. The cunning Yaik atamans insisted. They have their own reasons, and they imposed a wife from their Cossacks. The new tsar must be a Cossack. The vile Cossack women are shown there from the very first word.

How brilliantly Pugachev argues with the Cossacks:

"Yes, we will gain freedom without the royal throne, why fool the peasants?"

But the Cossacks stand their ground, what has been decided, we will not change the decision. And as for Yemelyan's wife Sophia and small children, well, "that does not concern Tsar Peter Fyodorovich." Marry a Cossack woman and that's it!

Yemelyan gives in, concedes. It seemed that it would be easier to win freedom for the people. It will be hard without the Cossack troops. Sighing, he hangs the royal regalia on himself - it seems to be light, but it is hard to put on.

In general, Yemelyan is played so powerfully in the film that it is impossible to convey. He is played by the actor Konstantin Skorobogatov, and how he plays! An actor of a great theater school, and the roles are to match.

In the theater, he has long been an honored Lenin and Suvorov of the Soviet Union. So his Pugachev also has a bit of a Leninist squint. A few years later, he will give absolutely wonderful roles in the cinema as our front-line surgeon Pirogov and polar admiral Makarov. A mighty actor.

Another feature of the film, completely lost in the following films about Pugachev, is the amazing speech. The actors are absolutely organic in the old speech, how deliciously and juicy the lines are written, even the simplest words:

"Break your back on corvee for five days, or even every day... the earth groans all around... people are leveled with cattle, at the slightest provocation they are whipped and sent to hard labor!"

In prison, Pugachev, shackled in stocks, is a natural orator at a rally. He makes fun of the frightened serfs who are about to be flogged to death or sold into the barren steppes.

"The master is alone in the arable land, and there are a hundred of us, a club in each, and you - run!"

The prisoner, simple serfs who have sinned against their masters, are shown terribly. Either in stocks or in iron collars with pieces of iron sticking out to their noses.

And how disgusting are the noblemen chatting in French. Their entire program has not changed for centuries:

"Individuals rebel, and the rest of the people are humble cattle."

But Pugachev does not bend, he even jokes in front of the prince:

"May God reward you for your generosity... and we will reward you a hundredfold! "
- What? What did he say?!
- May God reward you, I say, - I say a prayer for you.

The film shows the church in an interesting way, today they would not allow such a thing to be shown on screen. When Pugachev is declared a rebel, his native Zimoveiskaya village is burned. The priest loudly pronounces curses on both the house and the family with the children. The family is driven out into the cold.

And in the last scene, before Pugachev's head is cut off, the main thing is read out. Not only did the rebel break the tsar's law. He broke God's word, for it is said in the Scripture:

"Slaves, obey your masters in all fear."

Where has Stalin's primer gone these days? No, not "mama washed the frame." Completely different words - "We are not slaves, we are not slaves!"

The film has many wonderful details, for example, a great little scene where a reader lists the victories of the "rebel" in the square. With each captured fortress, the joy in his voice grows. The official snatches the scroll from him - how dare you read like that?!

A very powerful scene when Pugachev enters the fortress and makes a powerful speech under the guns of soldiers. He grants land, cancels recruitment, promises punishment for villains and pins the tails of the nobles. And suddenly the whole people rise up for Yemelyan!

A very powerful role of the scoundrel Prince Volotsky. He will negotiate with everyone, he is dodgy, a dog. He will immediately recognize "Sovereign Peter" as soon as his neck is in the noose. And he will sell out immediately, as soon as the opportunity arises.

The vile prince is played by Yakov Malyutin. An interesting juxtaposition. If Pugachev is played by Lenin, then Malyutin has played Tsar Alexander III twice in films before.

Things also turned out awkwardly with the Bashkir national hero Salavat Yulaev. In the film, he is shown, to put it mildly, ambiguously. We are shown the head of a Bashkir rebel detachment, which burns Russian factories in the Urals, chops down Russians left and right.

And then his face changes and he swears eternal friendship to Pugachev. As soon as he hears that Yemelyan's pistol is pointed at his stomach and loaded with good buckshot.

Moreover, in the film, Yulaev fights not with factory owners, not with landowners, he kills Russians. He shouts out quite clearly who needs to be beaten. Wow, what a national hero!

Pugachev almost grabs Salavat by the lapels. Which Russian Bashkir slaughtered? Maybe me? Maybe Filimon? Or maybe the tsarist factory owner slaughtered him? Well, he slaughtered the factory owner on a strong stump. And the Russian people and the Bashkirs have nothing to divide between themselves. Why burn factories? Who will cast our cannons?

The answer is simple, in 1937, our beloved image of Yulaev, a fighter for people's freedom, simply had not yet taken shape! I once read the memoirs of an employee of the Institute of History at the Academy of Sciences, Chemeris. He recalled how they were preparing for the bicentennial of Salavat Yulaev in 1952. Serious scientific debates unfolded.

Scientists pointed out that almost nothing is known about Salavat. The Bashkirs did not have much of a written language. It is not even known in which village he was born. But there are serious indications that he was a normal feudal lord, the leader of a sizeable detachment, who oppressed local peasants in the same way.

And Yulaev did not do well with Pugachev either. He fled from the rebels when things got hot. No one knows for sure, but it is very likely, because Pugachev was executed. But Yulaev was not. Although he was tried, he only went into exile. The question was raised whether there was a hurry to celebrate his anniversary.

Surprisingly, Yulaev began to become a genuine national hero only after the rather talented book by Stepan Zlobin and his 1941 film. This is the Yulaev they loved - a desperate and fearless fighter for people's freedom and happiness.

By the way, in the film, the Bashkirs also abandoned Yulaev Pugachev. Like the local peasants - we have finished off our landlords, and then it is none of our business. The ravines are not mown, we will go and divide the lord's land.

The Cossacks do not want to go to Moscow either. They have their own affairs, they want to set up their own Cossack tsar on the Yaik. And everything will be fine, as long as Moscow does not interfere in the affairs and does not demand taxes. And you, Emelyushka, go while you are safe and sound.

The movie does not say this, but the conclusion suggests itself. Without a party, they will strangle everyone one by one. And that is what happened.

They also somehow did not tell us about Crimea in school. Pugachev's army was so strong that Catherine had to immediately sign a shameful peace with the Turks. Although we, it seems, were winning. We gave the Ottomans Bessarabia, Wallachia, the Moldavian Principality. And we gave freedom to the Crimean Khanate, withdrew the troops. If only the troops could be freed and thrown against their own people.

To be fair, Catherine did take Crimea back ten years later. But the example is indicative. It's not a pity to lose even that land against a popular uprising.

And Pugachev was sold out by the same Cossack chieftains:

"The oak is shaking, it needs to be felled, before you know it, it'll crush us all."

And then the most cunning one adds - why fell him, we need to take him alive. Maybe they'll pardon him, give him twenty-five thousand rubles. We need to take him alive.

I read with my own eyes an article where these words are presented as a sly call from the director to overthrow Stalin. Like, let the people rise up to revolt against the tyrant-oppressor. Isn't that madness?

By the way, liberal activists also see sedition in Pugachev's last words. A call to revolt against the villainous year of 1937. Against Soviet power. But is this what a fighter for the people's freedom is talking about?

The actor Skorobogatov climbs onto the chopping block. In each hand is a thick burning candle. His sheepskin coat is open to his bare chest, despite the January cold. He speaks to the people, not to his murderers, not to the traitorous Cossacks, not to the departed Bashkirs. He speaks to the people, to his own people:

"There will be a better change in life! Do not resign yourself, my friends! I have obtained freedom for you for a year, obtain it yourselves! Forever!"

https://dzen.ru/a/Y-oYOLLiLEG1-mGy - zinc

The film itself.

https://yandex.ru/video/preview/15477657360329593442

And this is the 1978 version.

https://yandex.ru/video/preview/6406758415646986405

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9603665.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Mon Jan 13, 2025 4:40 pm

WRITING ON THE KREMLIN WALL – IS IT STRATEGY OR ALIBI?

Image

by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with

In a single line expressed through a reporter, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov has explained the defeat of Syria as a tactical withdrawal in preparation for the “military conflict with NATO, and in the next 10 years. So, Russia right now needs solutions that will ensure at least a long-term balance in the global confrontation.”

This line appeared in the Kremlin-funded security analysis platform Vzglyad on January 3; there was no mention of Syria. In case the significance was missed, Vzglyad added the editorial line in italics: “In a long confrontation with the West, it is important to skillfully combine the economy and military. Judging by the first results of the activities of the economist Belousov as Minister of Defense, this is exactly what we see.”

A political source in Moscow concurs. “Russia has to fight all of NATO head-on within the next ten years. So if a deal can be made now to earn some time to rearm, then that’s a strategic choice that is going to have to be made.”

Not all military sources in Moscow agree. Some believe that during the process in October and November when President Vladimir Putin listened to General Staff and Foreign Ministry arguments for opposing the Turkish plan to break out of Idlib and capture Damascus, the Kremlin underestimated the message that Russia’s acquiescence would deliver to the US and the NATO allies. “Anyone now thinking Russia can be counted on as ally”, comments one, “is mistaken.”

These sources believe that now the pressure on Putin to make fresh concessions in the Ukraine will intensify. “The US and NATO used the time we conceded in Minsk to prepare the war we weren’t as prepared to fight as they were in February 2022. Delay was our mistake. They want time now to rearm the Kiev regime for the next round. We should be aiming for capitulation in Kiev and no future for the enemy. For us, that’s the strategy.”

In support of the Kremlin refusal to defend Syria and the government of Bashar al-Assad, the Kremlin’s supporters among the Anglo-American podcasters have become experts on Arab, Syrian, and Iranian politics; one of them has even moved to Beirut.

An independent timeline of what exactly happened produced by the French analyst Thierry Meyssan omits analysis of Russian actions, but he does confirm that President Assad flew to Moscow on November 29. This was a secret kept by the Kremlin and the Russian press. “On November 30, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad went to Russia. Not to attend the exam that his son Hafez was taking at Moscow University where he is continuing his studies, but to call for help. The Russian forces in Syria could only bomb the jihadists’ convoys because they are only airborne. They therefore tried to block the road to HTS [Hayat Tahrir al-Sham] and Turkey. They could not intervene on the ground against them. Aleppo was well and truly lost.”

There is an eyewitness — this is Kamel Saqr who has given his detailed account of what happened, in what sequence and with what meaning. Saqr is exceptional because he was present as a senior member of Assad’s staff at the meeting Assad held in secret with Putin in Moscow on November 29; he listened to Putin’s telephone call with General Valery Gerasimov during the meeting; and he continued negotiating with Putin’s subordinates through the Friday evening and Saturday morning, November 29-30, before Assad and his staff flew from Moscow at 4 pm that day.

Nothing comparable to this account has appeared in public from any other source to speak credibly. Saqr’s interpretation of what he calls “the state of disavowal” is disputable; the facts, less so. Saqr says that Assad told him directly that when he was at his Moscow residence in the Four Seasons Hotel, Putin had sent him the message that he wanted the visit kept secret, canceling Saqr’s negotiations with the Kremlin press office on a joint communiqué for public release.

Also, Putin’s message to Assad, according to Saqr, was that “the [Russian] military was not in a position to wage war, neither psychologically nor logistically.” In retrospect, Saqr interprets Putin as having decided before the fall of Aleppo to the Turkish-led forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) on December 2 not to prevent their southward advance to Damascus, and also to have decided not to accept Iranian reinforcements through the Khmeimim airbase. From Saqr’s record of the last meetings in Damascus between Assad and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi on December 5-6, he admits he doesn’t know how coordinated the Russian and Iranian decision-making had been, and for how long. During that week, Saqr reports that Assad called Putin on the Tuesday (December 3), Wednesday (December 4) and Thursday (December 5), and on each occasion Putin reportedly refused to answer. Assad then contacted the French, according to Saqr, and asked them to inform Putin that Assad was trying to make contact. The French reply after several hours was that Putin was visiting Belarus “and so he cannot talk to you.”

This was false. The Kremlin record shows Putin was in Moscow on all the three days.

On the evening of Tuesday, December 3, after Saqr claims Assad’s call had been rejected, Putin spoke by telephone with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan; Erdogan had initiated the call. In their discussion, according to the Kremlin release, Putin asked the Turkish president to “stop radical groups’ terrorist aggression against the Syrian state and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate authorities’ efforts to restore stability and constitutional order across the country, including using Ankara’s capabilities in the region.” Erdogan reportedly agreed on “strengthening cooperation both bilaterally and within the framework of the Astana process. The key importance of further close coordination between Russia, Turkiye and Iran to normalise the situation in Syria”.

Erdogan was misleading. According to Sqar’s record of what Assad had been told by the Iraqi prime minister, Erdogan had declared the time for mediation was over.

Putin remained in Moscow to meet with the Security Council on December 5 when the communiqué does not acknowledge that the situation in Syria was discussed. Putin then flew to Minsk on the afternoon of Friday, December 6, and continued meetings there the next day. The Kremlin record of his movements and meetings is then silent until Monday, December 9, when Putin had returned to Moscow. So had Assad.


Saqr adds that the Russian military attaché in Damascus, Rear Admiral Oleg Kornienko, met Assad at his residence “in the last hours of his rule”, December 7-8. They appear to have discussed the arrangements for Assad’s evacuation from Khmeimim and the terms of his asylum in Russia.

Saqr’s publication is highly significant politically because his interpretation of Russian actions, and of Putin’s decision-making in particular, was broadcast on January 7 by the Saudi Arabian state-owned media platform, Al Arabiya.

Image

Watch Saqr’s full 90-minute interview in Arabic: https://www.youtube.com/

For understanding how Saqr’s testimony is being interpreted in the Middle East, here is the report of the broadcast by the Middle East Eye (MEE). Based in London since 2014, MEE describes itself as “an independently funded digital news organisation covering stories from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as related content from beyond the region.” The evidence of its UK Companies House listing and other media investigations and Arab state sanctions indicate its funding is probably based in Qatar. Russia has not been a significant focus of MEE’s recent coverage.

With the addition of the map of the air route between Iran and Khmeimim for illustration, this republication is unedited.

Image
Syria’s former media chief and top aide to Bashar al-Assad said that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have “tricked” the ousted Syrian president in his final days as leader.

Speaking to Mazeej Studios, a podcast produced by Saudi channel Al Arabiya, Kamel Saqr said that Assad was in Moscow in late November, just over a week before Syrian rebels captured Damascus. According to him, the rebels had already captured much of Aleppo by the time Assad met Putin on Friday 29 November.

There, Saqr said, Assad asked for Putin’s support in helping Iran transport equipment and support to strengthen his government’s positions against the opposition. “Bashar al-Assad’s request to Putin was for him to personally handle the secure the aerial transportation necessary to deliver military aid to support or stop the advance of the Syrian opposition,” Saqr said.

The request came as Iran reduced its forces and militias’ presence in Syria, and Hezbollah suffered heavy blows in its battles against Israel in Lebanon. Saqr believes neither Russia nor Iran wanted to heavily intervene in this battle, but Assad told him [Saqr] that Putin had instructed his chief of staff [General Valery Gerasimov] to get ready to support any transport needed for Iran at Russia’s Khmeimim base in Latakia.

“But what happened was that the Iranians told Bashar al-Assad, ‘we did not receive any signals to proceed with moving Iranian aircraft to the Khmeimim base [or to] fly through Iraqi airspace to land at the base,’ Saqr told Mazeej.“The question was relayed to Moscow, but no answer came.” When asked whether this was a “trick by Putin”, Saqr said there was “no other explanation”.


Regardless, Saqr said the Iranians told Assad they had sent a plane through Iraq, but were warned by the US that the aircraft would be shot down if it continued…Saqr says Putin did not pick up any of Assad’s calls between the Tuesday and Thursday [December 3-5] before his fall and that, despite having planned a 400-word speech addressing the situation, the former Syrian president decided against speaking to the public.

As rebel forces were nearing Damascus, Assad spoke to his media office for the last time on Saturday 7 December about a military meeting at the Khmeimim base between him and the Russians. Saqr says he believes Assad left “from Damascus airport via a private plane, taking the southern bypass road and then the airport road to reach the airport”.


My information suggests that he stayed at the base for several hours until the plane was secured, prepared, and its takeoff and flight to Moscow were ensured,” he added.
What were the Iranians thinking and doing in parallel?

An audio recording, purportedly of a speech at a Teheran mosque on December 31, by Brigadier General Behrouz Esbati of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), surfaced in the Iranian media a week later. Excerpts of the speech but not a full authenticated recording or transcript have been amplified in interpretation by the New York Times and the Israeli press, and in anti-Russian commentaries from Kiev to Washington.

Image

Abdi Media is an Iranian publication originating in Geneva. It reported General esbatii’s speech on January 6. Source: https://abdimedia.net/

In the brief excerpt reported by Abdi Media, Esbati criticized Russian policy in Syria. “Russia was one of the factors that led to the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. Russia turned off all radar systems so that Israel could hit the intelligence headquarters of Shahid Sadiq. The Russians were bombing the deserts instead of the headquarters of Tahrir al-Sham [HTS].”

Longer excerpts of the IRGC general’s speech have been reported by the New York Times. In that newspaper report, “tensions surrounding these competing views on Syria preoccupied officials enough that they embarked on a campaign of damage control with the public last week. Senior military commanders and pundits close to the government gave speeches and held question-and-answer sessions with audiences in mosques and community centers in several cities…[Esbati] is a top commander of Iran’s Armed Forces, the umbrella that includes the military and the Revolutionary Guards Corps, with a record of prominent roles including commander in chief of the Armed Forces’ cyber division. In Syria, he supervised Iran’s military operations and coordinated closely with Syrian ministers and defense officials and with Russian generals — outranking even the commander in chief of the Quds Forces, Gen. Ismail Ghaani, who oversees the network of regional militias backed by Iran.”

The following is a verbatim excerpt from the Times report.
]General Esbati’s speech, on Dec. 31 at the Valiasr mosque in central Teheran, addressed rank and file of the military and constituents of the mosque, according to a public notice of the event, titled, ‘Answering questions about Syria’s collapse.’ The session started with General Esbati telling the crowd he left Syria on the last military plane to Teheran the night before Damascus fell to rebels. It ended with him answering questions from audience members. He offered his most sobering assessment on Iran’s military capability in fighting Israel and the United States.

An audio recording of the speech, given last week by Brig. Gen. Behrouz Esbati at a mosque in Teheran, surfaced publicly on Monday in Iranian media, and was a stark contrast to the remarks of Iran’s president, foreign minister and other top leaders. They have for weeks downplayed the magnitude of Iran’s strategic loss in Syria last month, when rebels swept Mr. al-Assad out of power, and said Iran would respect any political outcome decided by Syria’s people…General Esbati revealed that Iran’s relations with Mr. al-Assad had been strained for months leading to his ouster, saying that the Syrian leader had denied multiple requests for Iranian-backed militias to open a front against Israel from Syria, in the aftermath of the Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7, 2023.

Iran had presented Mr. al-Assad with comprehensive military plans on how it could use Iran’s military resources in Syria to attack Israel, he said.


The general also accused Russia, considered a top ally, of misleading Iran by telling it that Russian jets were bombing Syrian rebels when they were actually dropping bombs on open fields. He also said that in the past year, as Israel struck Iranian targets in Syria, Russia had “turned off radars,” in effect facilitating these attacks…General Esbati said the fall of the Assad regime was inevitable given the rampant corruption, political oppression and economic hardship that people faced, from lack of power to fuel to livable incomes. He said Mr. al-Assad had ignored the warnings to reform….Iran’s policy had not yet been finalized but that a consensus had emerged in meetings he had attended where strategy was debated.
For the time being, the Moscow analysts with military and intelligence sources who will not have missed the testimonies of Saqr and Esbati, are not acknowledging them. Instead, Vzglyad has published a disclaimer of the Russian Army’s readiness under former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the time and priority tasks required by his replacement, Andrei Belousov. The following text is a verbatim translation into English; illustrations and captions have been added to assist the English reader understand the Russian references.

Image
Source: https://vz.ru/society/2025/1/3/1306414.html
January 3, 2025
How Belousov is changing the Russian military machine
By Alexei Anpilogov

One of the key military-political events of 2024 was the changes in the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry. The Ministry was headed by First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov. Why did the civilian, an economist, become the most appropriate candidate as head of the military administration, and what results has he already achieved?

The appointment of Andrei Belousov to the post of Minister of Defense instead of Sergei Shoigu was unexpected, but to some extent predetermined by the situation in the armed forces by the beginning of last year. Despite the successful resistance to the large-scale Ukrainian counteroffensive of 2023, at that time the Russian army with an effort “turned the wheel of war”, only having achieved success in the difficult and vicious offensive operation around Avdeyevka.

The military operations of the 2024 sample were sharply different from those conditions in which Russia began the special military operation. First of all, for obvious reasons financial spending on the army has increased significantly. Now they account for 6.3% of GDP — that’s 2.5% more than before — which has required special attention to the control of costs and their rational calculus.

“The nomination of Belousov for this post is largely due to the fact that the entire defence bloc in the modern realities needs competent economic leadership. Because, as we can see, the format of hostilities is changing and requires, first of all, a sustainable materiel supply on the logistics support base,” said Peter Kolchin, a political analyst at the Center for Expert Support of Political Processes. In addition, the picture on the battlefield has changed; new types of weapons based on new technologies of communication and information-processing have appeared. Among them, the unmanned vehicles have been especially remarkable – in effect they have upturned the tactics and strategy of combat operations.

“Obviously, digitalization in the military administration is now necessary,” was the initial expectation of the new Defense Ministry command, according to Yevgeny Minchenko, president of the communication holding Minchenko Consulting. “Questions related to drones, electronic warfare (EW) systems, and microelectronics will play a key role,” military expert Boris Rozhin also confirms the same idea. But the idea of including the creation of [a department for] unmanned systems comes from Belousov who supervised it in his previous post as the first deputy prime minister of the Russian government.

As a result, as shown in 2024, Belousov’s actions focused on several critical areas in the work of the Ministry of Defense – both already indicated and in a number of others. We list only the most important and obvious.

1. Rationalization of military expenditures. The experience of managing civil economic systems has helped to more effectively direct the funds of the military budget to the most necessary directions. “Judging by the results on the battlefield, the growing equipment of our troops and seizure of the strategic initiative at the front, the Ministry of Defense has not only improved the quality of military implementation, but also established control over the spending of state funds. Command-and-control has become stricter”, says military expert Vasily Dandykin.

2. Improving the quality and speed of administration by getting rid of unnecessary management units. The head of the Ministry of Defense himself at the final board of the department in mid-December spoke about the first results of projects to optimize administrative processes in a number of structures of the ministry – “the number of excessive procedures can be reduced by 5-10 times, and the time – five or more times.” The Defense Department plans to create an integrated information system. At the same time, at the board of the Ministry of Defense, President Vladimir Putin ordered the creation of a single information circuit in the forces, combining reconnaissance and attack equipment at different levels of management.

Image
Source: http://kremlin.ru

According to Putin, there is to be a “necessary increase in the production of robotic systems and unmanned systems of different classes and types. At the beginning of the special operation we had problems in this area: some samples were expensive and difficult to operate. Today, over a few thousand days drones of various purposes have come to the troops. [It is] necessary to continue increase their combat and operational characteristics. No less important to train operators of such complexes, to prepare them according to the programs developed based on the experience of real fighting.”

3. Emphasis on inventions, innovations, new technical solutions. Exactly what did President Vladimir Putin draw attention to when appointing the new head of the ministry? The new defense minister has dramatically accelerated changes related to the introduction of new military systems, such as drones, unmanned boats, artillery systems and high-precision ammunition. “Today, a huge number of innovative technical developments are being carried out directly in the troops, showing high results…All this allows to save thousands of lives of our military. In this regard, it is necessary to carry out a complete inventory of such military developments. On a systematic basis, conduct their tests in operation. And to organize serial production of the best samples,” Belousov has said.

4. Support for the People’s Military-Industrial Complex [народного ВПК]. Soldiers, in cooperation with civilian volunteers, are actively introducing many new technical solutions on the battlefield. Military innovators and volunteers supplying components and finished products that have not been put into service or supply are people without whom current hostilities would hardly have been possible. The Ministry of Defense turned its face to our new Kulibins (by then, one of the main suppliers of products of the “people’s military-industrial complex” to the troops was the “Kulibin club” of the “People’s Front”). There, in these basement workshops, have been produced shock drones and the so-called closers [доводчики] – homing modules that bring to the target a drone that has flown into the interference zone of the enemy’s electronic warfare system. Evacuation trolleys for the wounded, robotic transporters, electronic intelligence and jamming systems, carried by one or two soldiers, have also appeared there.

5. First-class attention to the UAV [unmanned aerial vehicles]. It was this weapon of armed struggle that has changed the face of warfare in the 21st century. Therefore, at the end of the year, Andrei Belousov announced the creation of a new kind of military force — troops of unmanned systems (ВБС, VBS). In simple terms, these are units whose principal means of armed combat are drones – both FPV[first-person view] drones and heavy copters.

Experts have repeatedly raised the issue that Russia needs its own centralized structure in the forces which would allow the development of strike formations, the training system, and tactical models for operations including standards for the use of attack drones in the combat manuals of the Ground and Airborne Forces. Today, among domestic specialists, the opinion has been formed that unmanned systems are a so-called comprehensive technology, which should permeate all types of armed forces and types of troops. This means that the Russian VBS can be the same as the communication forces — to engage in the introduction of combat and auxiliary robotic complexes in all structures of the army, navy and air force. Judging by the fact that Belousov referred to the development of unmanned systems for “air, ground and sea-based” forces during the Special Military Operation, so this is how the Russian unmanned system forces will be organized.

It should be understood that Belousov’s reforms are not only for the sake of winning the special military operation. The defense minister openly says that the country is preparing for a possible military conflict with NATO, and in the next 10 years. So, Russia right now needs solutions that will ensure at least a long-term balance in the global confrontation – even as the collective West has many more resources, including the purely military ones.

In a long confrontation with the West, it is important to skillfully combine the economy and the military. Judging by the first results of the activities of the economist Belousov as Minister of Defense, this is exactly what we see.

The criteria and principles of military spending are changing. The principle “you can make mistakes but you can’t lie”, proclaimed by Belousov when parliament was considering his candidacy as minister, is being implemented. The military-industrial complex, including the “people’s military-industrial complex”, is becoming one of the main points of economic growth in Russia, a place of concentration of the best minds, engineers and inventors.

Of course, Belousov’s “reforms” are implemented together with the head of the ministry and his team – the composition of the deputy defense ministers, too, has been updated. And if the military-operational leadership in the person of the first deputy, the Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov has remained the same, then there are the new appointments of the head of the rear – Colonel-General Andrei Bulyga, state secretary and deputy minister responsible for personnel and the head of the Defenders of the Fatherland fund; and Anna Tsivileva, deputy minister responsible for the construction and property of the ministry. By themselves, these appointments make clear which areas of the activities of the Ministry of Defense have been strengthened over the past year.

Image
Left, Lieutenant-General Andrei Bulyga; right, Anna Tsivileva, president of the Russian coal mining Kolmar Group and married to Sergei Tsivilev, governor of the Kemerovo region until May 2024 and since then federal energy minister. Tsivilev transferred his shareholding control of Kolmar to his wife, whose maiden name is Putina; she is a first cousin of the President.


There is still a lot to be done. And on how effectively the Belousov team will work in the Ministry of Defense, how true the information which will be reported to him, and on that basis how correctly the conclusions will be drawn, a lot depends on the outcome of the SVO before we can say whether Russia can withstand the military conflicts of the future.
A Moscow source comments on the contrast between these Syrian, Iranian and Russian versions of the present moment. “It has been an achievement of Putin’s that he had developed such positive relations with both the Iranians and the Arabs, the Saudis most important of all. The strategic alliance papers with Iran have still to be signed. We’ll see what happens when [Iranian President Masoud] Pezeshkian comes to Moscow on January 17. It’s necessary for us to understand that whatever we say of our strategic objectives, this is how Putin’s conduct is being interpreted by our sometime friends.”

https://johnhelmer.net/writing-on-the-k ... more-90872

OLD-TIME RUSSIA FAITH HEALING SEEKS CONVERTS IN LONDON

Image

by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

Imagine the history of a bank written by the driver of the getaway car used by a gang of holdup men after their heist.

Then imagine the driver and his gang are religious fundamentalists convinced that what they are doing is God’s mission to reform the banking business by introducing daylight robbery as one of what they call the “underpinnings of capitalism”.

As the car speeds away with the loot, the driver leads the other gangsters in reciting their mantras: “obviously it was the Wild West”; “there’s a ton of money to be made in chaos”; “capitalism in Russia wasn’t born under laboratory conditions. It was born in a vacuum of governance”; “with Goldman Sachs’ analysis backing you , investing in Russia became the closest thing you could get to a no-brainer”.

These lines have been written by a man called Charles Hecker (lead image, right), a reporter for the Moscow Times in the 1990s who turned into a Russia expert for the Control Risks group of London. After that employment ended recently, he has published a book with the title, Zero Sum, The Arc of International Business in Russia.

What’s unusual about this is that in 457 pages, Hecker doesn’t present or analyse the annual reports, financial balance-sheets, Initial Public Offering (IPO) prospectuses, or market regulation filings of a single significant Russian company or business sector. Instead, Hecker reports interviewing 57 individuals who spent time in Russia between 1991 and 2022, working for mostly US and British companies, law firms, accountancies, hotels, and media. Just seven of these sources (12%) were Russian born, but none has lived in Russia for many years. In Hecker’s footnotes, 647 of them in total, there are just seven Russian-language sources; they are texts of official enactments.

The outcome is a heist-and-getaway history in which Hecker reports the impact of economic
sanctions against Russia on the say-so of think tanks in Kiev, the State Department, and Yale
University; the rise of post-Soviet media on the say-so by Dutchman Derk Sauer
whose publications in Russia were financed by secret US agencies, then Mikhail Khodorkovsky; the role of Russian crime and criminals on the say-so of Mark Galeotti, a writer in the Rupert Murdoch stable whose book of 2018 was a fabrication with no Russian criminal for its source; the history of state asset privatization on the say-so of Harvard University consultants; the Russian oil business on the say-so of BP executives dictating to the London press; and the fraud and embezzlement prosecution of Baring Vostok and Michael Calvey on the say-so of the Financial Times.

Say-so doesn’t make so. But this is not as hackneyed and pointless as it may sound. The point is easier to acknowledge now during the semifinal stage of the Battle of the Ukraine than during the war preliminaries: the point is that Hecker is employed in a form of counter-intelligence and information warfare to sustain Anglo-American enthusiasm and cashflow for the war despite the defeat of the Anglo-American side on the battlefield.

What Hecker doesn’t understand (cannot see in the book’s evidence) is that the extraordinary reward-to-risk multiples, ratios of debt to earnings and profit to outlay, speed of payback, and zero rate of taxation which characterized Russian business between 1991 and 2022, were planned weapons of the Anglo-American war to destroy Russia, its economy first, then its military capacity to defend itself, and finally its social cohesion. That war has been hot by degrees since 1917, never cold. Following the corrupt betrayals by Russian leaders themselves between 1991 and 2000, this war almost ended in Russia’s capitulation.

It still may.

Image
Left: Hecker’s book, published on November 28, 2024 – now clearing through Amazon at a 60% discount off the publisher’s price. Right, Ben Noble an academic at Chatham House and the University of London, whom Hecker acknowledges “for supporting this book from its inception”.

Hecker begins and ends with the Special Military Operation (SVO) of February 24, 2022. More than a half-dozen times Hecker repeats that this was a “full-scale invasion” when it was anything but. At the beginning Hecker admits it was a surprise to him and his sources — “no one thought it was in Russia’s best interest to invade Ukraine”.

With sources so well informed, Hecker’s conclusion is that the SVO is the final stage in the Russian plan to steal the assets of peace-loving, democracy-minded, global rules based and free market capitalism introduced by the West in 1991. It was therefore inevitable, he reports, that “employees in more progressive companies around the world, especially in the US [would] clamour for a rapid exit from a country run by a president bent on industrial-scale murder.”

Hecker’s story, his “arc of international business”, is thus a list of corporate entrances and exits from Yandex to Coca Cola and Vogue. For captions of what happened Hecker cites as his sources the Moscow Times, BBC, Financial Times, the Guardian, and his 57 interviewees. “What do business take away from this?” Hecker prompts a board director at the Baring Vostok private equity fund. “And what lessons should they learn? I think it’s an age-old, totally cliché, totally universal lesson, which is there’s a ton of money to be made in chaos… The biggest mistake in the world is to think that that’s going to last forever. So yea, get it. Yeah, make that money. And yeah, get out. And the people who are stupid are the people who didn’t get out.”

If this is the western line of heist-and-getaway capitalism which Hecker endorses, whose criminality is greater when the Anglo-Americans meet their Russian counterparts. Or when when Baring Vostok’s Calvey attempted to steal $39 million from the Russian shareholders of Vostochny Bank, Artem Avetisyan and Shersod Yusupov? Hecker retells the Financial Times’s version; he ignores the Russian version and the prosecution evidence which convicted Calvey. Read more.

Image
In Hecker’s history, Michael Calvey (under arrest, left) and William Browder (under arrest, right) have been the innocent victims of Russia’s turn against capitalism. When Calvey was released and left Russia, Hecker concludes, “”the damage to the country’s reputation remained.” “Browder provokes Putin almost like no other”, Hecker reports, cribbing from The Atlantic magazine.

Hecker spends three-quarters of his pages rehashing from old press files the episodes of the loans-for-shares scheme of 1995-96; the state debt default of 1998; and the 2008 corporate debt collapse. President Vladimir Putin doesn’t appear until final quarter when Hecker introduces him as “Bad News”, quoting one of his interviewees, a man named Richard Prior, for this summing of Putin’s 25-year term. He is the authority for saying: “And so the warning signs were there, but it was later than one realised that the security apparatus [Putin] was something to fear”. Prior adds: “Some western companies were very, very capable of accommodating bad things… In many cases they knew not just where the bodies were buried, but how they got there in the first place”.


Prior’s credentials are disguised by Hecker. In Moscow he worked for the Anglo-American corporate security firm Kroll, and then in 1997 he established in London an agency called The Risk Advisory Group (TRAG). Its board included two British army generals, retired policemen and spies.

Warfighting against Russia was what they meant by their risk advisory business; that’s to say, creating Russia risks to deter and cut off western investment. An interviewee Hecker names as Bryan O’Toole, “a non-resident fellow of the Atlantic Council, is quoted as explaining who the enemy was in their war. “When I started at the CIA a lot of the talk was about Russian organised crime. When I left in 2008 there wasn’t Russian organised crime, there was just the state.”

Hecker’s employer, Control Risks, was and still is the same combination of retired spies, retired soldiers, retired policemen. They are continuing to fight the same war, but getting much paid for it than before. Control Risks has changed also. It began as the agent of insurance companies covering executives who were targets of kidnap and extortion. Part of their business was to anticipate the risks and protect the clientele physically; part of the business was to know the kidnappers well enough to negotiate the ransom. A veteran of the company recalls: “They were always rather decent, moral and unexploitative as a firm. I doubt that holds true today.”

Because Hecker and his Chatham House editor have been on their getaway mission, they have forgotten to look beghind them and check their own sources. Hecker quotes them as paragons of capitalist skill – “I was being paid more money than anyone had ever paid me before” claims “one of the leading [American] investment bankers in Russia”. However, it didn’t occur to Hecker to investigate what he was told, and compare pay and bonus rates for western businessmen in Moscow with their counterparts in London and New York.

The sources were asked to re-read Hecker’s interpretation and clarify how much profit, how much loss they drew from their Russian businesses before they left. The answer, communicated on a background basis by one of them, was that his annual average salary was “much less than half what was earned at [bank outside Russia].” As for investment returns, another of Hecker’s sources itemizes those which “made decent returns” and those in which the source “lost everything”. Net outcome after twenty years, the source has calculated was that “probably got most of my money back”.

This isn’t and can’t be the moral of Hecker’s story. His moral starts and ends with the cliché: “Decades before all this outlandish excess, Russia and Russians were always, without fail, able to have a good time.” As Hecker goes on to rehash stories of the Hungry Duck, Nightflight, and other Moscow pickup joints, boîtes de nuit, and “private clubs”, there was sex with women more beautiful than those at home — women (and boys) whose price came much cheaper. “Sleep came sometinme between breakfast and a late lunch,” Hecker remembered. “Rinse. Repeat”.

This is Hecker turning out to have been just another Good Time Charlie. Left out is what the Russian women the Charlies took to bed thought of them. In independent interviews they say they felt sorry for Americans whose penis size was smaller than Russian men. They felt grateful that American men didn’t beat them up as often or as badly as the Russians.


In exchange for Hecker’s promotion of the Financial Times’ version of the war against Russia, the newspaper has reciprocated with a log-rolling review by Andrew Cowley, who graduated from writing as the Economist correspondent in Moscow to running a Russian securities brokerage, then a senior bankers for Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, Allianz, Macquarie, and now a London real estate investment trust.

“You could see history being made before your eyes,” Cowley gasps, “and it appeared to be heading in a better direction, towards some form of democracy and more individual freedom.”
“What went wrong this time?” he asks.

His answer is the Anglo-American warfighter’s mantra. The Russians started the war, the westerners are their victims. “Underneath was a system with its origins deeply rooted in the dysfunction of the Soviet economy”. But according to Cowley, it has always been like this – in Tsarist times, in Stalin’s time. Cowley can’t help getting wistful about the sex appeal: “after dark, wild rides in gypsy cabs led to wilder nights at places such as Night Flight,, the bar with the worst reputation in Moscow, and The Hungry Duck where the strip shows combined performers and enthusiastic patrons (not that I ever went there).”

Mark Ames, who with Matt Taibbi in The Exile, made fun of the professional incompetence of journalists like Cowley, and also their small penises, comments skeptically. “It’s strange how Russia’s economy has turned around under the guy who destroyed business in Russia versus the guy who was so great for business.”

https://johnhelmer.net/old-time-russia- ... more-90890

******

USA is the first taxpayer in Russia
January 12, 19:16

Image

The United States has become the largest foreign taxpayer in Russia.

In 2023, American companies that remained in Russia after the war in Ukraine began paid $1.2 billion in taxes. This made the United States the largest foreign taxpayer, Newsweek reports, citing a study by the B4Ukraine group and the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE).

Michael McFaul of Stanford University, who also served as the US ambassador to the Russian Federation, called the actions of American companies "shameful."

"It is absolutely shameful that American companies have chosen to stay in Russia and subsidize Putin's barbaric war in Ukraine,"
he said in an interview with Newsweek.
"It is not too late to do the right thing"

Shameful wolves of Wall Street

@neinsider

Nothing personal, just business.
At the same time, they will pressure Europeans for the same thing and force them to wind up their businesses in Russia.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9607638.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:34 pm

New book published today – LONG LIVE NOVICHOK!

Image

by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

Novichok is the notorious warfighting poison which has killed no one but fooled everyone.

At least that’s how British Government officials, their scientists, chemical warfighters, policemen, media reporters, and trailing after them all, their judges, intend the story to be told.

Theirs is the story of the assassination, ordered by President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and attempted on March 4, 2018, by two military officers tracked and filmed to every location but not the murder scene; with a weapon not detected at the scene nor in the blood streams and bodily tissues of their murder targets.

The victims, Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal, have been made to disappear and are either incommunicado in prison or dead. The only direct testimony which has been recorded voluntarily in front of witnesses was given by Yulia Skripal, in hospital four days after the attack, when she identified the assassination attempt as having been carried out with poison spray by an attacker who was not Russian, just minutes before she and her father collapsed. She meant the poison was British; the assassin British.

The motive for the Novichok crime turns out to be hearsay by British government against the Russian government.

In political and military terms, the Novichok poison story is propaganda between enemies at war. Judgement of what happened to the Skripals is a weapon of this war. And so it has turned out that there has been no court trial or test of the Novichok narrative, according to British law. Instead, there has been a proceeding which looked like a court trial but wasn’t; in which the Skripals were represented by police interrogators and by lawyers who said nothing; presided over by a judge who wasn’t.

In other words, a show trial in a time of war.

Image

The truth of what happened has no military or political value, certainly not to the prosecuting British side; not much to the defending Russian side. But as the evidence has surfaced piecemeal over the past five years since the first investigation was published in February 2020 as Skripal in Prison, the truth reveals that Novichok was ineffective as a poison, but very successful as a deception operation by the British. They reversed the hands of the assassin, planted a British-made chemical weapon to look like a Russian one; invented the death of bystander Dawn Sturgess to substitute for Sergei and Yulia Skripal who didn’t die; and suppressed the evidence of what had happened – witnesses, videotapes, toxicology, autopsy records.

Not quite all the evidence, however. This book has been written to reveal new evidence to conclude that Sergei Skripal was a triple agent attempting to return to Russia. His rescue, the exfiltration operation by the Russian military intelligence organisation (GRU), used decoys to mislead the British surveillance and conceal the escape plan. But the British anticipated and decided to act preemptively, attacking both Skripals, reversing culpability, and convicting the Russians for the British crime.

Not one of the legal, medical, police, or government officials engaged in the Novichok story — neither the Skripal nor the Sturgess parts of the narrative — answered the many questions put to them during the seven-year course of the case and of this book. The three lawyers purportedly engaged to represent Sergei and Yulia Skripal were the most silentious of all; their names don’t warrant repeating. Not much better were the lawyers representing Dawn Sturgess’s family’s money claim, especially their lead counsel Michael Mansfield.

Image

This blanket of misrepresentation, evasion, and silence which they have thrown over themselves and over the evidence in the case is proof of the intention to deceive. So determined is this intention, the deceivers don’t realize how preposterous are the results. The colour of Novichok, for example, reported as a state secret in Chapter 74.

A direct request to researchers publishing on A-234 around the world has revealed that the Iranians who reported synthesizing the chemical agent in 2016, reply that it is colourless. The British, Americans, Czechs, and Koreans who have done the same laboratory work, refuse to answer. And yet, despite all the preliminary vetting by British intelligence agents, years of double-checking by British officials, and months of closed-door sessions and redactions ordered by Lord Hughes, chairman of the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry, the truth managed to slip out. A man named Josep Vivas, a Spaniard living in Barcelona, was the unintended, unguarded source.

Vivas was a vice president of Puig, the company which manufactures and sells the bottled perfume which in the British Novichok story has been turned into the Russian murder weapon. “I am making this statement,” Vivas signed for the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry on February 12, 2024, “in addition to a letter I provided on 27 July 2018. Prior to me writing and signing that letter, I was shown a number of images of a small perfume bottle branded ‘Nina Ricci Premier Jour Perfume’. The images I viewed were under police exhibit reference [redaction tagged VN551/10]. I was shown further images of a perfume box labelled as ‘Premier Jour Nina Ricci’. This was under police exhibit reference [redaction tagged VN521/3]. On Friday 2nd February 2024, I was again shown the images of [redaction tagged VN551/10] and [redaction tagged VN521/3] before signing this statement and I set out my observations on them below.”

The photographs of the poison bottle shown in the public hearing on November 28, 2024, were censored — a large black mark was pasted across the bottle contents. But British agents had shown Vivas the photographs just days after July 11, 2018, when the bottle was purportedly discovered at the Sturgess crime scene. Vivas was shown the photographs again more than five years later, just before he testified before Hughes. He saw the bottle without the black mark.

Image
Censored police photograph of Novichok poison weapon, a perfume atomizer bottle, allegedly found on a kitchen bench at Rowley-Sturgess home eleven days after Sturgess and Rowley were hospitalized. The black mark conceals the British Government’s lie.

The key observation Vivas confirmed he had seen on both occasions was this: “The liquid inside the bottle. Premier Jour perfume is pale pink, and from the photos I observe that the liquid contained in the bottle is yellow.”

If the perfume is pink; if Novichok is colourless; if the liquid in the murder weapon was yellow, then the liquid in the murder weapon cannot have been Novichok. QED — Quod erat demonstrandum, as the ancient lawyers and logicians used to conclude their proofs. The colour yellow was a British fabrication; the black mark was British camouflage. The secret slipped out into the open by British mistake.

From whom are the British keeping their secret? Can it be the Russians who, according to the official Novichok narrative, have made, stored, and used it against the Skripals, but have yet to learn what colour it is?

The Russian handling of the Skripal affair is a different story. It has been defensive on the evidence claimed by the British government; ineffective in breaking the silence imposed on the Skripals.

These outcomes were inevitable once it is concluded, in retrospect, that Sergei Skripal was attacked to prevent his return to Moscow as a triple agent; and that the Russian military operation to rescue him had been thwarted by the British.

These two truths, if published officially, leaked to the press, or reported in independent investigations, stood little chance of being believed outside Russia. More certainly, official Russian admission of the two truths, if it had been made, would have condemned the Skripals to the death that was attempted by the British against them on March 4, 2018.

Less explicable is the outcome that for seven years now, Russian press reporting of the case has ignored the investigative reporting published in English in the UK and US, and then the evidence revealed during the Hughes hearings in London between October and December 2024. This is an understandable result of the line dictated by the Kremlin’s and Foreign Ministry’s media departments for protecting the lives of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, and for salvaging what remained of Anglo-Russian relations on the road to war in the Ukraine.

In the chapters to follow, President Putin’s and Foreign Minister Lavrov’s statements can be examined in the political context and news sequence in which they were made.

From the beginning, the Russian Embassy in London issued formal requests for consular access to the Skripals and protest notes when this was denied by the Foreign Office. In reply to British stonewalling on access and propagandizing the allegations against the Russian government, the Embassy issued a detailed summary of every action Russian officials had taken and the statements they made.

The one option the Embassy in London did not take was to engage British lawyers to obtain a hearing and an order of habeas corpus in the High Court to compel the appearance of the Skripals to testify for themselves. This option was obvious to the Embassy and lawyers in London between March 21, 2018, when the Home Office went to the court for legal authority to allow blood testing of the Skripals, and April 9, when Salisbury District Hospital announced that Yulia Skripal had been released; and then on May 18 when Sergei Skripal was also discharged from hospital.

During this period it was reported that Yulia was able to telephone her cousin Viktoria in Russia. Years later, as Chapters 67, 71, and 73 reveal, it became clear in retrospect that Yulia had recovered consciousness in hospital much earlier than the hospital allowed to be known, and that doctors had then forcibly sedated her. At the time the Russian Embassy was announcing it “questioned the authenticity” of the statements issued by the London police and media on Yulia’s behalf. The Embassy was right; it was not believed.

It is possible the Embassy did attempt to engage barristers to go to court for a habeas corpus hearing for the Skripals, but learned that no one would take the case. At the time I made an independent request for this engagement to the well-known human rights barristers in London; the outcome was that none agreed to represent the Skripals. The refusals were point-blank – no one would give a reason.

British officials anticipated that an effort might succeed in forcing a High Court hearing, however. So, on May 24, 2018, a one minute fifty-five second speech by Yulia Skripal was presented on video in which she spoke from a script and appeared to sign a statement. Referring to “offers of assistance from the Russian Embassy,” she claimed “at the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services.” Skripal’s Russian text spoke of “help” from the Russian Embassy: “now I don’t want and I am not ready to use it.”

“Obviously, Yulia was reading a pre-written text,” the Russian Embassy responded publicly. “[This] was a translation from English and had been initially written by a native English-speaker…With all respect for Yulia’s privacy and security, this video does not discharge the UK authorities from their obligations under Consular Conventions.”

Image
Excerpted frames from Yulia Skripal’s brief videotaped appearance at a US nuclear bomber base in England on May 2018; watch the tape in full here. By subtle signals, Skripal indicated she was being made to speak and to sign under duress. Two script pages were visible on a side table during the filming; the one on top Skripal was filmed signing. The two papers were in a different handwriting from Skripal’s signature and in a different pen from the pen she is seen to use. On the top page, apparently the Russian language text, Skripal added words after her signature; these are her first and family names in Russian, but without her patronymic, as Russians usually record their names in official documents. The handwriting of that name and the handwriting of the Russian statement are not the same. Nor the pen and ink used. Ten weeks earlier, on March 8, 2018, Yulia had woken from a coma in hospital and signaled to the doctor at her bedside that she had been attacked by the British, not by the Russians. Read this evidence for the first time in the new book.

At first, Putin seemed unprepared on the facts of the case – the Russian facts – and unprepared for the British government’s propaganda blitz.

The president cannot have been unprepared. On March 15, 2018, the Kremlin revealed that at a Security Council meeting on that day Putin was briefed by the Foreign and Defense Ministers and the intelligence chiefs. “While talking about international affairs,” the official communiqué said, “the Council members held an in-depth discussion on Russia-UK relations against the backdrop of Sergei Skripal’s case. They expressed grave concern over the destructive and provocative position of the British side.”

The line which Putin and his advisers decided at that meeting they planned to follow in public was revealed by Putin three days later at a press conference. He tried to feign ignorance himself, and then dissimulated on the weapon, the motive, and the opportunity. “Regarding the tragedy you have mentioned,” Putin told reporters, “I learned about it from the media. The first thing that comes to mind is that, had it been a warfare agent, the victims would have died immediately. It is an obvious fact which must be taken into account. This is first.”

“The second is that Russia does not have such chemical agents. We destroyed all our chemical weapons, and international observers monitored the destruction process. Moreover, we were the first to do this, unlike some of our partners who promised to destroy their chemical weapons but have not done so to this day, regrettably. Therefore, we are ready for cooperation, as we said immediately. We are ready to take part in any investigations necessary, provided the other side wants this too. We do not see their interest so far, but we have not removed the possibility of cooperation on this matter from the agenda.”

“As for the overall situation, I believe that any reasonable person can see that this is total nonsense. It is unthinkable that anyone on Russia would do such a thing ahead of the presidential election and the FIFA World Cup. Absolutely unthinkable. However, we are ready for cooperation despite the above things. We are ready to discuss any issues and to deal with any problems.”

On April 4, 2018, he said: “We do not expect anything other than for common sense to ultimately prevail and for international relations not to be damaged the way we have seen recently. This goes not only for this case, the attempt on Skripal’s life. This has to do with other aspects of international relations as well. We should stay within the framework of healthy political processes based on fundamental norms of international law, and then the situation in the world will become more stable and predictable.”

On May 18, at a news conference following a meeting with then-Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, Putin said: “Now regarding Mr Skripal. Yes, I also heard from the media today that he has been released from hospital. We wish him the best of health, we are really very happy. I have several considerations in this respect. First. I think if a combat-grade nerve agent had been used, as claimed by our British colleagues, the man would have died on the spot. A nerve agent is so powerful that a person dies instantly or within several seconds or minutes. Fortunately, he is alive, he got well, was released from hospital and I hope he will live a healthy and safe life.”

“As to the investigation, on our part we offered every assistance in the investigation to our British partners on a number of occasions, and asked for access to this investigation. There has been no response so far. Our proposals remain in place.”

Putin was accusing the British government of a cover-up, but softly, by innuendo. “The most objective explanation to what happened”, he said on May 25, “can be only provided as a result of a thorough, unbiased and joint – the latter is very important – investigation. We proposed working on it together from the very beginning, but as you know, the British side rejected our offer and investigated the incident alone. It is also a fact, as this was announced at the very beginning, that the victims were poisoned – if it was a poisoning – with a chemical warfare agent. I have spoken about this before, but I will say again that although I am not an expert on chemical warfare agents, I can imagine that the use of such agents should result in the almost instantaneous death of the victims. Thank God, nothing like this happened in the case of the Skripals, and that Skripal himself and his daughter are alive, have been discharged from hospital and, as we have seen on television, his daughter looks quite well. Thank God, they are alive and healthy.”

“Therefore, I believe it would be wrong to say that it was a chemical warfare agent. If so, everything the British side has said can be called into question. How can we settle this? We should either conduct a comprehensive and objective joint investigation, or stop talking about it because it will only worsen our relations.”

If Putin was trying to ameliorate these relations with London, he tried, six months later, to appear to be condemning Sergei Skripal, burying both him and the reciprocal espionage the two governments were conducting against each other. Was Putin calculating that if the British had tried but failed to kill both Skripals, he might yet save their lives? Understandably, no Russian could acknowledge this — certainly not then and not now.

In a Moscow forum in October 2018, six months after the Salisbury incidents, Putin responded to questions from a US journalist. “As regards the Skripals and all that, this latest spy scandal is being artificially inflated. I have seen some media outlets and your colleagues push the idea that Skripal is almost a human rights activist. But he is just a spy, a traitor to the motherland. There is such a term, a ‘traitor to the motherland,’ and that’s what he is. Imagine you are a citizen of a country, and suddenly somebody comes along who betrays your country. How would you, or anybody present here, a representative of any country, feel about such a person? He is scum, that’s all. But a whole information campaign has been deployed around it.”

“I think it will come to an end, I hope it will, and the sooner the better. We have repeatedly told our colleagues to show us the documents. We will see what can be done and conduct an investigation. We probably have an agreement with the UK on assistance in criminal cases that outlines the procedure. Well, submit the documents to the Prosecutor General’s Office as required. We will see what actually happened there. The fuss between security services did not start yesterday. As you know, espionage, just like prostitution, is one of the most ‘important’ jobs in the world. So what? Nobody shut it down and nobody can shut it down yet.”

“[Question] Ryan Chilcote: Espionage aside, I think there are two other issues. One is the use of chemical weapons, and let’s not forget that in addition to the Skripal family being affected in that attack, there was also a homeless person [Dawn Sturgess] who was killed when they came in contact with the nerve agent Novichok.”

“[Answer] Vladimir Putin: Listen, since we are talking about poisoning Skripal, are you saying that we also poisoned a homeless person there? Sometimes I look at what is happening around this case and it amazes me. Some guys came to England and started poisoning homeless people. Such nonsense. What is this all about? Are they working for cleaning services? Nobody wanted to poison… This Skripal is a traitor, as I said. He was caught and punished. He spent a total of five years in prison. We released him. That’s it. He left. He continued to cooperate with and consult some security services. So what? What are we talking about right now? Oil, gas or espionage? What is your question? Let’s move on to the other oldest profession and discuss the latest developments in that business. (Laughter.)”

The British Prime Minister Theresa May and her ambitious rival, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, ignored Putin’s request to put the Skripal affair aside. Instead, they escalated, publishing photographs of police and intelligence agency surveillance of the Russian military officers who were then charged with the attempted Novichok murder. Putin was put on the defensive again.

Image
The British inventors of Novichok – left to right -- Alexander Younger, head of MI6, and Mark Sedwill, National Security Advisor and Cabinet Secretary, created the Novichok plot to prevent Sergei Skripal returning to Moscow and to persuade Prime Minister Theresa May, then her successor Boris Johnson, to escalate their war against Russia.

On September 12, 2018 – seven days after the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service announced their charges against Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov – Putin was asked who were they were. “Either they deliberately poked their faces towards the camera in order to be photographed, or they are completely unprofessional to have their images captured by all the cameras. Perhaps you have a third theory?”

“Vladimir Putin: Actually, we have, of course, taken a look at these people. We already know who they are, and we have located them. I hope they will show up and tell everyone about themselves. This would be better for everyone. I assure you that there is nothing special or criminal here. We will see shortly.”

“Sergei Brilyov: Are they civilians?”

“Vladimir Putin: Of course, they are civilians.”

“Sergei Brilyov: All right, we will wait.”

“Vladimir Putin: I would like to address them, so they can hear us today. Let them come to a media outlet and tell everything.”

The results followed swiftly – an interview by Russia Today (RT), the state media agency, with the two accused Russians pretending to have been innocent tourists; then British and US intelligence data leaked through the Bellingcat organization. These propaganda episodes can be followed in Part I of the book. Putin decided not to add fuel to this fire; he ignored questions about the Skripal case for seven months, until June of 2019.

“Do you think that there is a possibility of some improvement in Anglo-Russian relations,” he was asked by the editor of the Financial Times of London on June 27, 2019, “– and that we can move on from some of these issues that are obviously of great sensitivity, like the Skripal affair?”

“As a matter of fact,” Putin answered, “treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it. Not at all. But traitors must be punished. This gentleman, Skripal, had already been punished. He was arrested, sentenced and then served time in prison. He received his punishment. For that matter, he was off the radar. Why would anybody be interested in him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested, sentenced and then spent five years in prison. Then he was released and that was it. As concerns treason, of course, it must be punishable. It is the most despicable crime that one can imagine.”

The president had promoted Skripal from “scum” who deserved his fate to “gentleman” who had been punished enough. Putin’s purpose was to propose again to the British that they set aside the Novichok narrative and opt instead for improving the bilateral relationship at the government level, and sticking to business as usual; by that Putin meant oligarch business.

“Listen, all this fuss about spies and counter-spies, it is not worth serious interstate relations. This spy story, as we say, it is not worth five kopecks. Or even five pounds, for that matter. And the issues concerning interstate relations, they are measured in billions and the fate of millions of people. How can we compare one with the other? The list of accusations and allegations against one another could go on and on. They say, ‘You poisoned the Skripals.’ Firstly, this must be proved.”

“Secondly, the average person listens and says, ‘Who are these Skripals?’ And it turns out that Skripal was engaged in espionage against us [Russia]. So this person asks the next question, ‘Why did you spy on us using Skripal? Maybe you should not have done that?’ You know, these questions are infinite. We need to just leave it alone and let security agencies deal with it. But we know that businesses in the United Kingdom (by the way, I had a meeting with our British colleagues in this same room), they want to work with us, they are working with us and intend to continue doing so. And we support this intent.”

“I think that Mrs May, despite her resignation, could not help but be concerned that these spy scandals made our relations reach a deadlock so we could not develop our ties normally and support business people, who are doing what? They do not only earn money, this is what is on the outside. They create jobs and added value, plus they provide revenue at all levels of the tax system of their countries. This is a serious and multifaceted job, with the same risks you mentioned, including risks related to business operations. And if we add an unpredictable political situation, they will not be able to work at all. I think that both Russia and the United Kingdom are interested in fully restoring our relations. At least I hope that a few preliminary steps will be made. I think it would be easier for Mrs May, maybe, because she is leaving and is free to do what she thinks is right, important and necessary and not to bother about some domestic political consequences.”

Putin believed that through the Financial Times he was appealing to the business lobbies in London to push back against the war faction in Whitehall. The appeal was in vain.

In parallel, in an elaborately staged dialogue with the US filmmaker Oliver Stone, Putin allowed some of the truth to slip out. “What has happened to Skripal? Where is he?” Stone asked.

Image
President Putin with Oliver Stone at the Kremlin. The interview was recorded on June 19, 2019; it was delayed in release for a month until July 19, 2019.

“Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. He is a spy, after all. He is always in hiding.”

“Oliver Stone: They say he was going to come back to Russia. He had some information.”

“Vladimir Putin: Yes, I have been told that he wants to make a written request to come back.”

“Oliver Stone: He knew still and he wanted to come back. He had information that he could give to the world press here in Russia.”

“Vladimir Putin: I doubt it. He has broken the ranks already. What kind of information can he possess?”

“Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei Skripal to come back to Russia?”

“Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. I do not believe this is the case.”

“Oliver Stone: Makes sense. You do not agree with me?”

“Vladimir Putin: If they had wanted to poison him, they would have done so.”

“Oliver Stone: Ok, that makes sense. I don’t know. Who did then?”

“Vladimir Putin: After all, this is not a hard thing to do in today’s world. In fact, a fraction of a milligram would have been enough to do the job. And if they had him in their hands, there was nothing complicated about it. No, this does not make sense. Maybe they just wanted to provoke a scandal.”

“Oliver Stone: I think it is more complicated. You know, you think I am much too much of a conspiracy guy.”

“Vladimir Putin: I do not believe this.”

In the Kremlin record of Putin’s references to the Skripal affair, these remarks of mid-2019 were the final word from the president. Putin and Stone were telling the truth of what had happened, and why.

Click here to buy the book in paperback or Kindle edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DT1B52RM/re ... 318&sr=8-1

https://johnhelmer.net/new-book-publish ... more-90864

******

Transcript of NewsX discussion of U.S.-U.K. sanctions on Russian energy sector
Transcript submitted by a reader

NewsX – Porteous: 0:00
Hello and welcome. I am Thomas Porteous, and today we will be diving into a discussion on the USA and the United Kingdom tightening sanctions on the Russian oil industry. Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region have captured two North Korean soldiers, marking the first time Kiev has detained North Korean military personnel. Despite being wounded, the soldiers survived and are currently in Kiev, where they are being interrogated by Ukraine’s security service. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has imposed stringent sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector, aiming to cut off funding for Moscow’s ongoing war against Ukraine.

0:38
These measures come as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Senior US officials hope to strengthen Ukraine’s position before Trump’s inauguration and ensure that the incoming administration continues to enforce these sanctions. Thank you for joining us for this debate. In this discussion we are joined by Professor Arvind Mahajan, Lamar Savings Professor of Finance at Texas A&M; Professor Rohan Gunaratna, international affairs expert from Singapore; Daniel Wagner, CEO of Country Risk Solutions from Portland, Oregon and Professor Madhav Nalapat, Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian.

1:19
Thank you for joining us for this discussion. My first question to you is for Professor Arvind Mahajan. Do you see the sanctions from the US and the UK affecting Russia’s economy both in the short term and the long term?

Mahajan:
Well the jury is still out, primarily because we have a new administration coming in, in a couple of weeks, and it really will depend upon the attitude which the new administration takes against Russia in particular regarding the enforcement of these actions. If the enforcement is serious, I think it can have a meaningful impact on the cash flows generated by these oil exports to Russia. And in that case, there might be some meaningful marginal effect on the stance which Russia takes vis-a-vis Ukraine. But it’s unclear what the new administration’s attitude will be towards it.

NewsX: 2:20
Professor Gunaratna, I wanted to come to you next. How do these sanctions compare to the previous ones that were imposed on Russia?

Gunaratna:
Russia was able to overcome the impact of those sanctions. During a visit that I made to Russia, I did see the impact, But it did not in any way affect their capacity to sustain their military campaign in Ukraine. What is so important today is that with a new administration coming to office, they must try to resolve this conflict through dialogue and discussion. Even India can play a very important role, because India has very good relations with Russia and also with the United States. So we should look beyond the continuity of this conflict and try to resolve it because through, by sanctions and by war, this conflict is not going to end. It’s going to affect the entire world

NewsX: 3:34
Daniel Wagner, Professor Gunaratna was talking about resolution to this war, but do you think that these sanctions will make the situation harder to negotiate a peace deal?

Wagner:
No, to the contrary, I think these sanctions are going to make it easier to negotiate a peace deal, because the pressure that’s being put on Putin and the Russian government right now as a result of these sanctions is truly significant. And I think what in essence is happening is that the Biden administration is giving a gift to the Trump administration for its future negotiations to try to end this war. And I think it won’t take long for Putin to feel the pressure, because these sanctions are truly significant. You might ask why they weren’t done sooner and the reason is, of course, politics.

4:27
They didn’t, the Biden administration didn’t want to have a spike in oil and gas prices in America as a result of these sanctions during the election cycle, which basically means for the past two years, that was not going to be in the cards. So I think there’s every reason to believe that this will make a difference.

NewsX: 4:48
Professor Nalapat, Trump has spoken about a possible meeting with Putin. What can we expect from this and what actions do we expect President Trump to take within his first few days of office in regard to this conflict?

Nalapat:
Let me tell you quite clearly that in my view these sanctions are not going to make any impact on Russia’s war capacity. Ukraine is supposed to have been winning the war right from February 2022 onwards and it has lost people, it has lost territory continuously since then.

5:24
The small incursions that are made into Russia can be mopped up at any time. The reality of the situation is that if oil prices go up, it’s a gift to Putin. Putin is very dependent on oil and gas for a lot of the money that he is making and he would be delighted by it. And quite frankly, this war is creating a rift between the West and the rest of the world to the benefit of China. Again, this is– this war is because of an obsessive focus on Europe on the part of the Biden administration and I’m sorry to say by too many scholars in the United States and in other parts of North America.

6:05
The reality of the situation is, if Ukraine were that important to European security, during all the decades it was part of the USSR, was there an impact on European security? Nothing at all. The fact is, this is a Eurocentric approach to the world, and that approach could have been wonderful in the 17th and 18th, 19th century, but in the second half of 20th century the winds began shifting, and now it is firmly in the Indo-Pacific and firmly the main adversary is no longer Russia but China. By keeping on sounding the war drums against Russia, you are diverting the attention away from China to the benefit of China. So very frankly– and supposing let’s say that Trump comes in, and supposing some people say all right they’re going to increase. I mean, Britain and the US are gas exporters; other countries in Europe are importers. They will suffer. The German economy is already significantly weakened. Other European economies have been significantly weakened.

And every single political leader in the West, as Keir Starmer is going to find out in the next election, has been weakened if he has supported the Ukraine war, where you talk about Biden, you talk about Sunak, you talk about Johnson, you talk about Macron, you talk about Trudeau, you talk about any of these people. They’ve all been weakened, because the people of these countries have more common sense than some of the leaders have to have.

7:40
My point is, this is a trap laid for Donald Trump. This is a very clever trap laid for Donald Trump, a minefield that if he steps on, it will blow to bits any chance of a detente with Russia. And in the view of some of us, the fact is, Russian neutrality during this new ongoing Cold War 2.0 with China is essential. If you don’t get Russian support, just as the West got Chinese support during Cold War 1.0, if you don’t get Russian support, at least Russian neutrality. And by making it much more difficult to do so because of this obsession with the European country, Ukraine, which frankly makes very little strategic difference to either Europe or Asia or the United States, wherever it goes. I think quite frankly, the Biden, whoever in the Biden administration is behind this. And so far the UK is concerned. Kier Starmer is marching in lockstep with Boris Johnson and Sunak. And if he’s going to continue, he’ll go the same way.

8:45
Already the Reform Party is gathering speed in Britain. What I understand is, it’s got more people than the Conservatives. But the Conservatives also jumped on the Ukrainian bandwagon. And Labour is going to pay a price for it. So I just want to say this war has to be ended now. And if it’s not ended, the West is in danger of losing the rest to China, and that is to the benefit of only one country, the present biggest threat to the West, which is China.

NewsX: 9:17
Thank you. Gilbert Doctorow, Russian affairs expert, also joins us. How would you respond to Madame Nalepat’s statement there calling this a minefield for the upcoming Donald Trump administration?

Doctorow:
I don’t agree. In war, in politics, timing is everything. The timing is based, is useful when you have good intelligence and understand the world around you. The administration of Washington has bad intelligence. It has a defective CIA, defective other intelligence agencies within Washington, and they have been feeding the president and the Congress completely misleading information or disinformation about the conduct of the war. If this measure had been introduced two years ago, it might have had an impact on Russia’s ability to conduct the war. However, it is being introduced at a time when Russia is close to dealing a knockout blow to Ukraine.

10:21
We are at the war’s end, in terms of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. We are close to a capitulation of the Ukrainian forces. The only possible practical effect of these new sanctions, should they be implemented by the Trump administration, which is questionable, the only possible impact would be to hasten the Russian move for the knockout blow and to motivate Mr. Putin to hasten the war and to finish it up. And it means that these measures have an escalatory impact.

Wars are fought not only on the ground, but by economics. And this economic approach is wrongly timed because of the misinformation, as I said, and because of the cowardice of the Biden administration, which is the other side of the viciousness of this administration. These people, Blinken, Sullivan, and Biden are hateful people, and they think that they are giving a poison chalice to Mr. Trump. But it’s only because they’re misled. You can fool the other party, but you should not fool yourself with propaganda. And regrettably for them, the Biden administration is subject to its own propaganda.

NewsX: 11:46
Gilbert, I wanted to track back a little bit on this, and I was wondering how ordinary Russians will respond to these sanctions and the feeling in Russia about the war currently.

Doctorow:
To give a certain response to that question, because Russia has been on vacation for two weeks. The Russian news agencies, the Russian prime talk shows, the indications of what the elites around the Kremlin think, are only coming back on air on Monday and Tuesday, after the Russian New Year.

12:21
But I can tell you from the latest news bulletins, it is evident that the Russians appreciate the seriousness of these sanctions, but they expect to muddle through and to continue to prosecute the war. No one in Russia has been enthusiastic for this war. Let us be clear, it is a major war. Anyone who thinks that the fighting forces of Ukraine have not been valiant and have not given it their best effort is mistaken. This is a serious war, the largest in Europe since World War II.

And yet [Russia], acting on their own with minor logistical support from their allies, has beaten back everything that the United States and NATO have been able to throw at it. Ukraine is simply the space in which this war between NATO and Russia is being fought. So the Russians have, in the last several weeks, have increased confidence that they are winning this war and the end is near.

NewsX: 13:33
Professor Arvind Mahajan, I wanted to ask you, Russia currently faces around 13,000 international sanctions. With all these sanctions, how might Russia redirect its exports?

Mahajan:
Well, I think– I’m not a huge fan of sanctions, because as a generality, I have not seen them work very effectively in most of the cases. And it’s unclear to me really how effective these sanctions might be, even though the Department of Treasury has certainly ratcheted up what it has been doing over the last couple of years. So, I mean, frankly, from my viewpoint, our view of this war, to a large extent, is dictated by where we are situated. Clearly, the American view is slightly different than the Russian view, slightly different than the Indian view, slightly different than the Ukrainian view. And we are subject to our own biases and perspectives.

14:38
Unfortunately, we don’t really get a clear, unbiased information. None of us get them clearly because it’s kind of colored by where we are located and the echo chamber in which we exist. So I think our views on the war accordingly are determined by our position. As a generality, like I said earlier, I don’t think sanctions are usually a very effective tool. In this case, a negotiated settlement really is the only solution here. I am not sure, as I said earlier, I’m not sure how vigorously the Trump administration is going to implement and enforce the changes proposed by the Department of Treasury.

15:26
It’s also unclear to me how the OPEC countries are going to respond, in as far as changing the supply of oil in the markets is concerned. As was mentioned by someone else, there is enough oil in the market that this was an opportune time to put the sanctions on without the fear that the prices will spike up in a significant way, although we did see some increase in the price of oil yesterday. But it’s not going to be impactful as it would have been a couple of years ago when the global supplies were somewhat limited. So the long-winded answer to your clear question really is, one, the jury is out, and two, I don’t think these sanctions are going to be the determinant of how the war ends and on what terms it ends. I think these sanctions are a small part of the larger issues which the countries are dealing with to determine how it will be resolved. I just don’t see them as breaking the back of Russia, so that it will come running to the negotiating table.

NewsX: 16:33
Professor Gunaratna, I wanted to ask, as the UK and the US and Europe wean themselves off of Russian gas, how might Ukraine benefit from new energy deals or pipelines?

Gunaratna:
Ukraine certainly is challenged at this point. So my personal view is that it is so important for there to be a resolution to this conflict, because the threats are going to spread. Already Europe is witnessing so much of threats coming from Russia. And of course, Ukraine itself is mounting attacks deep into Russia.

So this escalation is going to cripple the economy of Europe, Ukraine and Russia. It’s going to create a big conflict and eventually the threat is going to spread beyond Ukraine. That is why I said that it is a great opportunity for the new administration to pursue a different path.

NewsX: 17:44
Daniel Wagner, I want to come to you on this next one. Let’s say this war does end after Trump takes office. How can the US and the UK assure that Ukraine won’t be threatened again?

Wagner:
Right, well, of course, we have to get to that point before we can have such a discussion. And a lot of people are very skeptical that this is actually going to be resolved quickly. It may take quite a few months to do so if all the parties are willing to go to the table. But at the end of the day, NATO is in a much better position than it was to protect itself.

It’s much better funded. It’s much better armed. And Ukraine itself, should it ever become a member of NATO, ultimately would be the best-experienced and best-armed country of NATO among them. So I think part of it will be to keep NATO armed, somehow keep it well funded in the recovery process, and for the NATO countries to step up to the plate and devote even a greater percentage of their GDP to NATO going forward. Two percent isn’t going to do it any more.

And as we know, Trump has talked about ramping that up to 5%. I don’t even think the US is gonna reach that point. So it all remains to be seen, but I do think Europe is in a much better position than it was previously.

NewsX: 19:19
Professor Nalapat, did these sanctions strengthen Russia’s push to build closer ties with countries like China and India?

Nalapat:
Well, I’m afraid the Russians have been pushed completely into the Chinese camp, thanks to these sanctions and thanks to this Ukraine war. And may I point out very, very, very respectfully that NATO has lost every single war it has fought. Frankly it has hardly fought a war in the European continent. There was no kinetic war between the USSR and the US and European countries. You take Libya, you take Iraq, you take Syria, you take Afghanistan, the NATO went in there and created a royal mess, a complete royal mess. So very frankly in Asia we are not very, what do I say, admiring of the great capabilities of NATO in conducting operations in actuality rather than computer simulations or battlefield simulations.

20:31
I think we’re very frankly, the record in Libya, the record in Afghanistan, the record in Syria, the record in Iraq, that all these records speak for themselves. I don’t know who is going to argue with these records. I want to say very clearly, we need to shift the focus back to the Indo-Pacific. We need to shift from Europe, we need to shift the focus back from Ukraine, I mean from Russia to China. And that is the reality that we are confronting today. So quite frankly we can do chest thumping about the immense strength of NATO. But try telling that to the people of Libya, to the people of Iraq, the people of Syria, to the people of Afghanistan and you may hear a bit of polite dissonance coming from them. Thank you.

NewsX: 21:23
Gilbert Doctorow, if Russia is shut out of Western markets, how might this reshape the global economic order, especially with Chinese involvement?

Doctorow:
Western markets, since shortly after the start of this special military operation in February 2022, that’s not a new development. They have found various ways of circumventing the sanctions and finding new markets. That took them perhaps four to six months from the start of the war till they found their feet and resolved the challenges that the United States was posing.

22:07
Those solutions are what are now being attacked by the latest sanctions that Yellen and others in the Biden administration have cooked up. I have in mind the question of the black fleet, the 150 ships or whatever that are being used by Russians to evade the sanctions concerning insurance requirements and other requirements on vessels carrying Russian oil around the world. They have succeeded, and I think they will be equally inventive in finding new solutions to counter the sanctions that are being produced. But the more important thing is not Russian evasion of the sanctions. They will be, as your first speaker mentioned, it will be the readiness and the ability of the incoming Trump administration to implement and to execute the intentions of these sanctions. And I don’t believe that the interest in Mr. Trump is to do that.

23:12
On the contrary, as I said a moment ago, full implementation of these sanctions, if they were to have the impact, the negative consequences for Russian exports of petroleum, would be, would push us in an escalatory direction. One has to remember that when countries are pressed in an existential way, as Japan was before World War II, what starts out economic becomes kinetic. And therefore the ultimate result, if Mr. Biden’s measures were to be successful, which they will not be, would be to escalate this war in the direction of a nuclear war. For that reason, I think we all should condemn what Biden has done. It is, as I said, a poison chalice and it comes from people who know no better.

NewsX:24:12
We have run out of time. That is all we have time for, unfortunately. Thank you very much [to] all our guests for joining us today in this discussion. We will continue to bring more news updates from the war and the rest of the world. Thank you for watching NewsX,

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/01/14/ ... om-russia/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Thu Jan 16, 2025 11:51 pm

The financial own goal of illegal US sanctions against Russia
Jan 16, 2025 , 12:50 pm .

Image
Washington's illegal seizure of Russian reserves was detrimental because it "destroyed confidence in the fundamental asset of the US dollar reserve system" (Photo: Archive)

The sanctions, trade blockade and confiscation of Russian assets promoted by the United States and its allies in response to the Special Military Operation in Ukraine were expected to generate negative consequences that would impact the military and logistical capabilities of the Eurasian country, but the result has not been as expected and, one could even say that the boomerang effect has been devastating for those who carried out these actions.

The New York Times recently noted that "predictions made in the early months of the war that economic restrictions would undermine Russia and President Vladimir Putin, or reduce the ruble to 'rubble,' did not come true." To the surprise of those predicting catastrophe, Moscow managed to overcome Western attempts to limit its revenues and increase defense spending.

For the United States, however, the theft of Russian assets was a shot in the foot given the impact it had on its economy. An Asia Times article titled “How the US Sanctioned Itself in Ukraine,” published on January 10, explains how the seizure has had a substantial and measurable impact on U.S. Treasury bond yields.

Before going into details, the author of the report, David Paul Goldman, an American economic strategist, details how the reserve system works.

"Rising US Treasury yields are the main driver of global markets, depressing stock prices, pushing up the US dollar exchange rate and threatening US housing construction and other rate-dependent economic activities. Moreover, as rates rise, the US Treasury deficit – already above 6% of GDP – will increase," he said.

US Treasuries are essential for a few key reasons , which we summarize below:

1.They represent security and confidence as they are considered one of the safest assets in the world due to the economic and political stability of the United States. Historically, they were seen as safe havens in times of uncertainty or economic turmoil, but that image has been changing.
2.They are a central part of many countries' international reserves, which reinforces global demand for them.
3.They produce high liquidity and that is why investors buy and sell them due to the ease of moving large sums of money without causing significant fluctuations in prices.
4.They are the benchmark for setting interest rates around the world, so any change in them can have a domino effect on the global economy.
5.They offer a way to balance risk in investments, especially in volatile or emerging markets, and that is why they were considered safe.
6.As for the exchange rate, it is said that the demand for Treasury bonds also affects the value of the US dollar. Increased demand strengthens the dollar.
7.They are instruments of monetary policy because the Federal Reserve and other central banks use them as a tool to implement monetary policy, which influences interest rates and the money supply.

That said, it explains why US Treasury bonds are a central element of the financial system and serve as a proxy for the health of the global economy.

The article notes that Washington's seizure of Russian reserves was detrimental because it "destroyed confidence in the core asset of the US dollar reserve system, namely US Treasury debt, and raised US borrowing costs just as Treasury borrowing needs soared."

When the US seized Russian assets, the extent of its financial power was exposed, and obviously no country wanted to look in that mirror. So central banks began reducing their holdings of US government debt, increasing upward pressure on yields – by a painful 0.8 percentage points, according to Goldman calculations – and also prompting them to dump dollar assets.

"The Fed caused most of the rate increase by raising the rate it charges banks for overnight money, to be sure. But a significant rise in the so-called real yield on Treasury bonds — in this case, the interest rate on inflation-indexed Treasury bonds (TIPS) — is due to the reduction in purchases of U.S. debt by foreign central banks. About 80 basis points — 8-tenths of a percentage point — are explained by the reduction in holdings of U.S. government debt by foreign central banks," he says.

Gold: a safe haven in times of uncertainty
The author notes that the phenomenon became visible when the central banks of China, India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey decided to transfer their foreign exchange reserves into gold and out of Treasury bonds after the United States and its allies seized half of Russia's $600 billion in foreign exchange reserves when the war began in 2022.

The story includes a chart showing how big the impact of foreign central banks’ sales of U.S. government debt has been. It explains that the red line shows the six-week change in foreign central bank holdings of Treasury bonds, according to Federal Reserve data, and that the blue line reflects the fraction of the 10-year TIPS yield that is not explained by changes in the federal funds rate — the overnight rate the Fed charges banks.

Image
(Photo: Asia Times)

"As of January 1, 10-year TIPS yields were 80 basis points higher than predicted by the federal funds rate—the blue line, again, is the change in TIPS yields not explained by the federal funds rate. Econometric tests show that the relationship between the two variables is significant at the 95% confidence level," he says.

He stressed that the current circumstances, marked by the decline in holdings of US Treasury bonds, contrast with past times when foreign central banks, particularly China, "intervened to support the Treasury by doubling their holdings of US government debt from $2 billion to $4 billion in 2007."

In recent years, the holding of Treasury bonds has been reduced, which has had an impact on their performance because they are no longer considered the safest assets in the world, especially in these times when the United States has hinted that it uses the financial system as a weapon of war whenever it wants.

For David Paul Goldman, both assets play a similar role in the portfolio: "They offer a form of insurance against unexpected inflation and depreciation of the dollar. The difference is that Treasury securities can be seized by the US government, as in the case of Russia, while gold in the vault of a central bank cannot."

Image
(Photo: Asia Times)

The author uses the above chart to show the correlation between the current and lagged values ​​of the two variables at weekly intervals. "The cross-correlogram indicates that changes in Treasury bond holdings by foreign central banks predict future TIPS yields, and not the other way around," he explains.

Since 2022, when anti-Russian sanctions were intensified, gold has risen sharply despite rising TIPS yields. In 2024, the precious metal has appreciated by nearly 30% and remains of interest to managers due to its status as a safe haven in the face of an uncertain 2025 and due to central bank purchases.

With all major Western economies running large deficits, the stability of government debt is in doubt and the value of gold as a hedge against currency depreciation is increasing.

As can be seen, the sanctions imposed on Russia after the Military Operation in Ukraine have had repercussions on global financial markets, including the performance of US Treasury bonds, as it generated uncertainties that led to the search for alternatives to avoid risks associated with irrational political decisions.

https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/el ... ntra-rusia

Google Translator

******

THE BRITISH ATTACK ON THE SKRIPALS DIDN’T KILL THEM – INSTEAD, BRITISH NOVICHOK HAS KILLED THE MAINSTREAM AND ALT-MEDIA

Image

by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

The war to destroy Russia has been an evil in which the British, Americans, Germans and French have combined for more than a century now. In the present stage on the Ukrainian battlefield, every weapon and force fielded by the Anglo-Americans and their allies has been defeated; the Ukraine itself, territorially and politically, has been destroyed.

No serious Russian believes this war will be over when the incoming US president claims the personal credit for negotiating end-of-war terms short of the US side’s capitulation.

About men like him and negotiations like his, it was the Irishman Edmund Burke who in his 1770 essay “Thoughts on the Present Discontents” issued this warning: “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”* In the present war against Russia, the bad men have combined across the Atlantic and the Pacific. Against them on the information war front, there are very few good men – not one in the mainstream media, almost none in the alternative media.

The power of state repression is only half the reason. The other half is the competition for money. In competing for internet media subscribers, even those tempted to be good will be motivated not to associate, to compete against each other instead, and thereby “fall, one by one in the contemptible struggle.”

In propaganda war, the bad men must convince their paymasters more than their audience that they are winning. Reaching this point today has required a series of confidence-building, warmaking preparations – the putsch in Kiev of February 2014; the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine in July 2014; and the Novichok attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, England, in March 2018. The official narrative of Novichok, the Russian chemical warfare weapon allegedly used against the Skripals, has just reached its climax in London. A state-sponsored report will be published in a few weeks’ time. It will conclude that President Vladimir Putin had the means, opportunity and motive to kill the Skripals, and is guilty of attempted murder on English soil.

But the forensic evidence which has slipped into the public record from the British intelligence and security services, the chemical warfighters at Porton Down, and the Whitehall staffs advising the prime minister proves the narrative and the indictment are false. Weapon, crime scene, victim, killer, motive – all have been faked. By the Anglo-American and Canadian law standards of reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities, the prosecution of the case against Russia should have collapsed. Except, of course, that in the present state of war, this hasn’t happened.

The new book, Long Live Novichok! The British poison which fooled the worldis the lone voice to explain for the time being at least; it is also the only platform to defend Sergei and Yulia Skripal as political prisoners of the British for the past seven years. Because they didn’t die after they had been sprayed with a British poison, they have been kept in hospital under forced sedation and tracheostomy; then held under guard, in isolation, incommunicado. Their telephone calls to family in Russia, made in a hurry and in secret, stopped five years ago.

For the first time the book documents the British presentation in public of the poison weapon itself, revealing the clue of the colour of Novichok. This is the evidence that the murder weapon wasn’t Russian, it wasn’t Novichok at all.

In today’s podcast from Canada, Chris Cook and I discuss the reasons for the failure of Novichok to kill anyone, and its success at brainwashing everyone, or almost everyone.

The contrast with other media campaigns of resistance to western information warfare is a glaring one. For example, the campaign to defend Julian Assange and free him from a British prison and trial in the US has turned out to have been a popular success. However, Assange himself, his Wikileaks platform, and his London advocates have done nothing to expose the Novichok deception operation. They are good men who have done nothing — their media success has failed to deter or stop the Anglo-American march to war in the Ukraine; Assange’s lawyers are supporters of the war against Russia. Assange’s alt-media reporters have pretended they are the only truth-tellers in the present discontents; their war is against their media competitors.

For their names; for the truth of the Novichok story; and for the after-life of the Novichok poison in the coming war against Russia, click to listen.
https://gradio.substack.com/p/gorilla-r ... jeremy-c35
Image
Begin at Minute 31:00. Source: https://gradio.substack.com/

For the introduction to this broadcast, access to the 20-year Gorilla Radio archive, and Chris Cook’s blog, click here and here.

[*] It is usually believed that what Edmund Burke said was: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” As a warning against inaction or apathy, it’s salutary, if not quite right. But Burke didn’t say this. Instead, what he wrote was the line quoted in the lead. He then elaborated on how the moral duty of good men should be exercised in action. “It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth,that a man means well to his country; it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act, but always voted according to his conscience, and even harangued against every design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to the interests of his country. This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demands and requires, that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect, it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it.” Read Burke’s essay in full.

https://johnhelmer.net/the-british-atta ... alt-media/

******

Very Strong Delusion ...

... and palliative measures against butthurt from The Hill.

The Russians have big ambitions for their space program. They are planning a new space station to replace their share of the International Space Station when it ends its operational life around 2030. They have made an alliance with China to participate in its lunar base project, with a nuclear reactor to power it. The question arises, then: Is Russia in any position to fulfill these and other ambitious objectives? A recent study from the Foreign Policy Research Institute casts some doubt. It notes that “multiple factors have made the sustainable development of the Russian space program impossible.” The issues include “sanctions, an embargo on advanced industrial equipment, workforce shortages, limited financial resources spread among too many projects, cancellation of space cooperation with Western partners except operations on the International Space Station and the economic inefficiency of the Russian space industry.” The article suggests that the current decline in the fortunes of the Russian space program dates back as early as 2014, when Putin seized Crimea from Ukraine, and certainly from 2022, when Russia invaded its neighbor with a goal of conquering it.

This sheer delirium is based on the study by this shyster: Pavel Luzin holds a doctorate in international relations from the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO). He is an expert on Russia’s politics, defense affairs, and global security. Dr. Luzin studies these fields for Riddle media. Previously, he covered these issues for the presidential campaign of Alexei Navalny in Russia (2017-2018), “Nations in Transit” project at Freedom House (2016-2018), and Center for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding (2015-2018). He has worked for Russian think tanks IMEMO and PIR-Center, and taught at Perm State University and at Higher School of Economics (Perm campus).

Luzin is NOT an expert in anything serious, his doctorate is in BS and he wouldn't dare to subject himself to any serious discussion on any military-technological matter. But he has the "right" biography and continues to spread BS about things he cannot grasp. But that tells you everything you need to know about Western "think-tanks".

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/01 ... usion.html

******

John Webster: Don’t Play Poker with Putin
January 16, 2025 natyliesb
By John Webster, Website, 12/14/24

John Webster has been active in politics since the late 1960’s. He has worked in senior positions in Local Government and is a long-term critic of Government economic, environmental and foreign policy. He served two terms as Deputy Leader of Cheltenham Borough Council as a Liberal Democrat before returning to the Forest of Dean and re-joining the Labour Party which he had first joined in 1980 and left at the time that it was clear that Britain was to support the war in Iraq. He is member of Jewish Voice for Labour which is led by Jews who are opposed to the actions of the Israeli Government.

I’d like to take a close look at the war in Ukraine. If the UK and NATO wants to fight Russia, people need to know the facts.

Ukraine is a large country – 2.5 times the size of the UK but with a pre-war population of about 40 million. The Ukraine conflict has been brewing for years and the areas annexed by Russia are about the size of the United Kingdom. They include some 7 million people in 4 regions in addition to the Crimea peninsula with a front line stretching from Land’s End to John O Groats.

Internal conflicts between Ukrainian Nationalists in the west of the country and Russian speakers in the east led to a US supported ‘coup’ in 2014 and a civil war which cost some 14,000 lives. The army split between nationalists and pro-Russian elements who defended the Donbas area and Crimea was annexed by Russia.

The USA fully supported the Ukrainian nationalists and despite the majority of Ukrainians not wanting to join NATO, the Ukrainian Government declared it wanted to and allowed US intelligence services (the CIA) to establish spy bases on the Russian border.

What concerned Russia was the aim of NATO to place intermediate missiles in Ukraine that could hit Moscow in 5 minutes or less. In 2019 the USA tore the existing INF (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces) treaty up which would have forbidden the production of such missiles.

Prior to this there were attempts brokered by Germany and France to reach an agreement in which Ukraine didn’t join NATO and, in an attempt to resolve civil conflict, give the Luhansk and Donetsk republics the kind of autonomy that Wales and Scotland have, but still as part of Ukraine. The agreements were sabotaged by ‘the west’ and Ukraine. Ukraine subsequently banned the Russian language and closed down the Russian Orthodox Church.

The encroachment of NATO was seen as such an extreme threat by Russia that, in breach of international law, it intervened in February 2022 with a token force of about 200,000 troops. The Ukrainian army was somewhat bigger than this and had been armed to the teeth by ‘the west’. The force moved in on Kiev and the Donbas, taking most of the Donbas very quickly mainly because many Russian speakers there welcomed them. This was their prime target.

Negotiations took place brokered by Turkey which both sides agreed to – but which were rejected by Ukraine when it was given guarantees by western politicians to support Ukraine for ‘as long as it takes’. The agreement would have meant Ukraine would stay intact but NOT be part of NATO. When it was rejected, Russia expanded its army to approaching 1 million troops and set about resolving the situation with the use of extreme force.

Russia is depicted by lazy thinkers in ‘the west’ as a ‘gas station with nukes.’ It is the biggest country in the world with a population of 146 million and a working population of 74million (compared to 33million in the UK) and has an abundance of natural resources. Measured in conventional terms this puts it 11th in the world’s economies behind Britain but measured according to what is called Purchasing Power Parity (which is favoured by most international organisations like the world bank and the IMF), Russia is the 5th largest economy in the world after China, the USA, India and Japan. It looks like it will shortly become the 4th.

The 30,000 or so sanctions applied to Russia by ‘the west’ to try and destroy it have meant it has had to reorientate its economy towards China in the east and has had to become much more self-reliant. In sharp contrast to ‘the west’ its economy is growing. Whereas in Britain and the USA, most ‘economic activity’ is now in service, finance and administrative sectors, much more of Russia’s economy produces real things – food and manufactured goods.

It also has massive military capacity and produces is own munitions and weapons including tanks and aircraft. It has 5th generation aircraft. F16s are a capable 4th generation aircraft but up against Russia’s air defence systems aren’t capable of being deployed anywhere near the front line. Along with the USA and China, it is working on 6th generation aircraft. A ‘gas station with nukes’ would not be able to do this. Where is Britain in this race? Nowhere.

It has a formidable military which now dominates the battle field in a country right next to it so its supply lines are relatively compact– it has (in the words of President Obama) ‘escalatory dominance’.

According to Mediazona (established with the BBC and Russian ‘dissidents’ to monitor Russian casualties), Russia has suffered under 80,000 killed in action since the beginning of the conflict. This is a record of funerals etc and is almost certainly an underestimate with the real figure probably being somewhere around 150,000 deaths.

There are no such figures for Ukraine but the reports from the battlefields and the extension of graveyards etc indicate a very much greater death toll – probably in the order of at least 3 times that of Russia. Bear in mind that Britain’s total military killed in action in World War 2 amounted to just over a quarter of a million over a period of 5 years. Ukrainian losses are likely double this in half the time.

The reality is that Russia has fought the war as one of attrition with saturation shelling on a 650 mile front with the use of drones and spy satellites that expose the battlefield. It has air superiority, outguns Ukraine with shells at a rate of 7 to one, uses massive glide bombs and has accurate hypersonic missiles which have largely demolished the power grid and which are very difficult to intercept with the current missile defence systems.

It has more battle-hardened infantry. It has increasing superiority in drone warfare. It has the most sophisticated electric warfare system in the world and is working on the s500 air defence system which it maintains can intercept hypersonic missiles. Neither the USA or the UK possess such missile at the moment but it is assumed they will in then future because the US plans to locate them in Germany where there is growing opposition to them.

The western media complacently dismisses such claims BUT they are demonstrated every day on the Ukrainian battlefield as the Russian army advances. It now outnumbers the Ukrainian army which cannot recruit enough willing volunteers to fight. In these conditions who do you think is taking most casualties?

At the start of the war many Ukrainians fled – over 5 million of them to Russia. The idea that everybody in Ukraine supports ‘the west’ is clearly not true. The hope of the west is that Russia will ‘collapse’ as a result of sanctions and western pressure. The sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline to Germany was intended to bankrupt Russia. Instead, it has crippled the German economy. This is not a strategy that is working.

Neither does calling Putin names amount to a strategy. Putin has mass popular support. Recent reports from the western backed Levada institute put it at some 80%. Does this indicate collapse? People in ‘the west’ may think Putin is a nasty bully. In Russia he is a hero.

The USA has poured tens of billions of dollars into Ukraine but despite this, Russia is winning the war. The UK has pledged £3billion a year to Ukraine while seeking cuts to the British armed forces and has recently sent Stormshadow cruise missiles capable of striking deep into Russia.

This has led to retaliation with an Intermediate Ballistic Missile with multiple conventional war heads that has destroyed a missile production facility in Dnipro, and which can hit anywhere in Europe and which ‘the west’ has no defence against at all. Russia could literally destroy any military facility in the UK and the only response that we could offer would be to escalate to nuclear retaliation. The message to any rational organisation should be clear.

The fiction in most media in the UK is that brave little Ukraine is holding its own. It is actually being torn to shreds and has been used by ‘the west’ to try and weaken Russia and disrupt the developing alliance between Russia and China. Sanctions have backfired and driven China and Russia closer together: they are becoming increasingly economically and militarily interdependent and have almost certainly shared missile technology which has transformed modern warfare and in which they lead the world making ‘power projection’ with aircraft carriers a thing of the past. If we keep antagonising these two powers then we will suffer.

The majority of non-western countries in the world are opposed to the economic and military domination of the USA, and we are seeing more and more countries align themselves with the BRICS group which supports the UN charter rather than the ‘rules based order’ of the USA. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine has been judged illegal but to say it was ‘unprovoked’ is simply not the case. This is why, outside of the ‘western world’, Russia is NOT isolated.

The USA spends more than China and Russia on Defence BUT it has much bigger commitments. China has one overseas base and Russia 21, mainly in than old Soviet Union area. The USA has some 800 and Britain 30. This is where much of the military budgets actually go.

The kind of contempt for Russia that has been fed to the British people by the media to maintain the fiction that Ukraine is winning is to justify the huge amount of money we are giving to it. We SHOULD be asking what are we doing in Ukraine?

The idea that we are ‘defending democracy’ is not serious. Ukraine is dominated by corrupt politicians and has banned all those that question the war. This is about global dominance based on a declining US Empire.

Will Trump make any difference? Trump is what people in the US call a ‘Blowhard’ and bully. In my view unless he decides to stop the war immediately, he is likely to threaten to escalate it under the impression that Russia will bend to such threats.

Vladimir Putin may or may not be a nice man. That is not the prime qualification needed for being President of Russia or any other country. Can you really see him bending to Trump. Would YOU like to play poker against Putin?

We need to step back from this now. British policy is putting us directly in harm’s way.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/01/joh ... ith-putin/

******

Capture the border region of Belarus
January 16, 16:05

Image

The West intends to seize the border region of Belarus with the help of Belarusian extremists and introduce so-called "peacekeeping forces" there. This was warned by the State Secretary of the Security Council of the Republic, Alexander Volfovich.
According to him, a command and coordination center, "Pospolite Rus'", has been created in Poland to manage the training of militants.
Volfovich also noted that Minsk sees the deployment of nuclear weapons, "Oreshnik" and the presence of "Iskander-M" as a striking fist capable of causing damage to any aggressor.


The plans to seize the border regions of Belarus are, frankly speaking, not new and this topic has already been voiced by both the KGB of Belarus and the SVR of the Russian Federation.
The upcoming presidential elections, in which Lukashenko will obviously win, may be viewed by NATO as an opportunity to try to destabilize Belarus and create additional problems for the Russian Federation. Of course, the war with the West is not and will not be limited to Ukraine alone.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9614689.html

A habit of forgetting the past has developed
January 16, 17:21

Image

Kyrgyz MP calls not to touch Lenin monument on Old Square in Bishkek

"Soviet power brought good to Kyrgyzstan. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Kyrgyz were divided. After the October Revolution, first the Kara-Kyrgyz Autonomous Region was created, then the Autonomous Republic, and then the Kyrgyz SSR. Kyrgyzstan gained independence within these borders. Many peoples do not have a state. Lenin played a great role in laying the foundation of our independence. As a historian, I will say that we have developed a habit of forgetting the past. This is a big mistake. 30-40% of our population was brought up in the USSR. I ask you not to come up with an initiative to replace the Lenin monument now. The monument to the great Turdakun Usubaliev stands 200 meters away on the Alley of Statesmen. Yes, they are worthy people, the founding fathers. But they all held the banner of communism and Lenin. […] We have many other problems, let's deal with them," said Ishak Masaliev.

@Sputnik_Kyrgyzstan - zinc

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9614902.html

VK video beats YouTube thanks to degradation
January 16, 19:13

Image

VK video beats YouTube thanks to degradation

We have already managed to catch up and overtake America. Our VK Video overtook overseas YouTube in the number of daily users during the New Year holidays. According to the research company Mediascope, the daily audience of VK Video was 41 million people, while YouTube was visited by an average of 33 million users per day. The peak of traffic on VK Video was on January 8 - 42 million people.

For the first time, the Russian video service became a leader in the number of users on December 22, having gathered an audience of 40.4 million people. In fact, VK Video has become the main alternative to YouTube. Since the official launch of a separate application in September 2023, users have installed it more than 44 million times.

Well, for those who still doubt that we can live perfectly well without Western social networks. Earlier it became known that VKontakte has overtaken the American video hosting service in monthly reach. According to Mediascope statistics, in December 2024, 92 million Russian residents used our social network, and 89.6 million used YouTube in the same month.


https://t.me/politadequate/9435 - zinc

Actually, it is no big secret that the growth of the VK and Rutube audience became possible due to the degradation of YouTube, which led to the flow of part (but not all) of the audience to domestic services, with all their existing shortcomings.
The main problem is the lack of many useful functions from YouTube.
I now use both YouTube with VPN and Rutube (about 60% of the channels that I watched on YouTube before the degradation moved to Rutube or VK-Video). In fact, there are no problems to continue using YouTube in the Russian Federation, but a significant part of the audience is simply too lazy to install it and they switch to unblocked alternatives.

P.S. Roskomnadzor also reported today that the Discord blocking continues without changes, and rumors have emerged that the blocking is supposedly being lifted.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9615129.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sat Jan 18, 2025 6:02 pm

Russia’s Geoeconomic Shift from Greater Europe to Greater Eurasia
Posted by Internationalist 360° on January 12, 2025
Glenn Diesen

Image

Liberal theory suggests that economic interdependence creates peace as both sides gain economically from peaceful relations. However, liberal theory is deeply flawed as it assumes states prioritise absolute gain (both sides gain, and it does not matter who gains the most). Due to the security competition in the international system, states must focus on relative gain (who gains more). As Friedrich List recognised: “As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles”.[1]

In all interdependent relationships, one side is always more dependent than the other. Asymmetrical interdependence empowers the less dependent state to set favourable economic conditions and obtain political concessions from a more dependent one. For example, the EU and Moldova are interdependent, but the asymmetrical interdependence results in the EU preserving its autonomy and gaining influence.

The “balance of dependence” refers to a geoeconomic understanding of the realist balance of power. In an asymmetrical interdependent partnership, the more powerful and less reliant side can extract political power. The more dependent side therefore has systemic incentives to restore a balance of dependence by enhancing strategic autonomy and diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the more powerful actor.

Geoeconomic rivalry entails competing for power by skewing the symmetry within interdependent economic partnerships to enhance both influence and autonomy. In other words, to make oneself less reliant on others while increasing the dependence by others. Diversifying economic partnerships can reduce one’s own reliance on a state or region, while asserting control over strategic markets diminishes the capacity of other states to diversify and lessen their dependence.

The Geoeconomic Foundation for Western Dominance

The centuries-long geoeconomic dominance of the West is the product of asymmetrical interdependence by dominating new technologies, strategic markets, transportation corridors and financial institutions.

Following the disintegration of the Mongol Empire, the land-based transportation corridors of the ancient Silk Road that had fuelled trade and growth vanished. Subsequently, Western maritime powers rose to prominence from the early 1500s by asserting control over the main maritime transportation corridors and establishing “Trading-Post empires”. Leading naval powers, such as Britain, have therefore historically been more inclined towards free trade as they had more to gain and risked less by controlling the trade routes. The maritime strategies of Alfred Thayer Mahan in the late 1800s were founded on this strategic reasoning, as controlling the oceans and Eurasian continent from the periphery laid the basis for US military and economic power.

The advancements in the Industrial Revolution created an even more favourable balance of dependence in favour of the West. Adam Smith noted that the discovery of America and the East Indies were the “two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of mankind”.[2] However, he also recognised that the extreme concentration of power in Europe created an exploitative and destructive relationship:

“To the natives however, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from those events have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned. These misfortunes, however, seem to have arisen rather from accident than from anything in the nature of those events themselves. At the particular time when these discoveries were made, the superiority of force happened to be so great on the side of the Europeans that they were enabled to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries”.[3]

Samuel Huntington similarly wrote:

“For four hundred years, intercivilizational relations consisted of the subordination of other societies to Western civilization… The immediate source of Western expansion, however, was technological: the invention of the means of ocean navigation for reaching distant peoples and the development of the military capabilities for conquering those peoples… The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do”.[4]

Following the Second World War, the US became the dominant power due to military power, but also geoeconomic power consisting of its large share in the global GDP, technological superiority, industrial dominance, the Bretton Woods institutions, control over strategic markets/resources, and control over key transportation corridors.

From Gorbachev’s Common European Home to “Greater Europe”

Following the demise of communism, Russia aimed to integrate with the West to form a “Greater Europe”, based on the ideas of Gorbachev’s concept of a Common European Home. Economic development and prosperity required integration with the West as the main economic centre in the international system.

However, the Americans and Europeans had no incentives to accept a Greater Europe. The West aimed to construct a new Europe without Russia, which required reviving bloc politics. The ultimatum to Russia was to either accept a subordinated position as the permanent apprentice of the West or be isolated and thus become economically underdeveloped and irrelevant. The West supported only European institutions such as NATO and the EU that incrementally augmented the collective bargaining power of the West to maximise asymmetrical interdependence with Russia. Making Russia obey the European institutions where Russia does not have a seat at the table is possible under extreme asymmetrical interdependence. Cooperation then entails unilateral concessions and Russia would have to accept decisions by the West.

The alienation of Russia would not matter if it kept getting weaker. William Perry, the US Defence Secretary between 1994 and 1997, recognised that his colleagues in the Clinton Administration were aware that NATO expansionism and the exclusion of Russia from Europe fuelled anger:

“It wasn’t that we listened to their [Russia’s] argument and said [we] don’t agree with that argument… Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point…. the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path”.[5]

The dream of a Greater Europe failed due to Russia’s inability to create a balance of dependence within Europe. Moscow’s Greater Europe initiative aimed to obtain a proportional representation at the European table. Instead, the unfavourably asymmetrical partnerships with the West that followed enabled Western unilateralism veiled as multilateralism, in which the West could maximise both its autonomy and influence.

“Cooperation” was subsequently conceptualised by the West within a teacher-student/subject-object format, in which the West would be a “socialiser” and Russia would have to accept unilateral concessions. Russia’s decline would be managed as expanding the EU and NATO sphere of influence in the east gradually diminished the role of Russia in Europe. “European integration” became a zero-sum geostrategic project, and states in the shared neighbourhood were presented with a “civilizational choice” of aligning either with Russia or the West.

Moscow’s “Greater Europe” project was always destined to fail. The “leaning-to-one-side” policy by Yeltsin was not rewarded and reciprocated by the West, rather it made Russia vulnerable and exposed. Russia neglected its partners in the east, which deprived Russia of the bargaining power required to negotiate a more favourable format for Europe. Brzezinski noted that cooperation with the West was “Russia’s only choice – even if tactical”, and it “provided the West with a strategic opportunity. It created the preconditions for the progressive geopolitical expansion of the Western community deeper and deeper into Eurasia”.[6]

Putin Reforms the Greater Europe Initiative

Yeltsin conceded by the end of the 1990s that the “leaning-to-one-side” policy had been exploited by the West and called for diversifying Russia’s economic partnerships by becoming a Eurasian power. However, there were no powers in the East with the intentions or capabilities to challenge Western dominance. Putin attempted to revive the Greater Europe Initiative by ending the era of unilateral concessions and instead strengthening Russia’s negotiation power. Russia would not integrate into the West through unilateral concession, but integrate with the West as an equal.

Moscow began to embrace economic statecraft as the principal tool for restoring Russian power, and pursue incremental integration with the West. Re-nationalising energy resources ensured that the strategic industries of Russia worked in the interest of the state rather than oligarchs, who were courted by the West and tended to use these industries to impose their control on the state. However, the West resisted energy dependence on Russia as it risked creating more symmetry in relations and even giving Russia a voice in Europe. The narrative of the Russian “energy-weapon” was born as Europeans were told to reduce all dependence on Russia as the requirement for a more obedient Kremlin.

The Greater Eurasia Initiative

Russia’s Greater Europe Initiative eventually died when the West supported the coup in Kiev in 2014 to pull Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic orbit. By making Ukraine a frontline instead of a bridge, it was evident that any incremental integration with Europe had been a utopian dream. Furthermore, the anti-Russian sanctions made it necessary for Russia to diversify its economic connectivity. Rather than seeking to resolve the Ukraine crisis by implementing the Minsk peace agreement, NATO began to build a Ukrainian army to change realities on the ground. Russia began to prepare for a future clash by making its economy sanctions-proof.

With the rise of Asia, Russia found a solution. Russia began to diversify away from excessive reliance on the West and embrace the new Greater Eurasia Initiative. Instead of being isolated at the periphery of Europe, Russia acquired economic strength and influence by developing new strategic industries, transportation corridors and international financial institutions in cooperation with countries in the East. While Russia is met with hostility in the stagnant West, it was embraced in the more dynamic East. Not only has the ambitions of Gorbachev’s Common European Home been abandoned, but the 300-year-long Western-centric policy since Peter the Great has also ended.

A strategic partnership with China is indispensable to construct a Greater Eurasia. Yet, Russia has learned the lessons from the failure of Greater Europe by avoiding excessive dependence on an economically stronger China. The asymmetrical interdependence that emerges in the framework of such a partnership enables China to extract political concessions, which would make it untenable for Russia in the long term. Moscow seeks a balance of dependence in its strategic partnership with Beijing, which entails diversifying economic partnerships across Greater Eurasia. As China does not seek a hegemonic role in Greater Eurasia, it has welcomed Russia’s efforts to diversify its economic partnerships.

Under the Greater Europe Initiative, the Europeans had access to cheap Russian energy and enjoyed a huge Russian market for exports of manufactured goods. Furthermore, Russia’s geoeconomic strategy to integrate with the West resulted in preferential treatment for Western corporations. Under Greater Eurasia, Europe will undergo deindustrialization as the cheap Russian energy and market opportunities go to Asia, which also enhances the competitiveness of Asia vis-a-vis Europe. The Europeans continue setting their own house on fire with reckless sanctions, in the hope that it will also hurt the Russian economy. However, while Europe cannot diversify away from Russia, Russia can diversify away from Europe.

Ideally, Europe would be one of Russia’s many economic partners in the Greater Eurasia Initiative. The revival of militarised dividing lines on the European continent makes the Europeans excessively reliant on the US and Russia becomes too dependent on China. It is therefore strong systemic incentives to restore some economic connectivity between the Europeans and Russians after the Ukraine War, although it will be within a Greater Eurasian format as Greater Europe can no longer be revived.

[1] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia.

[2] A. Smith, An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1863, p.282

[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.

[4] S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1996, p.51.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Z. Brzezinski. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Basic Books, New York. 2009. P. 102.

The article is based on excerpts from my previous article with the same title: Glenn Diesen, ‘Russia, China and the “Balance of Dependence” in Greater Eurasia’, Valdai Dicussion Club, March 2017

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/01/ ... r-eurasia/

******

Fact Check: Central Asia & Russia Are Unlikely To Rely More On Pakistani Ports For Foreign Trade
Andrew Korybko
Jan 16, 2025

Image

All in all, while it makes economic sense for them to do so, it’s not politically feasible at present.

The Pakistani Energy Minister was fact-checked last month here for claiming that his country’s stalled Pakistan Stream Gas Pipeline with Russia might expand across South Asia. A few weeks later, Pakistan’s Minister of Maritime Affairs must also be fact-checked after making a similarly misleading statement about Russia, this time about it and the Central Asian Republics (CARs) allegedly preparing to rely more on Pakistani ports for foreign trade. This is wishful thinking at best for the reasons that’ll be explained.

For starters, it was already assessed in summer 2023 that “PAKAFUZ’s Connectivity Potential Is Totally Dependent On Troubled Pakistani-Taliban Ties”, which refers to the planned Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbekistan railway for connecting the CARs and eventually Russia with the Indian Ocean. For as logical as PAKAFUZ is, it’s hamstrung by rapidly worsening Pakistani-Taliban ties, especially over the past few months. Not even China has been able to de-escalate tensions between its two regional partners.

They’re quickly approaching the breaking point after Pakistan recently carried out airstrikes against what it claimed was a terrorist-designated TTP training camp in Afghanistan, which prompted the Taliban to retaliate with an alleged cross-border raid. To make matters even more complicated for Pakistan, its ties with the US might also soon worsen as suggested by the latest sanctions against its state agency involved in ballistic missile production and one of Trump’s aides demanding Imran Khan’s release from prison.

Even if Pakistani-Taliban ties were to magically improve, the US might still ramp up its pressure against Pakistan, which could take the form of trying to impede its ambitious plans for pioneering overland connectivity with Russia and the CARs. Accordingly, those countries don’t consider Afghanistan and Pakistan to be reliable conduits to the sea for scaling their foreign trade, instead naturally preferring the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) through Iran.

Although Iran might soon come under even more American pressure than Pakistan if Trump revives his “maximum pressure” policy against it, the precedent of waivers being given to India for its trans-Iranian trade to Afghanistan could be replicated with regard to the CARs in order to assist their balancing acts. To elaborate, it’s in the US’ interests to help these countries expand their foreign trade partners in order to reduce their economic dependence on China and Russia, ergo the role that India can play via the NSTC.

Russia is already sanctioned to the hilt so there’s not much else that the US can do to try to curtail its exports, but it might be willing to let Iran continue facilitating the CARs trade with India and others through sanctions waivers due to worsening Pakistani-Taliban ties impeding PAKAFUZ’s viability. The potential ramping up of American pressure on Pakistan under Trump 2.0 over its ballistic missile program and Imran Khan also further incentives the US to prevent Pakistan from playing this role at least for now.

Circling back to what its Minister of Maritime Affairs said, he was either engaging in wishful thinking at best or had ulterior motives behind talking about Russia and the CARs relying more on Pakistani ports for foreign trade, which could be attributable to his country’s newly troubled ties with the US. For instance, his government might think that discussing this possibility could convince the US not to pile on any more pressure out of fear that it could pivot towards Russia, but the US knows better than to fall for that.

While it was recently argued here that the US tacitly approves of their plans to have Russia modernize Pakistan’s resource sector in order to lessen its dependence on China, there are clear limits to how far it’ll allow the Russian-Pakistani rapprochement to develop. No anti-American pivot is possible since Pakistan’s economy is dependent on foreign institutional support from the US-controlled IMF and World Bank that obviously comes with political strings attached.

The US can therefore inflict devastating damage to the Pakistani economy by interfering with those two’s programs to that country as political retribution for its leadership refusing to capitulate to its demands. For this reason, any potential intent on its Minister of Maritime Affairs’ part to signal a possible anti-American pivot to Russia in the event that the US applies more pressure upon Pakistan in the coming future is exposed as unrealistic, thus neutralizing its purpose in preemptively averting that scenario.

All in all, while it makes economic sense for Russia and the CARs to rely more on Pakistani ports for their foreign trade, it’s not politically feasible at present for the reasons that were explained. These inhibiting factors will likely remain relevant for some time so the odds of this happening anytime soon are low. Nevertheless, the CARs can probably lobby for US sanctions waivers for allowing them to use the NSTC via Iran for expanding trade ties with India, which Trump might grant them for anti-Chinese purposes.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/fact-che ... and-russia

'Who cares what the US president thinks?'

"at present"...

******

Strategic Partnership Agreement between Russia and Iran
January 17, 20:58

Image

Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties,

expressing interest in elevating friendly interstate relations to a new level and giving them a comprehensive, long-term and strategic nature, as well as in strengthening their legal foundations,

convinced that the development of a comprehensive strategic partnership meets the fundamental interests of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran,

relying on the deep historical ties between the Russian and Iranian peoples, the closeness of cultures and spiritual and moral values, community of interests, strong ties of good-neighborliness and broad opportunities for cooperation in the political, economic, military, cultural and humanitarian, scientific and technical and other fields,

taking into account the need to further strengthen interaction in the interests of peace and security at the regional and global levels,

wishing to promote the objective process of forming a new fair and sustainable multipolar world order based on the sovereign equality of states, good-faith cooperation, mutual respect for interests, collective resolution of international problems, cultural and civilizational diversity, the rule of international law in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, including refraining from the threat or use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs and respect for the territorial integrity of both States,

reaffirming their commitment to the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the generally recognized norms of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation between States, and guided by all existing agreements between the Contracting Parties, including the Declaration between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on Enhancing the Role of International Law of 16 June 2020 (corresponding to 27 Khordad 1399 AH),

emphasizing that the Treaty between the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and Persia of 26 February 1921 (corresponding to 7 Esfand 1299 AH), the Treaty on Commerce and Navigation between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Iran of 25 March 1940 (corresponding to 5 Farvardin 1319 solar Hijri), the Treaty on the Fundamentals of Relations and Principles of Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran dated March 12, 2001 (corresponding to 22 Esfand 1379 solar Hijri) and other fundamental documents concluded between the Contracting Parties, laid a solid legal foundation for bilateral relations,

agreed on the following:

Article 1

The Contracting Parties shall strive to deepen and expand relations in all areas of mutual interest, strengthen cooperation in the field of security and defense, closely coordinate activities at the regional and global levels, which corresponds to a long-term, comprehensive and strategic partnership.

Article 2

The Contracting Parties shall pursue state policies based on mutual respect for national and security interests, the principles of multilateralism, peaceful settlement of disputes, rejection of unipolarity and hegemony in world affairs, and shall oppose interference by third parties in the internal and external affairs of the Contracting Parties.

Article 3

1. The Contracting Parties shall strengthen their relations based on the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, independence, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, respect for sovereignty, cooperation and mutual trust.

2. The Contracting Parties shall take measures to jointly promote the above-mentioned principles at various levels of relations in the bilateral, regional and global dimensions, adhere to and support policies consistent with these principles.

3. In the event that one of the Contracting Parties is subjected to aggression, the other Contracting Party shall not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor that would facilitate the continuation of aggression, and shall promote the settlement of any disagreements that arise on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and other applicable norms of international law.

4. The Contracting Parties shall not allow the use of their territories for the purpose of supporting separatist movements and other actions that threaten the stability and territorial integrity of the other Contracting Party, as well as hostile actions against each other.

Article 4

1. In order to strengthen national security and counter common threats, the intelligence and security services of the Contracting Parties shall exchange information and experience and enhance the level of their cooperation.

2. The intelligence and security services of the Contracting Parties shall interact within the framework of separate agreements.

Article 5

1. In order to develop military cooperation through their relevant departments, the Contracting Parties shall prepare and implement relevant agreements within the framework of the Working Group on Military Cooperation.

2. Military cooperation between the Contracting Parties shall cover a wide range of issues, including the exchange of military and expert delegations, calls of warships and vessels at ports of the Contracting Parties, training of military personnel, exchange of cadets and teachers, participation, as agreed by the Contracting Parties, in international defense exhibitions held by the Contracting Parties, holding joint sports competitions, cultural and other events, implementing joint maritime operations to provide assistance and rescue, as well as combating piracy and armed robbery at sea.

3. The Contracting Parties shall closely cooperate in conducting joint military exercises on the territory of both Contracting Parties and beyond its borders by mutual consent and taking into account applicable generally recognized norms of international law.

4. The Contracting Parties shall consult and cooperate in the field of countering common military threats and threats to security of a bilateral and regional nature.

Article 6

1. Within the framework of a comprehensive, long-term and strategic partnership, the Contracting Parties confirm their commitment to the development of military-technical cooperation on the basis of relevant agreements between them, taking into account mutual interests and their international obligations, and consider such cooperation as an important component of maintaining regional and global security.

2. In order to ensure appropriate coordination and further development of bilateral military-technical cooperation, the Contracting Parties shall hold annual meetings of the relevant working bodies.

Article 7

1. The Contracting Parties shall cooperate on a bilateral and multilateral basis in the fight against international terrorism and other challenges and threats, in particular extremism, transnational organized crime, human trafficking and hostage-taking, illegal migration, illegal financial flows, legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime, the financing of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, illegal trafficking in goods, money and monetary instruments, historical and cultural values, weapons, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors, and exchange operational information and experience in the field of border control.

2. The Contracting Parties shall coordinate their positions and promote joint efforts in the fight against the said challenges and threats at the relevant international venues, and shall also cooperate within the framework of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).

3. The Contracting Parties shall maintain interaction on issues of protecting public order and ensuring public safety, protecting important state facilities and state control over arms circulation.

4. The Contracting Parties, when implementing the cooperation provided for in this article, shall be guided by their national legislation and the provisions of international treaties to which they are parties.

Article 8

1. The Contracting Parties shall protect the rights and legitimate interests of their citizens in the territory of the Contracting Parties.

2. The Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation in all legal areas of interest, in particular in providing legal assistance in civil and criminal cases, extradition and transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment, as well as the implementation of agreements in the area of ​​returning assets obtained by criminal means.

Article 9

1. Guided by the objectives of maintaining international peace and security, the Contracting Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other within the framework of international organizations, including the United Nations and its specialized agencies, on global and regional issues that may directly or indirectly pose a challenge to the common interests and security of the Contracting Parties.

2. The Contracting Parties shall cooperate and support on a reciprocal basis the membership of each Contracting Party in the relevant international and regional organizations.

Article 10

The Contracting Parties shall closely cooperate on issues of arms control, disarmament, non-proliferation and international security within the framework of relevant international treaties and international organizations to which they are parties, and shall hold regular consultations on these issues.

Article 11

1. The Contracting Parties shall carry out political and practical cooperation in the field of international information security in accordance with the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Cooperation in the Field of Information Security dated 26 January 2021 (corresponding to 7 Bahman 1399 AH).

2. The Contracting Parties shall promote the formation, under the auspices of the United Nations, of a system for ensuring international information security and the creation of a legally binding regime for the prevention and peaceful settlement of conflicts based on the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of states.

3. The Contracting Parties shall expand cooperation in the field of countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes, coordinate actions and jointly promote initiatives within the framework of international organizations and other negotiating platforms. The Contracting Parties shall promote the strengthening of national sovereignty in the international information space, exchange information and create conditions for interaction between the competent authorities of the Contracting Parties.

4. The Contracting Parties support the course towards the internationalization of the management of the information and telecommunications network "Internet", advocate equal rights for states in its management, consider any attempts to limit the sovereign right to regulate and ensure the security of national segments of the global network unacceptable, are interested in more active involvement of the International Telecommunication Union in solving these problems.

5. The Contracting Parties shall support the strengthening of sovereignty in the international information space by regulating the activities of international companies in the field of information and communication technologies, as well as through the exchange of experience in the management of national segments of the Internet and the development of infrastructure in the field of information and communication technologies, and shall cooperate in the field of digital development.

Article 12

The Contracting Parties shall promote the strengthening of peace and security in the Caspian region, Central Asia, Transcaucasia, and the Middle East, cooperate to prevent interference in the said regions and the destabilizing presence there of third states, and exchange views on the situation in other regions of the world.

Article 13

1. The Contracting Parties shall cooperate to preserve the Caspian Sea as a zone of peace, good-neighborliness and friendship based on the principle of the non-presence in the Caspian Sea of ​​armed forces that do not belong to the coastal states, as well as to ensure security and stability in the Caspian region.

2. The Contracting Parties, taking into account the advantages of their territorial proximity and geographic connectivity, shall strive to use all the economic potential of the Caspian Sea.

3. The Contracting Parties shall actively interact to promote and deepen the multifaceted partnership of the states of the Caspian region. In cooperating in the Caspian Sea, the Contracting Parties shall be guided by the current five-party international treaties of the Caspian states, to which the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran are parties, and shall confirm the exclusive competence of the Caspian states in resolving issues related to the Caspian Sea. The Contracting Parties shall improve bilateral cooperation on issues related to the Caspian Sea.

4. The Contracting Parties shall cooperate, including within the framework of joint project activities, in the sphere of sustainable use of economic potential of the Caspian Sea, guaranteeing environmental safety, protection of biological diversity, conservation and rational use of aquatic biological resources, marine environment of the Caspian Sea, and shall also take measures to combat pollution of the Caspian Sea.

Article 14

The Contracting Parties shall deepen cooperation within the framework of regional organizations, interact and coordinate positions in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the interests of strengthening its potential in the areas of politics, security, economy, culture and humanitarian spheres, and shall promote expansion of trade and economic relations between the Eurasian Economic Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Article 15

The Contracting Parties shall promote the development of cooperation between their legislative bodies, including within the framework of international parliamentary organizations, various multilateral formats, specialized committees and commissions, relevant liaison groups of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Consultative Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as the Commission on Cooperation between the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Consultative Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Article 16

1. The Contracting Parties shall develop interregional cooperation, based on its special importance for expanding the entire range of bilateral relations.

2. The Contracting Parties shall create favorable conditions for establishing direct ties between Russian and Iranian regions, promote mutual familiarization with their economic and investment potential, including through business missions, conferences, exhibitions, fairs and other joint interregional events.

Article 17

The Contracting Parties shall support trade and economic cooperation in all areas of mutual interest, coordinating this interaction on the platform of the Permanent Russian-Iranian Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation.

Article 18

1. The Contracting Parties shall promote the development of trade, economic and industrial cooperation, the creation of mutual economic advantages, including joint investments, infrastructure financing, simplification of trade and business mechanisms, cooperation in the banking sector, promotion and mutual provision of goods, works, services, information and results of intellectual activity, including exclusive rights thereto.

2. Realizing their investment potential, the Contracting Parties may make joint investments in the economies of third countries and, to this end, maintain dialogue within the framework of specialized multilateral mechanisms.

Article 19

1. The Contracting Parties shall oppose the application of unilateral coercive measures, including those of an extraterritorial nature, and shall consider their introduction to be an internationally unlawful and unfriendly act. The Contracting Parties shall coordinate efforts and support multilateral initiatives aimed at eliminating the practice of applying such measures in international relations, guided, inter alia, by the Declaration of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the ways and means of countering, mitigating and compensating for the negative consequences of unilateral coercive measures of 5 December 2023 (corresponding to 14 Azar 1402 AH).

2. The Contracting Parties guarantee the non-application of unilateral coercive measures aimed directly or indirectly at one of the Contracting Parties, individuals and legal entities of such Contracting Party or their property under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Party, goods, works, services, information, results of intellectual activity, including exclusive rights to them, originating from one Contracting Party and intended for the other Contracting Party.

3. The Contracting Parties shall refrain from joining unilateral coercive measures or supporting such measures of any third party if such measures affect or are aimed directly or indirectly at one of the Contracting Parties, individuals and legal entities of such Contracting Party or their property under the jurisdiction of such third party, goods originating from one Contracting Party intended for the other Contracting Party, and (or) works, services, information, results of intellectual activity, including exclusive rights thereto, provided by suppliers of the other Contracting Party.

4. In the event that unilateral coercive measures are introduced with respect to one of the Contracting Parties by any third party, the Contracting Parties shall make practical efforts to reduce risks, eliminate or minimize the direct and indirect impact of such measures on mutual economic relations, individuals and legal entities of the Contracting Parties or their property located in the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties, goods originating from one Contracting Party intended for the other Contracting Party, and (or) works, services, information, results of intellectual activity, including exclusive rights thereto, provided by suppliers of the Contracting Parties. The Contracting Parties shall also take steps to limit the dissemination of information that can be used by such a third party to introduce and escalate such measures.

Article 20

1. In order to increase the volume of mutual trade, the Contracting Parties shall create conditions for the development of cooperation between credit institutions, taking into account international legal documents in the field of combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism, to which the Contracting Parties are parties, the use of various trade finance instruments, the development of projects for joint support of mutual exports, building up investment potential, expanding mutual investments between individuals, public and private companies, and ensuring adequate protection of mutual investments.

2. The Contracting Parties shall develop interaction in order to create a modern payment infrastructure independent of third countries, the transition to bilateral settlements in national currencies, strengthening direct interbank cooperation and the dissemination of national financial products.

3. The Contracting Parties shall expand their cooperation in order to develop trade and encourage investment in special/free economic zones of the Contracting Parties.

4. The Contracting Parties shall assist special/free economic zones of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran in implementing activities aimed at establishing joint ventures in areas of mutual interest, and shall pay attention to the establishment of industrial zones. 5.

The Contracting Parties declare their readiness to develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the gold mining, gold processing, diamond and jewelry industries.

Article 21

1. The Contracting Parties, taking into account their existing capabilities and potential, shall maintain close cooperation in the field of transport and confirm their readiness for the comprehensive development of partnership in the transport sector on a mutually beneficial basis.

2. The Contracting Parties shall create favorable conditions for the work of carriers of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, facilitating the process of transportation of goods and passengers by all modes of transport and increasing their volumes, and efficiently using road and border infrastructure.

3. The Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation in the field of automobile, rail, air, sea and multimodal transportation, as well as in the training of specialists in the field of transport.

4. The Contracting Parties shall actively cooperate in the development of international transport corridors passing through the territory of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, in particular the international transport corridor "North-South". Such interaction shall include the promotion of goods originating from the Contracting Parties to the markets of third countries, as well as the creation of conditions for the development of seamless transportation along transport corridors both in bilateral communication and in transit through their territory.

5. The Contracting Parties shall implement modern developments in the field of digital transport systems.

6. The Contracting Parties shall maintain close coordination within the framework of international industry organizations in the field of transport, establish mutually beneficial cooperation between executive authorities in the field of transport and organizations, and facilitate their participation in international industry transport events.

Article 22

1. The Contracting Parties shall expand cooperation in the oil and gas sector based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit and take measures to enhance the energy security of the Contracting Parties through the efficient use of fuel and energy resources.

2. The Contracting Parties shall promote the development of bilateral cooperation in the energy sector in the following areas:

2.1. scientific and technical cooperation, exchange of experience and implementation of advanced and modern technologies in the field of oil and gas production, processing and transportation;

2.2. assistance to Russian and Iranian companies and organizations in the fuel and energy complex in expanding cooperation, including energy supplies and swap operations;

2.3. encouraging investment within the framework of bilateral cooperation in projects for the development of oil and gas fields in the territory of the Contracting Parties;

2.4. facilitating the implementation of infrastructure projects that are important for ensuring global and regional energy security;

2.5. ensuring non-discriminatory access to international energy markets and increasing their competitiveness;

2.6. cooperation and implementation of a coordinated policy within the framework of international energy forums, such as the Gas Exporting Countries Forum and OPEC Plus.

3. The Contracting Parties shall increase the level of interaction, exchange of views and experience in the field of renewable energy sources.

Article 23

The Contracting Parties shall promote the development of long-term and mutually beneficial relations for the purpose of implementing joint projects in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy, including the construction of nuclear power facilities.

Article 24

1. The Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation in the fields of agriculture, fisheries, veterinary medicine, plant protection and quarantine and seed production in order to expand mutual trade and access of agricultural products to the markets of the Contracting Parties and the markets of third countries.

2. The Contracting Parties shall take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of agricultural products, raw materials and foodstuffs, which must comply with the requirements established in the field of sanitary-epidemiological, veterinary, quarantine, phytosanitary and seed control (supervision), as well as the requirements for the safe handling of pesticides and agrochemicals or other requirements of the legislation of the Contracting Parties.

Article 25

The Contracting Parties shall carry out customs cooperation, including the implementation of projects to create a simplified customs corridor, mutual recognition of the relevant institutions of the authorized economic operator in order to stimulate the formation of safe supply chains, the organization of administrative cooperation and the exchange of customs information between their customs authorities.

Article 26

The Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation in the field of antimonopoly policy in order to promote fair competition in national markets and improve the welfare of the population.

Article 27

The Contracting Parties shall develop cooperation in such matters as mutual recognition of standards, test reports and certificates of conformity, direct application of standards, exchange of experience and advanced developments in the field of ensuring the uniformity of measurements, training of experts and promotion of recognition of test results between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Article 28

The Contracting Parties shall interact in the fields of healthcare, medical education and science, including within the framework of specialized international organizations, in the following areas:

1) organization of the state healthcare system and management of activities in the field of healthcare;

2) prevention and treatment of infectious and non-communicable diseases;

3) protection of maternal and child health;

4) state regulation in the field of circulation of medicines for medical use and medical devices;

5) promotion of a healthy lifestyle;

6) medical scientific research;

7) introduction of digital technologies in healthcare;

8) professional training of specialists in the field of healthcare;

9) other areas of cooperation of mutual interest.

Article 29

1. The Contracting Parties shall strengthen cooperation in the field of ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population on the basis of national legislation and state policy in the field of preventing and combating infections, as well as international treaties to which the Contracting Parties are parties.

2. The Contracting Parties shall deepen coordination in the field of ensuring sanitary and epidemiological welfare and food safety.

3. The Contracting Parties shall promote the harmonization of hygienic requirements and standards for food safety and mutual participation in relevant events organized by them.

Article 30

1. The Contracting Parties shall promote the development and strengthening of long-term and constructive ties in the field of higher education, science, technology, innovation, implement joint scientific and technical projects, encourage the establishment and development of direct contacts between interested educational and scientific organizations of the Contracting Parties.

2. The Contracting Parties shall promote the development of direct partnerships between interested educational and scientific organizations of higher education, including on issues of development and implementation of joint scientific, technical and research programs and projects, exchange of scientific and pedagogical staff and students, scientific and technical information, scientific literature, periodicals and bibliographies.

3. The Contracting Parties shall promote the exchange of experience and information on issues related to legal regulation in the sphere of scientific, scientific-technical and innovation activities, the organization and holding of joint scientific seminars, symposia, conferences, exhibitions and other events.

4. The Contracting Parties shall promote the study of the official languages, literature, history and culture of the other Contracting Party in their higher education institutions.

5. The Contracting Parties shall promote the acquisition of education by their citizens in educational institutions of the other Contracting Party.

Article 31

The Contracting Parties shall expand interaction, exchange of opinions and experience in the field of research and exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes.

Article 32

The Contracting Parties shall strengthen ties between the mass media, as well as in such areas as printing and publishing, promotion of Russian and Persian literature, socio-cultural, scientific and economic relations by encouraging mutual acquaintance and communication between the peoples of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Article 33

The Contracting Parties shall encourage their mass media to carry out broad cooperation to raise awareness of the people and support the free flow of information with the aim of jointly countering disinformation and negative propaganda regarding the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, countering the dissemination of false information of public importance that threatens the national interests and security of each of the Contracting Parties, and other abuses in the media sphere.

Article 34

1. The Contracting Parties shall promote the further development of cooperation in the field of culture and art, including through holding cultural exchange events and encouraging direct contacts between their cultural institutions in order to maintain dialogue, deepen cultural cooperation and implement joint projects for cultural and educational purposes.

2. The Contracting Parties shall promote familiarization of the peoples of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran with each other's culture and traditions, facilitate the study of the official languages ​​(Russian and Persian), encourage contacts between educational organizations, including the exchange of experience between teachers of Russian and Persian, their advanced training and professional retraining, the development of teaching aids on Russian and Persian as foreign languages ​​taking into account national specifics, encourage contacts between figures in literature, art and music.

3. The Contracting Parties shall create favorable conditions for the activities of the Russian Cultural Center in Tehran and the Iranian Cultural Center in Moscow in accordance with the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Establishment and Terms of Operation of Cultural Centers dated April 13, 2021 (corresponding to 24 Farvardin 1400 AH).

Article 35

The Contracting Parties shall support in-depth cooperation in the public and private sectors in the field of promoting cultural heritage, tourism, arts and crafts in order to raise people's awareness of the socio-cultural wealth and diverse tourist attractions of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and facilitate direct contacts between their tourism organizations.

Article 36

The Contracting Parties shall encourage the development of bilateral youth exchanges, facilitate the establishment of direct contacts between creative, sports, socio-political and other youth associations, and facilitate the holding of joint thematic conferences, seminars and consultations on youth issues.

Article 37

The Contracting Parties shall promote the strengthening of cooperation in the field of physical culture and sports through the exchange of coaches and other specialists in the field of physical education and sports, and shall also expand direct contacts between their sports organizations.

Article 38

The Contracting Parties shall provide each other with possible assistance in preventing natural and man-made disasters, responding to them, eliminating their consequences, developing and improving the crisis management system.

Article 39

The Contracting Parties shall interact in the field of environmental protection by exchanging experience in the rational use of natural resources, introducing environmentally friendly technologies and implementing environmental protection measures.

Article 40

The Contracting Parties shall promote cooperation, exchange of opinions and experience in the field of water resources management.

Article 41

The Contracting Parties may, if necessary, conclude separate agreements in order to determine specific areas and parameters of cooperation provided for by this Treaty.

Article 42

The Contracting Parties shall exchange opinions on the progress of implementation of the provisions of this Treaty, including within the framework of regular summit and high-level meetings.

Article 43

This Treaty shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties arising from other international treaties.

Article 44

Disputes related to the interpretation or implementation of the provisions of this Treaty shall be resolved through consultations and negotiations between the Contracting Parties through diplomatic channels.

Article 45

1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification and shall enter into force upon expiry of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the last written notification of the fulfillment by the Contracting Parties of the relevant domestic procedures, and shall be valid for 20 (twenty) years with automatic extension for subsequent five-year periods.

2. This Treaty shall be terminated if one of the Contracting Parties notifies the other Contracting Party in writing of its intention to terminate this Treaty no later than 1 (one) year prior to the expiration of its term.

Article 46

Termination of this Treaty shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties, as well as their current projects, programs or agreements that arose during the implementation of this Treaty prior to such termination, unless they agree otherwise in writing.

Article 47

Amendments and additions may be made to this Treaty by mutual written consent of the Contracting Parties. Such amendments and additions shall form an integral part of this Treaty and shall enter into force in accordance with Article 45 thereof.

This Treaty, consisting of a preamble and 47 (forty-seven) articles, was concluded in the city of Moscow on January 17, 2025, which corresponds to Dey 28, 1403 solar Hijri, in two copies in the Russian, Persian and English languages, all texts being equally authentic.


P.S. The secret protocols on the division of Poland by Russia and Iran have not yet been published.


https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9617644.html

Conduct an investigation into Chubais' activities
January 17, 13:03

Image

An appeal has been sent to the Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General's Office with a request to conduct an investigation into Chubais's activities for signs of crimes (c) General Kartopolov.

The most important thing in this case is timeliness and efficiency.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9616421.html

Google Translator

******

Sanctions continue to be ineffective.

Surprise surprise
Zinderneuf
Jan 17, 2025

Cross-post from East’s Substack
Zinderneuf on sanctions against Russian oil - Zinderneuf

According to StanChart, the new restrictions roughly triple the number of directly sanctioned Russian crude oil tankers, enough to affect around 900 thousand barrels per day (kb/d). Whereas it’s highly likely that Russia will try to circumvent the sanctions by employing even more shadow fleet tankers and ship-to-ship transfers, StanChart sees 500kb/d of displacements over the next six months.

Image
Russia Historical Oil Exports, thousands of barrels per day

Zin Note: So basically, the new sanctions may lower Russian oil exports by about 10%, but the sanctions themselves have caused global oil prices to rise more than 10% since they were announced. Even if the sanctions act as Standard Chartered predicts, Russian oil revenue will be about the same as it was before the sanctions...

In other news, the volume of Russian oil exports fell last year, but overall revenue was higher than in 2023.

Image

https://eastcalling.substack.com/cp/155001498
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:08 pm

THE PISTACHIO PACT – IS THE RUSSIAN-IRANIAN STRATEGIC AGREEMENT THE NUT OR THE SHELL?

Image

by John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

There was a time when Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was President of Iran (1989-97) and he despatched from his personal office secret intelligence-gatherers to Moscow. That was during the Yeltsin administration, when there was no love lost for Iran inside the Kremlin wall. So Rafsanjani’s advisors came under cover of merchants selling the pistachios of which Iran is the world’s largest and best producer.

I remember meeting them at the old Peking Hotel. They were good listeners; I don’t recall their saying anything except to ask questions. To our meetings they brought presentation boxes of finely roasted pistachios.

From Rafsanjani’s men in those days I learned that the best way of understanding what Iranians are thinking about the Kremlin is not to ask questions, which they invariably evade and obfuscate in answer. It’s in the questions they ask that the clues will be found to Iran’s objectives, priorities, and also their uncertainties, vulnerabilities.

At the conclusion of the new President of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian’s meetings with President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on Friday, there was a brief, carefully staged exchange of questions and answers between the presidents and the press — two Iranian questions, two Russian ones. Just twenty minutes were allowed.

The Iranian questions started from the obvious fact that both Iran and Russia are presently defending themselves from the long US war to destroy them both — through Israel for Iran, through the Ukraine for Russia. The Iran reporters asked two questions making the same point about the present war: “What will happen in the future with the current agreement?” “What will be the policy of the two countries regarding the international agenda, as well as regional cooperation, especially in our region? How can all this be translated into practice?”

President Putin avoided speaking of the war; the Russian reporters followed suit. Interfax asked about the gas business; Izvestia sidestepped with a fatuity: “With such constant turbulence in the same Middle East, how can the balance of power be maintained?”

Pezeshkian was more explicit than Putin. “You see in what is taking place in Lebanon, in Syria, in Gaza Strip, that the bloodshed is endless. You all have seen this with your own eyes…These double standards are intolerable to us… today’s agreements…ensure that the unipolar world will no longer dictate our course. No double standards can govern the world.”

“When discussing recent developments in Syria,” Putin said, “we emphasised that Russia remains committed to comprehensive settlement in that country based on respect for its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. We stand ready to continue providing the Syrian people with the necessary support for stabilising the situation, to offer urgent humanitarian aid, and to start full-scale post-conflict reconstruction…we sincerely wish that the Syrian people will successfully overcome all the emerging challenges posed by the current transition period.”

More concrete answers are to be found in the forty-seven articles of the pact which the two presidents had just signed. Titled the “Treaty on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation”, three originals were signed – in Russian, Persian, and English. Exceptionally, on its last line the pact declares “that all texts [are] equally authentic,“ but that “in case of any disagreement in interpretation or implementation of this Treaty, the English text shall be used.”

No historical precedent can be found in which two allied states have agreed with each other to apply in this way the language of their common enemy.

In the English version of the new treaty it is also evident how the Russians and Iranians have left out what they failed to agree to say or do towards that enemy. Read carefully, just six weeks after the two presidents did not agree on military cooperation to stop the Turkish, Israeli and American invasions of Syria and its partition, this looks to one military observer as “a declaration of maybe — we promise to be nice to each other, when possible, perhaps.”

For the record of Putin’s disagreements with President Ebrahim Raisi, Pezeshkian’s predecessor, on Israel’s war against the Palestinians and attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, read this report and then this one.

Here is the text of the new agreement in full and in English from the Iranian government. The Kremlin publication of the text in Russian can be read here.

Image
Source: https://irangov.ir/detail/456479

The terms “war”, “armed invasion”, and “attack” are not mentioned. This is in contrast to Articles 3 and 4 of the Russia-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) “Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership,” which was signed by Putin with Chairman Kim Jon Un in Pyongyang on June 19, last year.

In the Korean-Russian pact, Article 3 provides that “in case a direct threat of armed invasion is created [. . .], the two sides shall immediately operate the channel of bilateral negotiations for the purpose of adjusting their [stances . . .] and discussing feasible practical measures.” Article 4 of the Korean-Russian pact is more explicit: “in case any one of the two sides is put in a state of war by an armed invasion [. . .], the other side shall provide military and other assistance with all means in its possession without delay.”

Image
Left, President Putin and President Raisi in Moscow on December 23, 2023. Right: Putin and President Pezeshkian in Moscow on January 17, 2025.

Image
Putin with DPRK President Kim Jong Un at their treaty signing in Pyongyang, June 19, 2024.

The operative military provisions of the new Iran pact are in Article 4. “In order to enhance national security and confront common threats, the intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall exchange information and experience and increase the level of their cooperation. 2. The intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall cooperate within the framework of separate agreements.”

The terms “cooperate” and “cooperation” appear 71 times in the treaty text; this is the dominant concept of the agreement. “Information” comes next with 23 mentions; “security” third at 21; “military” at 12. “Trade” and “economic ties” trail far behind. The vagueness of the cooperation trope is the reason the Iranian reporters asked at the Kremlin press conference what it means in practical terms.

Putin’s response avoided security, defence, warfighting. Instead, he repeated what the pact says for “extra conditions, basic additional conditions, to promote trade and economic ties. To put it in plain terms, we need less red tape and more concrete action.”

Pezeshkian added the war sensitivity: “This, of course, aligns with our shared policy of ensuring regional security and opposing the unipolar world. We are confident that, in our region, we can cooperate without external influences or involvement from outlying players.”

Article 3(3) of the treaty provides an unusual disclaimer. “In the event that either Contracting Party is subject to aggression, the other Contracting Party shall not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor which would contribute to the continued aggression, and shall help to ensure that the differences that have arisen are settled on the basis of the United Nations Charter and other applicable rules of international law.”


The Iranians believe that Russian policy in Syria not to operate its air defence systems against Israeli air attacks nor to protect Syrian territory, the Syrian armed forces, and Iranian commanders, units, and military equipment in Syria from Israeli bombing and missiles has been tacit Russian encouragement to the Israelis to attack, and thus a violation of the provision which has just been signed. In recent remarks by Brigadier General Behrouz Esbati of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) he says so explicitly.

A NATO veteran source comments: “I suppose the Iranians and Russians would prefer if no one pointed out that not helping an aggressor targeting one or the other signals that aggressors need not worry about either coming to the other’s aid.”

Article 4 and 5 appear to expand the operations of the general staffs and intelligence services of Russia and Iran. For example, Article 4 provides that “1. In order to enhance national security and confront common threats, the intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall exchange information and experience and increase the level of their cooperation. 2. The intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall cooperate within the framework of separate agreements.”

The vagueness and ambiguity of the term, “level of cooperation”, may be resolved by the “framework of separate agreements”, but that clearly means the two sides are keeping their arrangements secret.

Article 5 displays a similar combination of outer ambiguity and inner secrecy. Article 5(4) looks to be expansive but it is vague: “The Contracting Parties shall consult and cooperate in countering common military and security threats of a bilateral and regional nature.” This should extend, for example, to providing target intelligence to the Houthi forces of Yemen against Israel and Israeli-bound or Israeli-connected shipping in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea. Article 5(1) provides the secrecy qualifier: “In order to develop military cooperation between their relevant agencies, the Contracting Parties shall conduct the preparation and implementation of respective agreements within the Working Group on Military Cooperation.”

Putin was more comfortable using fight language to agree with Pezeshkian on combating the US-led sanctions war against them both. Identical language has been used in the new treaty as was used in the Korean one of last June. Sanctions, termed “unilateral coercive measures”, are dealt with in Article 19 of the new agreement. The two states have explicitly agreed to fight back together. Using the emphatic form of the future tense, they “shall counter the application of unilateral coercive measures”; “shall guarantee the non-application of unilateral coercive measures aimed directly or indirectly against either Contracting Party”; and “shall refrain from acceding to unilateral coercive measures or supporting such measures of any third party, if such measures affect or are aimed directly or indirectly against either Contracting Party, individuals and legal entities of such Contracting Party or their property.”

To fight the sanctions war, Russia and Iran have also agreed that they “shall make practical efforts to reduce risks, eliminate or mitigate the direct and indirect impact of such measures on mutual economic ties, individuals and legal entities of the Contracting Parties or their property under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties, goods originating from one Contracting Party and intended for the other Contracting Party, and/or works, services, information.”

This is not new. In December 2023, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signed with Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, then the Iranian Foreign Minister, what they called “a declaration on the ways and tools of countering, alleviating and compensating for the negative consequences of unilateral coercive measures. This is important for pooling the efforts of the international community to overcome the illegal sanctions with which the US and its allies have replaced diplomacy.”

Image
Moscow meeting on sanctions warfighting between Amir-Abdollahian (left) and Lavrov (right), December 5, 2023.

Regarding Iran’s vulnerability to Israeli nuclear armed attack, and the counter-measures these draw from Teheran, in the new treaty there is a passing reference to more “cooperation” in Article 10 which says: “The Contracting Parties shall cooperate closely on arms control, disarmament, non-proliferation, and international security issues within the framework of the relevant international treaties and international organizations to which they are parties, and hold consultations regularly on these matters.”

The text of the pact provides for other agreements to be negotiated. For defence and military purposes, for example, Article 41 provides that “the Contracting Parties, in order to define specific areas and parameters of cooperation provided for in this Treaty, may, if necessary, conclude separate agreements.” These may remain secret.

For those who savour Iranian pistachios, this treaty language is marking out the difference between the shell and the nut. About that, in the only Russian comment published so far by Boris Rozhin, a leading military analyst in Moscow, the shell is acknowledged and the secret crux is an irony. “The secret protocols on the new partition of Poland were not published,” Rozhin has commented.

https://johnhelmer.net/the-pistachio-pa ... more-90934

A little 'cold water' can be salutatory.

******

Explanation Verbatim.

For those who still have any illusions. Moscow doesn't have any.

МОСКВА, 17 января. /ТАСС/. Коренных изменений политики санкционного давления США на Россию во время президентства Дональда Трампа быть не может, не стоит предаваться чрезмерным ожиданиям. Об этом заявил журналистам пресс-секретарь президента РФ Дмитрий Песков, комментируя заявление выдвинутого Трампом на пост министра финансов США Скотта Бессента, который высказался за ужесточение санкций против России и ее нефтяного сектора. "То, что американская администрация при определенном декларировании политической воли к диалогу существенно не изменит своего характера в этом плане, это ни для кого не секрет. Здесь не нужно предаваться каким-то чрезмерным ожиданиям. Никаких коренных изменение быть не может", - заявил представитель Кремля. Говоря о просанкционном высказывании Бессента, представитель Кремля отметил, что "было бы странно, если, будучи министром, Бессент не поддержал решение своего президента". "Такого просто не может быть. То есть в случае неподдержания он просто ушел бы в отставку", - заметил Песков.

Translation: MOSCOW, January 17. /TASS/. There can be no fundamental changes in the US sanctions pressure policy on Russia during Donald Trump's presidency, and there is no need to indulge in excessive expectations. This was stated to journalists by Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov, commenting on the statement by Scott Bessent, nominated by Trump for the post of US Treasury Secretary, who spoke in favor of tightening sanctions against Russia and its oil sector. "It is no secret that the American administration, despite a certain declaration of political will for dialogue, will not significantly change its character in this regard. There is no need to indulge in excessive expectations. There can be no fundamental changes," the Kremlin spokesman said. Speaking about Bessent's pro-sanction statement, the Kremlin spokesman noted that "it would be strange if, as a minister, Bessent did not support the decision of his president." "This simply cannot happen. That is, if he did not support it, he would simply resign," Peskov noted.

So, here it is, and this is not posturing. Russia is not going to be discussing 404--this territory is none of the US's business--global arrangements are a completely different business.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/01 ... batim.html

******

The Russian-Iranian Partnership Might Be A Game-Changer, But Only For Gas, Not Geopolitics
Andrew Korybko
Jan 19, 2025

Image

The future of their strategic partnership is bright, but in order to fully appreciate its prospects, observers must acknowledge its non-military nature instead of continuing to fantasize about a joint war against Israel and/or the US like some are doing.

The Russian and Iranian presidents met in Moscow last Friday to sign an updated strategic partnership pact that can be read in full here and was reviewed here. The run-up to this development was marked by predictable hype about it being a game-changer, which hasn’t subsided in the days since, but this is an inaccurate description of what they agreed to. The only way in which this might ring true is with regards to gas, not geopolitics, for the reasons that’ll now be explained.

To begin with, Russia and Iran already had close military-technical cooperation before they updated their strategic partnership last week as proven by the rumors of Russia relying on Iranian drones in Ukraine. They also agreed to revive the previously stillborn North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) shortly after the special operation began and the West imposed unprecedented sanctions against Moscow. Therefore, these parts of their updated strategic partnership aren’t anything new, they just aim to strengthen them.

About that, this agreement is fundamentally different from last summer’s Russian-North Korean one in that there aren’t any mutual defense obligations as clarified in Article 3. They only committed to not aid any aggression against the other, including assistance to the aggressor, and to help settle the subsequent conflict at the UN. That was already the case in their relations so explicitly clarifying it is redundant. Under no circumstances will Russia go to war against Israel and/or the US in support of Iran.

After all, “Russia Dodged A Bullet By Wisely Choosing Not To Ally With The Now-Defeated Resistance Axis” over the past 15 months as Israel single-handedly destroyed that Iranian-led regional network, so it naturally follows that it won’t risk World War III in defense of an even weaker Iran. Moreover, Russia didn’t risk war with either of them amidst last December’s American- and Turkish-backed regime change in Syria, not to mention the ongoing special operation where it has direct national security interests.

Putin is therefore very unlikely to break from this precedent, which observers can confidently conclude by dint of him declining to include any North Korean-like mutual defense obligations in Russia’s updated strategic partnership pact with Iran, which should hopefully put to rest some folks’ wishful thinking. It should also be said that the timing of this document’s signing is important too since it took place after Israel defeated the Resistance Axis and as the region correspondingly enters a new geopolitical era.

The parties had been negotiating their updated pact for several years already, and while work had finally ended last fall, Putin specifically requested during the Kazan Summit that Pezeshkian “pay a separate visit to our country to sign this document and other important documents in a ceremonial atmosphere.” Some at the time casually dismissed this as some form of protocol, but in retrospect, it’s arguably the case that Russia didn’t want to sign such a partnership pact until regional hostilities finally abated.

That’s understandable too since he foresaw that the West and some in Israel would interpret that development as supposedly being aimed against them, with the resultant spin complicating any potential peace talks over Ukraine and risking a crisis in relations with Israel. Putin remains committed to resolving the NATO-Russian security dilemma over Ukraine through diplomatic means and spent the past quarter-century expanding ties with Israel so he wasn’t going to jeopardize either in this way.

From the Iran side, Pezeshkian represents the “reformist”/“moderate” faction of the Iranian policymaking elite, and they too might have been concerned that this development would be interpreted by the West and some in Israel as being aimed against them. Such perceptions could spoil any chance of reviving nuclear talks with the US, and it was still uncertain who the next American President would be, so he and his ilk might have also calculated that it’s better to wait until regional hostilities finally abated.

Observers will note that Pezeshkian gave his first interview to foreign media since the US presidential election just days before traveling to Moscow, during which time he reaffirmed his intent to resume talks with the US. The timing strongly suggests that he wanted to preemptively counteract whatever spin hawkish elements in the new administration might try to put on his country’s updated strategic partnership pact with Russia. This might have even been coordinated with Russia to a degree too.

Moving along to the NSTC component of their updated strategic partnership pact, it’s much more substantive since the aim is to increase their measly $4 billion mutual trade, which will help Russia more easily reach other Global South markets while providing relief for Iran’s sanctions-beleaguered economy. If successful, and it’ll take some time to see either way, then the NSTC can serve as a new geo-economic axis connecting the Eurasian Heartland to West Asia, South Asia, and eventually ASEAN and East Africa.

Once again, these plans were already underway for almost three years before they finally signed their long-negotiated updated strategic partnership pact so none of this is exactly new, it just bears mentioning in the larger context considering that part of this newly signed document concerns the NSTC. Much more important than the military and connectivity parts by far is their ambitious gas plans since Russia and Iran have some of the world’s largest reserves, with the latter’s largely remaining untapped.

It was explained in late August why “Russia Might Soon Redirect Its Gas Pipeline Plans From China To Iran & India”, namely due to the continued pricing dispute with the People’s Republic over Power of Siberia 2 and the latest gas MoUs at the time with Iran and then Azerbaijan. These combined to create the credible possibility of Russia replacing its hitherto eastward export focus with a southward one instead. Their updated strategic partnership pact confirms that the southern direction is now Russia’s priority.

Putin said during his press conference with Pezeshkian that he envisages beginning exports at just 2 billion cubic meters (bcm) a year, presumably due to the lack of infrastructure in northern Iran, before eventually scaling it to 55 bcm. That’s the same capacity as the now-defunct Nord Stream 1 to the EU. His Energy Minister later told reporters that the route will run through Azerbaijan and that negotiations are in their final stages over pricing. Their successful conclusion would revolutionize the industry.

Russian investment and technology could unlock Iran’s enormous gas reserves, thus leading to those two creating a “gas OPEC” for managing global prices amidst the Islamic Republic’s entrance to the market. While they have a self-interested incentive to keep them high, plunging the price could deal a powerful blow to America’s fracking industry and its associated LNG exports, thus imperiling its newfound European market dominance brought about by sanctions, the Nord Stream terrorist attack, and Ukraine.

Additionally, Russian gas projects on Iran’s side of the Gulf could supply nearby India, and/or a swap arrangement could be agreed to whereby Iran provides gas to it on Russia’s behalf even sooner. For that to happen, however, India would have to defy existing US sanctions on Iran or secure a waiver. Trump 2.0 might be convinced to respectively turn a blind eye or extend such in order for India to purchase this gas instead of China, the latter of which is already defying such sanctions on the import of Iranian oil.

Part of Trump 2.0’s expected “Pivot (back) to Asia” is to obtain predominant influence over China’s energy imports, which includes cutting off its supply through a carrot-and-stick approach of incentivizing exporters to sell to other clients instead and creating obstacles for those that don’t. Some possibilities for how this could look with regards to Russia were explained here in early January, while the Iranian dimension could work as described above, albeit in exchange for US-Iranian talks making progress.

Even if India decides not to risk the US’ wrath by unilaterally importing Russian-produced Iranian gas in the event that Trump 2.0 isn’t convinced about the merits of having it replace China as Iran’s top energy client and thus threatens harsh sanctions, then China can just buy it all instead. Either way, Russia’s help in unlocking Iran’s largely untapped and enormous reserves will have a seismic effect on this industry, with the only questions being what prices they agree to and who’ll purchase most of it.

The answer to both is of immense importance for American interests since constantly low prices could kill its fracking industry and inevitably lead to the loss of its newly captured European market while China’s large-scale import of this resource (let alone on the cheap) could further fuel its superpower rise. It’s therefore in the US’ interests to boldly consider coordinating with the potentially forthcoming Russian-Iranian “gas OPEC” as well as allowing India to replace China as Iran’s top energy client.

Circling back to the headline, it’s indeed the case that the updated Russian-Iranian strategic partnership pact is poised to be much more of a game-changer in the global gas industry than for geopolitics, though its revolutionary impact on the aforesaid could have some geopolitical consequences in time. Even so, the point is that the pact isn’t geopolitically driven like some enthusiasts imagined before its signing and others still counterfactually insist afterwards since Russia won’t defend Iran from Israel or the US.

Russia and Iran “reject unipolarity and hegemony in world affairs” as agreed upon in their newly signed pact, but they’re not going to directly oppose it via joint military means, only indirectly via energy-related ones and by strengthening their economies’ resilience. The future of their strategic partnership is bright, but in order to fully appreciate its prospects, observers must acknowledge its non-military nature instead of continuing to fantasize about a joint war against Israel and/or the US like some are doing.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-russ ... ship-might

Even a blind pig can find an acorn every once in a whie...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:20 pm

RT: Russia’s birth rate to hit 30-year low in 2024 – demographer
January 19, 2025
RT, 12/25/24

Russia’s birth rate this year is expected to be the lowest in three decades, according to a demographics specialist at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Vadim Bezverbny called for a “systemic approach” to resolving the problem in an interview with the Eurasian News Agency published on Tuesday.

The outlook remains largely pessimistic as the population could decline by 6.2 million people by 2050, he said, citing various estimates.

“We have the statistics for January to October. Honestly, we are close to record low for birth rates. There is a likelihood that 2024 will end with the lowest figure in the last 30 years. Compared to last year, the birth rate has decreased by 3%,” the specialist said.

Bezverbny called for what he described as a “systemic approach” to demographic policy that should include measures to provide young families with affordable housing, increased social benefits for families with children and opportunities for women who gave birth to many children to go into retirement earlier.

With the right set of policies, Russia could get its population back to the level of 145 million by 2100 after a potentially inevitable decline in the coming years, Bezverbny stated.

According to Russia’s state statistics agency, Rosstat, the nation’s population at the beginning of this year was just above 146 million.

The World Health Organization puts Russia’s population at just over 145 million and projects it to fall by almost 10 million to 136.1 million by 2050.

Last month, the Kremlin raised the alarm over Russia’s shrinking population, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov calling the demographic decline a “huge challenge” for the nation. President Vladimir Putin also said last week that it was “an extremely important matter” and one of the “key issues for Russia.”

The president pointed out, however, that Russia is not the only country facing such issues. Norway’s figures roughly match those of Russia, while Finland, Spain, Japan, and South Korea all have even lower birth rates.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/01/rt- ... mographer/

******

Russia-Iran Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Cooperation: a signal to Washington, yes; but by whom and about what?

Host Dmitry Kiselyov opened last evening’s ‘News of the Week’ program on Rossiya 1 with the remark that the newly signed Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Cooperation with Iran is not a mutual defense pact and then put up on the screen the text of Article 3 point 3 which reads as follows:

In case one of the Parties to this Agreement is subjected to aggression, the other Party to this Agreement must not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor which would facilitate prolongation of the aggression and will assist settlement of the dispute on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and other applicable norms of international law.

Goodness! It would be hard to imagine a weaker expression of strategic alignment in the security dimension.

Indeed, the following point 4 in Article 3 tells us that they will not undermine the stability of one another.

The Parties to the Agreement do not allow use of their territories for the purpose of supporting separatist movements and other actions threatening the stability and territorial integrity of the other Party to the Agreement, as well as hostile actions with respect to each other.

Strange friends, these!

It is tempting to say that the inclusion of these points is a message to Washington that there is no Axis of Evil here, that Iran remains a free agent and is available to sign a Strategic Cooperation Agreement with Washington as well if they can negotiate with Trump an end to the ongoing confrontation over Iran’s nonexistent nuclear arms program. India is a strategic partner of both Washington and Moscow, so why shouldn’t Iran have the same possibility.

The treaty has 47 articles and comes to 31 typed pages, within which are additional articles that touch upon military cooperation as well as several remarkable articles that define Iran as a Good Guy on all the issues that the West looks to as proof that a given state upholds law and order and seeks to stamp out transnational criminality and terror.

Let us go through the most interesting of these with close attention.

*****

Let us begin the survey of the military provisions with Article 4, which tells us that the ‘intelligence and security services of the Contracting Parties will exchange information and experience.’

Point 1 of Article 5 states that the responsible authorities of the Parties will prepare and implement appropriate agreements for developing military cooperation within the framework of a Working Group on military cooperation. Point 2 tells us that ‘military cooperation between the Contracting Parties takes in a wide spectrum of issues, including exchange of military and expert delegations, port calls of naval vessels, preparation of military staff, exchange of students and instructors, exhibitions, holding joint sporting competitions, cultural and other activities, joint naval rescue operations, as well as combating piracy and armed battle at sea.’

Only when we get to Point 3 of Article 5 do we approach anything really interesting to the rest of the world:

The Parties will closely cooperate in carrying out joint military exercises on the territory of both Parties and beyond their borders taking into account applicable generally recognized norms of international law.

Moving on, Article 6 is worthy of mention to those who know how to decipher Russian military jargon: ‘The Contracting Parties will cooperate in the ‘military-technical sphere.’

Hmm…As we learned at the outset of the Special Military Operation, ‘military-technical’ means, in plain English, tanks, drones, missiles, i.e. all kinds of hardware.

With that the Treaty concludes its, shall we say, sketchy section on military cooperation.

The next section, however, is very, very detailed and I submit that it is a direct message to Washington, to the European Union that Iran and Russia are really Good Guys as actors on the international stage.

Article 7 in particular looks like it was drafted by Freedom House in Washington, D.C.

Point 1

The Parties will cooperate on bilateral and multilateral basis in countering international terrorism and other threats and challenges, in particular extremism, transnational organized crime, human trafficking and hostage taking, illegal migration, illegal financial flows, money laundering, financing terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, illegal flows of goods, money and financial instruments, historical and cultural valuables,arms, narcotics, psychotropic substances and their precursors. They will exchange timely information and experience in the sphere of border control.

Point 2

The Parties will coordinate their positions and advance joint efforts in combating the aforementioned challenges and threats at appropriate international platforms, as well as cooperate within Interpol.

Article 10 closes out the bid of both countries to present themselves as upholders of international order:

The Parties will closely cooperate on questions of arms, disarmament, nonproliferation and ensuring international security within the framework of respective international treaties and international organizations in which they both participate, and they will regularly carry out consultations on these issues.

It is only when we come to Article 12 that we find provisions which can be described as a push-back to the West:

The Parties will assist in keeping the peace and security in the Caspian region, Central Asia, the TransCaucasus, the Near East; they will cooperate with the objective of preventing interference in these regions and the destabilizing presence there of third party states; they will exchange views on the situation in other regions of the world.

After this, beginning with Article 17, the Treaty turns to what the Iranian and Russian presidents told us at the signing ceremony was the main reason for concluding it; to raise the commercial and cultural exchanges between the two countries to a worthy level.

Article 18 reads as follows:

The Contracting Parties shall facilitate development of commercial-economic and industrial cooperation, the creation of mutual economic advantages including joint investments, financing infrastructure, simplifying the mechanisms of trade and business, cooperation in the banking sphere, promotion and and exchange of goods, labor, services, information and intellectual activity, including exclusive property rights over them.

Especially worthy of mention is Article 19, which deals with the question of unilateral sanctions that may be imposed on one or another of the Contracting Parties by a third state using extraterritorial powers, meaning secondary as well as primary sanctions.

We read the following in Point 3 of this Article:

The Contracting Parties will not join in applying unilateral compulsory measures or in supporting such measures by third parties if such measures affect or are addressed directly or indirectly against one of the Contracting Parties, against natural or legal persons of such a Contracting Party or concerns property that comes under the jurisdiction of such third party, goods from a Contracting Party, and-or a piece of work, service, information, results of intellectual activity, including exclusive rights to Intellectual Property offered by suppliers of the other Contracting Party.

I believe that the inclusion of this article supports the interpretation of the Treaty as a whole to constitute a bid for the USA to lift its sanctions on Iran. In this case, Iran would be duty bound not to join US sanctions against Russia when negotiating its deal with Washington.

In the immediately following articles we see mention of the various technical issues that apparently have held the two countries back till now. These include procedures and infrastructure for settling accounts, incompatible state standards, logistical bottlenecks, complicated customs procedures at the borders, and insufficient direct investment in each other’s economies as well as in joint ventures.

Article 20, Point 2 tells us:

The Parties shall develop their cooperation for the purpose of creating modern payment infrastructure independent of third countries, transition to carrying out mutual settlements in national currencies, strengthening direct inter-bank cooperation and dissemination of national financial products.

Article 20, Point 3 speaks about developing joint ventures in areas of mutual interest. The following point 5 remarks on their ‘readiness to develop mutually profitable cooperation in gold exploration, gold processing and diamond and jewelry fields.’

Article 21 describes cooperation in transportation, with its Point 4 identifying the North-South Corridor, which has long been cited as a key joint infrastructure project with broad regional and intercontinental resonance.

Article 22 says the Parties will expand their cooperation in the oil and gas domain. Its sub-point 2.2 mentions their developing ‘swap operations.’ There is no clarification of what that means, but a safe guess is that it furthers the idea of Russia supplying gas and oil to northern Iran, which is natural resource poor, in exchange for Iran exporting to world markets on Russia’s behalf equivalent quantities from its southern gas and oil fields. As for those fields, plans for joint development are mentioned in sub-point 2.3. The further sub-point 2.6 tells us that the two countries will coordinate the policies they advocate within OPEC.

Article 23 speaks of expanding cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic energy, meaning power generating plants, of which Russia has already built one in Iran and is planning more.

Further articles expand the future cooperation to all imaginable fields including health, medical education, cooperation to fight infectious diseases, education, science and technology, university student exchanges, culture, arts and tourism, youth exchanges, and sports. Note that all of these articles are just declarative of intentions, not detailed in any way.

Article 23 speaks of expanding cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic energy, meaning power generating plants, of which Russia has already built one in Iran and is planning more.

Article 24 looks to expand cooperation in agriculture and fishing, while Article 25 speaks of cooperation in simplifying customs procedures and Article 27 foresees cooperation on state standards, namely mutual recognition of standards and on certificates of conformity.

We may safely conclude that in their commercial and people-to-people relations the two parties are virtually starting from zero.

© Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/01/20/ ... bout-what/

******

Khinshtein's Walk among the People
January 19, 23:16

Image

Khinshtein's visit to the people.

(Video at link.)

The previous governor was fired precisely because he could not communicate normally with the population.
Let's see how Khinshtein will do in the long run, given the seriousness of the problems being voiced.
Regarding corruption cases during the construction of fortifications - many more things will probably be revealed. It was not only in Ukraine that they stole during the construction of defense lines.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9620772.html

Defeat Liberal Fascism in Georgia
January 20, 12:55

Image

Georgia is going to "put an end to liberal fascism." That's how they're talking now.

"2025 will be a very important year in terms of domestic policy. We must deal a decisive blow to the radicals in our country. An end must be put to radicalism in our country, and an end must be put to liberal fascism in this country.
This is certainly important for the continued unimpeded development of the country."
(c) Georgian Prime Minister Kobakhidze

Extend Saakashvili's term, jail the French granny, clean up Western NGOs, ban liberal fascist parties...

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9621729.html

Google Translator

(Perhaps it's time to retire both 'liberal' and 'fascism'. Both words are largely over used and abused.)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply