#U.S.-China summit

[headlinehorizon]

San Francisco's Homeless Cleanup Efforts Spark Controversy Ahead of U.S.-China Summit

https://headlinehorizon.com/Politics/House/1296

In preparation for the upcoming U.S.-China summit, San Francisco has faced criticism for its efforts to remove homeless camps from its streets. This article sheds light on the ongoing debate and the potential implications of the city's actions.

[minnesotafollower]

Russia Is Responsible for Havana Syndrome Attacks on U.S. Personnel

“The former head of the Pentagon’s investigation into the mysterious health incidents known as Havana Syndrome told the CBS investigation show 60 Minutes he believes Russia was behind them and was attacking U.S. officials abroad and at home.”[1] This television show, in partnership with The Insider (a Russian exile media outlet) and a German magazine (Der Spiegel), reported on new evidence…

[zvaigzdelasas]

["]He's a dictator in the sense that he's a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that's based on a form of government totally different than ours," Biden said.

China Different Therefore China Bad [16 Nov 23]

[blueiscoool]

Remains of Andrew 'Sandy' Irvine Who Vanished in 1924 Found on Mount Everest

The foot, boot and sock thought to belong to Sandy Irvine, who disappeared during George Mallory's 1924 expedition to climb Mount Everest, have likely been found. They could be a vital clue in unraveling an even bigger mystery.

Remains believed to belong to a British explorer who vanished more than 100 years ago while climbing Mount Everest have finally been found.

Andrew Comyn "Sandy" Irvine, aged 22, disappeared along with the mountaineer George Mallory in June 1924. The pair were attempting to become the first people to scale the world's highest peak.

It's still a mystery whether they succeeded in their goal before they died. Mallory's remains were discovered in 1999, which were missing a photograph of his wife that the climber had planned to leave on the summit. Irving, who had been carrying a Kodak camera that may have recorded a possible historic summit, was never recovered. The summit was officially first reached 29 years later, when Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay scaled Everest from its south side in 1953.

Now, a National Geographic documentary team, including the Oscar-winning director Jimmy Chin and the climbers and filmmakers Erich Roepke and Mark Fisher, have found what they believe is Irvine's foot.

Encased in a boot and wearing a sock stitched with his name, the foot was discovered on Everest's Central Rongbuk Glacier, further down the mountain from Mallory's remains.

"I lifted up the sock," Chin told National Geographic, "and there's a red label that has A.C. IRVINE stitched into it."

Irvine and Mallory were last seen on June 8, 1924, as they set off to scale the summit. One of their expedition teammates, Noel Odell, reported spotting the two near the second of the mountain's three steps as two tiny black dots. One of the dots broke past the skyline during a brief parting of the clouds, then they disappeared.

Mallory's body was found less than 2,000 feet (600 meters) from the summit by the U.S. rock climber Conrad Anker. Mallory's remains were tied by a rope around the waist and had injuries suggesting that the pair had fallen while connected together.

By searching near these remains and scouring the glacier for clues, Chin and his team located the boot melting out of the ice.

"This was a monumental and emotional moment for us and our entire team on the ground, and we just hope this can finally bring peace of mind to his relatives and the climbing world at large," Chin said.

The team sent the remains to China Tibet Mountaineering Association, which is responsible for climbing permits on Everest's northern side. The find was also reported to the Royal Geographical Society, which organized Irvine and Mallory's expedition, and Irvine's great niece and biographer, Julie Summers.

"I have lived with this story since I was a 7-year-old when my father told us about the mystery of Uncle Sandy on Everest," Summers said, as reported by the Guardian. "When Jimmy told me that he saw the name AC Irvine on the label on the sock inside the boot, I found myself moved to tears. It was and will remain an extraordinary and poignant moment."

The Irvine family has volunteered to take a DNA test so that the identity of the remains can be conclusively determined. Meanwhile, Chin and his team will continue to search for more artifacts. If Irvine's camera is found and it can prove they scaled the peak, it could potentially rewrite history.

By Ben Turner.

[thelostdreamsthings]

"Putin is isolated."

BRICS, 50% of the World population is telling a big "fuck off" to the arrogant, declining and decadent G7 amounting to 10% of the World's population.

🇺🇳🇷🇺 UN Secretary General Guterres respectfully bows and shakes the hand of Putin in Russia’s Kazan at the BRICS summit.

A lot of people start crying and scream hysterically when they see this picture, for some reason.

[BRICS Currency Looms Large: Could This Be the Beginning of the End for U.S. Dollar Dominance?

For decades, the U.S. dollar has been weaponized as a tool of global dominance, wielded by the American empire to enforce its geopolitical will.

Through sanctions, coercive financial practices, and the threat of exclusion from the dollar-based system, the U.S. has effectively terrorized nations across the world.

The pretense of a “free market” economy has long been shattered by Washington's aggressive use of the dollar as a weapon to cripple economies, isolate adversaries, and exert control over global trade.

But the world is growing tired—sick and tired—of this financial tyranny. And now, with the rise of BRICS, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end for U.S. dollar supremacy.

BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—represent a bloc of nations that together account for nearly half of the global population and a significant chunk of the world’s GDP.

For years, these nations have been quietly collaborating to counterbalance the West's stranglehold over international finance, and now, they are inching closer to launching their own currency.

The creation of a BRICS currency signals an outright challenge to the dollar-dominated global economy, and it is nothing short of a revolt against American financial imperialism.

Why is this happening? The answer is simple: countries are fed up with being bullied. The U.S. has used its currency like a sledgehammer, smashing nations that dare to defy its hegemony.

Whether through sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, or Russia, or by financially suffocating smaller nations into submission, the dollar has become a tool of coercion rather than commerce.

Nations who once played by the rules of the so-called “global order” have found themselves punished, their economies crippled, and their people starved—merely for refusing to kowtow to Washington's dictates.

But BRICS is offering an alternative. The creation of a BRICS currency, backed by the economic strength of its member nations, offers the world a way out of the suffocating grip of the dollar.

This is not just about financial autonomy—it’s about reclaiming sovereignty, independence, and the right to conduct trade without the constant threat of U.S. interference.

Russia and China have been leading the charge in this effort, driven in part by the U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow following the Ukraine conflict and the ongoing trade war with Beijing.

Both countries have moved aggressively to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar, increasing trade with each other and with other BRICS members in their local currencies.

They are laying the groundwork for a currency that could be based on a basket of commodities, potentially gold-backed, further weakening the grip of the U.S. dollar on the global market.

The U.S. has long prided itself on its role as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, but this dominance was never guaranteed to last forever.

The BRICS currency threatens to dismantle the global financial architecture that has allowed the U.S. to live far beyond its means.

For decades, the U.S. has run massive deficits, printing money at will, secure in the knowledge that the world would continue to rely on the dollar.

But as BRICS nations move to establish their own currency, that privilege could evaporate overnight.

The implications for the U.S. are dire. If the dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. economy could face a severe reckoning.

The artificial demand for dollars that has kept interest rates low and allowed the U.S. to run massive debt could vanish, leading to inflation, higher borrowing costs, and potentially a fiscal crisis.

The American empire, propped up for so long by its control of global finance, could find itself in rapid decline.

For the rest of the world, however, the rise of a BRICS currency represents hope—a chance to escape the iron grip of U.S. financial imperialism. No longer will countries have to fear the punitive measures of the U.S. Treasury.

No longer will they have to worry about being cut off from the global financial system for standing up to American bullying.

The creation of a new currency could usher in a multipolar world, where nations are free to trade without being subject to the whims of a single superpower.

Of course, the U.S. will not go quietly. Washington will likely pull out all the stops to crush the BRICS currency before it can gain traction. The playbook will be the same: propaganda, financial sabotage, and even the threat of military intervention.

But this time, the world may not be so easily intimidated. The BRICS nations, backed by their vast resources and burgeoning economies, are prepared to stand their ground.

In the end, the creation of a BRICS currency is not just an economic development—it’s a revolutionary act. It’s a declaration that the age of American financial dominance is coming to an end, and that a new world is on the horizon.

The U.S. dollar, once seen as the bedrock of global stability, has become a symbol of oppression, and the world is ready to move on.

The question now is not whether the U.S. dollar will fall, but when. And as BRICS moves closer to launching its own currency, that day may be sooner than anyone expects.

The empire, long propped up by its financial manipulation, is facing a reckoning—one that could change the course of history.]

IMF Growth Forecast: 2024

🇮🇳India: 7.0% (BRICS)

🇨🇳China: 4.8% (BRICS)

🇷🇺Russia: 3.6% (BRICS)

🇧🇷Brazil: 3.0% (BRICS)

🇺🇸US: 2.8% (G7)

🇸🇦KSA: 1.5% (invited to BRICS)

🇨🇦Canada: 1.3% (G7)

🇿🇦RSA: 1.1% (BRICS)

🇬🇧UK: 1.1% (G7)

🇫🇷France: 1.1% (G7)

🇮🇹Italy: 0.7% (G7)

🇯🇵Japan: 0.3% (G7)

🇩🇪Germany: 0.0% (G7)

‼️ 159 out of 193 countries have signed up to use the new BRICS settlement system.

US and European Union will no longer be able to use economic sanctions as a weapon.

This system allows countries to settle trades and payments in their own currencies, reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar, which has long been the dominant global currency.

[mariacallous]

The U.S. presidential election is less than 50 days away, and this week served up some grim reminders of how high the stakes are—and how intent Washington’s adversaries are on swaying or disrupting the vote. 

New details have emerged of cyberattacks and election interference efforts by China, Russia, and Iran, with U.S. officials and technology executives sounding the alarm about the countries’ intent to sow chaos in the weeks leading up to Election Day on Nov. 5. 

Russian cyber groups have pivoted in the last two months to attacking the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a new report Microsoft released Tuesday. The groups have spread several fake videos, including one purportedly showing a Harris supporter attacking an attendee at a rally for former President Donald Trump, another (through a fake San Francisco news site) that falsely claimed Harris was involved in a hit-and-run incident, and a third showing a fake billboard in New York City listing false claims about Harris’s policies. 

“As we inch closer to the election, we should expect Russian actors to continue to use cyber proxies and hacktivist groups to amplify their messages through media websites and social channels geared to spread divisive political content, staged videos, and AI-enhanced propaganda,” Microsoft wrote. 

President Joe Biden’s administration has stepped up its efforts to combat Russia’s disinformation and influence operations, imposing a series of sanctions earlier this month on state-run media outlets including Russia Today (RT) for acting on behalf of the Kremlin to “undermine confidence in the United States’ election processes and institutions.” RT has also developed cyber capabilities with direct ties to Russian intelligence services and is involved in a crowdfunding effort to procure military equipment for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters last week while announcing additional sanctions on the network. 

“We urge every ally, every partner to start by treating RT’s activities as they do other intelligence activities by Russia within their borders,” Blinken said. Tech companies Meta and Google responded to the sanctions by restricting RT content and accounts from their social media platforms this week. 

On Wednesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced that the agency had successfully hit back against another formidable cyber adversary: China. FBI teams took down a botnet—a network of compromised computers controlled by hackers who were “working at the direction of the Chinese government,” Wray told an audience at the Aspen Cyber Summit in Washington. Wray said the hackers allegedly took over hundreds of thousands of internet-connected devices, including cameras and storage devices—half of which were in the United States—to conduct espionage and disrupt critical systems. “We think the bad guys finally realized it was the FBI and our partners that they were up against, and with that realization they essentially burned down their new infrastructure and abandoned their botnet,” he added.

The U.S. government takedown of the botnet, allegedly run by a hacking group called Flax Typhoon, is the second such offensive cyber operation against China in less than a year. It follows a December 2023 operation against another group known as Volt Typhoon. Officials expect it won’t be the last. 

“We’d like to see more of these and more frequently,” a senior administration official said of the takedown, speaking to reporters on Wednesday evening following Wray’s announcement. “What we’ve really been discussing here from the White House is what can be done to accelerate and do these regularly, so that we make it riskier, costlier, and harder for China to conduct their large-scale cyber operations.” 

And then there’s Washington’s third—and increasingly brazen—cyber adversary. On Wednesday, three U.S. agencies issued a joint statement on Iran’s efforts to target Trump’s 2024 campaign. Iranian hackers who breached the Trump campaign in recent months sent “stolen, non-public” material from the campaign via email to individuals associated with Biden’s reelection campaign before he dropped out and was replaced by Harris, according to the statement by the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). “There is currently no information indicating those recipients replied,” the agencies added.

Iran has stepped up its efforts to interfere in the 2024 race amid an escalating proxy conflict with key U.S. ally Israel and has targeted the Trump campaign in particular in what experts see as retaliation for his administration’s 2020 assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani. 

Despite some key public victories this week, the consensus in the cyberdefense community is that the battle is only just beginning—and is only likely to get more intense as Election Day draws closer, with the United States facing three highly capable adversaries who, if not directly working together, share similar goals. 

“Arguably, the 2024 election cycle is facing the most complex threat landscape yet,” Cait Conley, a senior advisor for CISA, said at the Politico AI and Tech Summit this week. “We do see a growing and diverse array of foreign actors who are trying to influence our American democratic process. … Regardless of the actor, their objectives are the same—they want to undermine the American people’s confidence in our democratic institutions, and they want to sow partisan discord.”

Senior industry leaders visiting Washington this week echoed that sentiment. “We know that there is a presidential race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, but this has also become an election of Iran versus Trump and Russia versus Harris,” Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, told the Senate Intelligence Committee in a hearing about election threats on Wednesday. “And it is an election where Russia, Iran, and China are united with a common interest in discrediting democracy in the eyes of our own voters and even more so in the eyes of the world.”

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

The U.S.-commanded military alliance called NATO includes the armed forces of the U.S. and all other countries in the alliance, including Britain, Germany, and France.  

NATO has undertaken eight military actions, all since 1990. The alliance did not undertake any military operations during the Cold War. Since 1990, NATO has engaged in two actions related to the first Gulf War, two in the former Yugoslavia, and military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya.

Stoltenberg then said that NATO’s primary focus now is targeting China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He called them threats to NATO’s dominance. He didn’t talk about the war threats that have come from NATO and the “Asian version of NATO.”

The specter of war will loom large over the NATO summit in Washington.

[allapprovaloffersandjobs]

2024 US Election Results Live Updates: President Joe Biden meets Trump at White House, both pledge smooth transition

Link Here : https://tinyurl.com/3u8b9tjr

Biden and Xi will meet in Peru as US-China relations tested again by Trump's return

President Joe Biden will hold talks Saturday with China's Xi Jinping on the sidelines of an international summit in Peru, a face-to-face meeting that comes as Beijing braces for Donald Trump's return to the White House. A senior Biden administration official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement, confirmed plans for the meeting to take place while the two leaders are in Lima for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. That will come just over two months before Trump's inauguration. The official declined to comment on how Biden and his advisers would address questions certain to be raised by Xi and Chinese officials about the incoming Trump administration or whether Biden would discuss the US-China relationship with Trump during the president-elect's visit to the White House on Wednesday. Washington and Beijing have long had deep differences on the support China has given to Russia during its war in Ukraine, human rights issues, technology and Taiwan, the self-ruled democracy that Beijing claims as its own. A second Trump administration is expected to test US-China relations even more than the Republican's first term, when the US imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion in Chinese products. That brought Beijing to the negotiating table, and in 2020, the two sides signed a trade deal in which China committed to improve intellectual property rights and buy an extra $200 billion of American goods. A couple of years later, a research group showed that China had bought essentially none of the goods it had promised. (AP)

00:18 (IST) Nov 14

Melania Trump boycotts tea invitation from Jill Biden while husbands meet

Melania Trump boycotted a meeting with Jill Biden, while their husbands held a traditional meeting at the White House on Wednesday. Two hours before US President-elect Donald Trump and President Joe Biden were to meet, the office of Melania Trump said in an X post, "Mrs Trump will not be attending today's meeting at the White House." "Her husband's return to the Oval Office to commence the transition process is encouraging, and she wishes him great success," it said. Her office did not give a reason for her not taking up First Lady Jill Biden's invitation for tea. But it added, "In this instance, several unnamed sources in the media continue to provide false, misleading, and inaccurate information. Be discerning with your source of news." It did not specifically deny any of the reports about her not meeting Jill Biden. (IANS)

00:18 (IST) Nov 14

Bitcoin rises above $90,000 on Trump euphoria

Bitcoin broke through the $90,000 level on Wednesday, as its rally showed no signs of easing on expectations that Donald Trump as U.S. president will be a boon for cryptocurrencies. The world's biggest cryptocurrency has become one of the most eye-catching movers in the week since the election and on Wednesday touched record highs. It was last up 5.49% at $93,158, marking a 32% rise since the Nov. 5 election. Smaller peer ether has also risen 37% since election day, while dogecoin, an alternative, volatile token promoted by billionaire Trump-ally Elon Musk was up more than 150%. Trump embraced digital assets during his campaign, promising to make the United States the "crypto capital of the planet" and to accumulate a national stockpile of bitcoin. (Reuters)

00:17 (IST) Nov 14

'Welcome back': Trump, Biden shake hands in White House

Joe Biden welcomed Donald Trump back to the White House on Wednesday, in a show of civility to a bitter rival who failed to extend him the same courtesy four years ago. The US president and president-elect shook hands in front of a roaring fire in the Oval Office as they pledged a smooth transition -- a stark contrast to Trump's refusal to recognize his 2020 defeat. "Welcome back," Biden, 81, said as he congratulated the 78-year-old Trump and offered brief opening remarks to the man he has repeatedly slammed as a threat to democracy. "Politics is tough, and in many cases it's not a very nice world. It is a nice world today and I appreciate it very much," Trump said. Trump added that the transfer of power would be "smooth as you can get" -- despite the fact that his transition team has not yet signed some key legal documents ahead of his inauguration as president on January 20.

[abloodredsettingsun]

For some time, when you talked about the end of the war, you talked about a total victory for Ukraine: Ukraine would return to its 1991 borders, affirm its sovereignty in Crimea, and retake all of its territory from Russia. But in recent months, you have become more open to the idea of negotiations—through peace summits, for example, the first of which was conducted this summer, in Switzerland. What has changed in your thinking, and your country’s thinking, about how this war might end?

When I’m asked, “How do you define victory,” my response is entirely sincere. There’s been no change in my mind-set. That’s because victory is about justice. A just victory is one whose outcome satisfies all—those who respect international law, those who live in Ukraine, those who lost their loved ones and relatives. For them the price is high. For them there will never be an excuse for what Putin and his Army have done. You can’t simply sew this wound up like a surgeon because it’s in your heart, in your soul. And that is why the crucial nuance is that, although justice does not close our wounds, it affords the possibility of a world that we all recognize as fair. It is not fair that someone’s son or daughter was taken from them, but, unfortunately, there is a finality to this injustice and it is impossible to bring them back. But justice at least provides some closure.

The fact that Ukraine desires a just victory is not the issue; the issue is that Putin has zero desire to end the war on any reasonable terms at all. If the world is united against him, he feigns an interest in dialogue—“I’m ready to negotiate, let’s do it, let’s sit down together”—but this is just talk. It’s empty rhetoric, a fiction, that keeps the world from standing together with Ukraine and isolating Putin. He pretends to open the door to dialogue, and those countries that seek a geopolitical balance—China, for one, but also some other Asian and African states—say, “Ah, see, he hears us and he’s ready to negotiate.” But it is all just appearance. From our side, we see the game he is playing and we amend our approaches to ending the war. Where he offers empty rhetoric, we offer a real formula for bringing peace, a concrete plan for how we can end the war.

And yet, in 2022 and 2023, your words and actions signalled a categorical refusal to negotiate with the enemy, whereas now you seem to have opened a window to the idea of negotiating, a willingness to ask if negotiations are worth pursuing.

If we go back two years, to the G-20 summit, in Indonesia, in my video appearance, I presented our formula for peace. Since then, I’ve been quite consistent in saying that the Russians have blocked all our initiatives from the very beginning, and that they continue to do so. And I said that any negotiation process would be unsuccessful if it’s with Putin or with his entourage, who are all just his puppets.

Everyone said that we have to allow the possibility of some kind of dialogue. And I told them, “Look, your impression that Putin wants to end the war is misguided. That’s a potentially fatal mistake you are making, I’m telling you.” But, on our end, we have to demonstrate that we do have this desire for dialogue—and ours is a genuine one. Our partners think we should be at the negotiating table? Then let’s be constructive. Let’s have a first summit where we all get together. We shall write up a plan and give it to the Russians. They might say, “We are ready to talk,” and then we’d have a second summit where they say, “This formula of yours, we agree with it.” Or, alternatively, “We disagree. We think that it should be like this and like that.” This is called dialogue. But to make it happen, you have to prepare a plan without the Russians, because, unfortunately, they seem to think that they have a kind of red card, as in soccer, that they can hold up and block everything. Our plan, however—it is being prepared.

I understand that you are going to present this plan to Biden?

The victory plan is a bridge. After the first peace summit, our partners saw that Russia was not prepared for any talks at all—which confirmed my message to them and my insistence that without making Ukraine strong, they will never force Putin to negotiate fairly and on equal terms. No one believed me. They said, We’ll invite them to the second summit and they’ll come running. Well, now we have the second summit planned and they don’t look like they’ll come running.

And so the victory plan is a plan that swiftly strengthens Ukraine. A strong Ukraine will force Putin to the negotiating table. I’m convinced of that. It’s just that, before, I was only saying it and now I’ve put it all on paper, with specific arguments and specific steps to strengthen Ukraine during the months of October, November, and December, and to enable a diplomatic end of the war. The difference this time will be that Putin will have grasped the depth of this plan and of our partners’ commitment to strengthening us, and he will realize an important fact: that if he is not ready to end this war in a way that is fair and just, and instead wishes to continue to try to destroy us, then a strengthened Ukraine will not let him do so. Not only that but continuing to pursue that goal would also considerably weaken Russia, which would threaten Putin’s own position.

What happens if Biden says, “With all due respect, this is a difficult time, the election’s coming up, I’m having enough trouble with Congress without trying to increase aid packages for you,” and he rejects your request—do you have a Plan B?

We have been living in Plan B for years. Plan A was proposed before the full-scale war, when we called for two things: preventive sanctions and preventive reinforcement of Ukraine with various weapons. I told our partners, If Ukraine is very strong, nothing will happen. They didn’t listen. Since then, they have all recognized I was right. Strengthening Ukraine would have significantly lowered the probability of Putin invading.

I’m now proposing a new Plan A. This plan means we change the current course, where it’s only thanks to the strength of our military, the heroic devotion to the European values of our people and our fighters, that we have stood our ground. If you don’t want this war to drag on, if you do not want Putin to bury us under the corpses of his people, taking more Ukrainian lives in the process, we offer you a plan to strengthen Ukraine. It is not a fantasy and not science fiction, and, importantly, it does not require the Russians to coöperate to succeed. Rather, the plan spells out what our partners can do without Russia’s participation. If diplomacy is the desire of both sides, then, before diplomacy can be effective, our plan’s implementation depends only on us and on our partners.

You were right, this plan is designed, first and foremost, with Biden’s support in mind. If he doesn’t want to support it, I cannot force him. If he refuses—well, then we must continue to live inside Plan B. And that’s unfortunate.

What would that look like? I mean, if Biden says no?

That’s a horrible thought. It would mean that Biden doesn’t want to end the war in any way that denies Russia a victory. And we would end up with a very long war—an impossible, exhausting situation that would kill a tremendous number of people. Having said that, I can’t blame Biden for anything. At the end of the day, he took a powerful, historic step when he chose to support us at the start of the war, an action that pushed our other partners to do the same. We recognize Biden’s great achievement in this respect. That step of his already constituted a historic victory.

And what would you say, maybe not even to Biden but to the American public, many of whom feel that we cannot raise our engagement and support for Ukraine any further than we already have?

I would tell them that Ukraine has done everything possible to keep America out of this war, actually. Putin counted on defeating Ukraine in a quick campaign and, had Ukraine not stood its ground, Putin would have marched on. Let’s consider what the consequences would have been. Number one, you would have some forty million immigrants coming to Europe, America, and Canada. Second, you would lose the largest country in Europe—a huge blow to America’s influence on the Continent. Russia would now have total influence there. You would lose everyone—Poland, Germany—and your influence would be zero.

The American public should realize that the fact of Ukraine still standing is not the problem. Yes, war brings difficulties, but Ukraine’s resilience has allowed America to solve many other challenges. Let’s say Russia attacked Poland next—what then? In Ukraine, Russia has found fake legal ground for its actions, saying that it’s protecting Russian-speaking people, but it could have been Poland or it could have been the Baltic states, which are all NATO members. This would have been a disaster, a gut punch for the United States, because then you’re definitely involved full scale—with troops on the ground, funding, investment, and with the American economy going to a wartime footing. So saying that you have been in this war for a long time is just not true. Quite the contrary: I believe that we have shielded America from total war.

Here’s another crucial element: this is a war of postponement for the United States. It’s a way to buy time. As far as Russia is concerned, Ukraine does not even need to lose outright for Russia to win. Russia understands that Ukraine is struggling as it is; it already stands excluded from the European Union and NATO, with nearly a third of its territory occupied. Russia might decide that’s enough, so it might strike Poland just the same—in response to some provocation from Belarus, for example. And so, after two and a half years of your support and investment—for which we are very grateful—you can multiply them all by zero. America would have to start investing from scratch, and in a war of a totally different calibre. American soldiers would fight in it. Which would all benefit Russia tremendously, I should add.

During the Presidential debate, moderators asked Trump whether he wanted Ukraine to win against Russia, and he sidestepped the question. He just said, “I want the war to stop.” It must have troubled you to hear his answer and to consider the prospect of his winning.

Trump makes political statements in his election campaign. He says he wants the war to stop. Well, we do, too. This phrase and desire, they unite the world; everyone shares them. But here’s the scary question: Who will shoulder the costs of stopping the war? Some might say that the Minsk Agreements either stopped or froze the fighting at some point. But they also gave the Russians a chance to arm themselves even better, and to strengthen their fake claim over our territories they occupied.

But isn’t that yet more cause for alarm?

My feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how. With this war, oftentimes, the deeper you look at it the less you understand. I’ve seen many leaders who were convinced they knew how to end it tomorrow, and as they waded deeper into it, they realized it’s not that simple.

Apart from Trump’s own reluctance to talk about Ukrainian victory, he has chosen J. D. Vance as his Vice-Presidential candidate.

He is too radical.

Vance has come out with a more precise plan to—

To give up our territories.

Your words, not mine. But, yes, that’s the gist of it.

His message seems to be that Ukraine must make a sacrifice. This brings us back to the question of the cost and who shoulders it. The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine’s expense is unacceptable. But I do not consider this concept of his a plan, in any formal sense. This would be an awful idea, if a person were actually going to carry it out, to make Ukraine shoulder the costs of stopping the war by giving up its territories. But there’s certainly no way this could ever happen. This kind of scenario would have no basis in international norms, in U.N. statute, in justice. And it wouldn’t necessarily end the war, either. It’s just sloganeering.

What does it mean for Ukraine that people with such ideas and slogans are rising to power?

For us, these are dangerous signals, coming as they do from a potential Vice-President. I should say that it hasn’t been like this with Trump. He and I talked on the phone, and his message was as positive as it could be, from my point of view. “I understand,” “I will lend support,” and so on.

[Vance and others who share his views] should clearly understand that the moment they start trading on our territory is the moment they start pawning America’s interests elsewhere: the Middle East, for example, as well as Taiwan and the U.S. relations with China. Whichever President or Vice-President raises this prospect—that ending the war hinges on cementing the status quo, with Ukraine simply giving up its land—should be held responsible for potentially starting a global war. Because such a person would be implying that this kind of behavior is acceptable.

I don’t take Vance’s words seriously, because, if this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict. It will involve Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Taiwan, China, as well as many African countries. That approach would broadcast to the world the following implicit rule: I came, I conquered, now this is mine. It will apply everywhere: land claims and mineral rights and borders between nations. It would imply that whoever asserts control over territory—not the rightful owner but whoever came in a month or a week ago, with a machine gun in hand—is the one who’s in charge. We’ll end up in a world where might is right. And it will be a completely different world, a global showdown.

Let Mr. Vance read up on the history of the Second World War, when a country was forced to give part of its territory to one particular person. What did that man do? Was he appeased or did he deal a devastating blow to the continent of Europe—to many nations, broadly, and to the Jewish nation in particular? Let him do some reading. The Jewish people are a strong power base in the United States, so let them conduct a public-education campaign and explain why millions perished thanks to the fact that someone offered to give up a sliver of territory.

When we last spoke, in 2019, Ukraine was caught in the middle of an American political scandal. There was the question of your phone call with Trump, an implicit threat to curtail U.S. aid, and the subsequent impeachment hearings against a U.S. President. I recently reread our interview, and you told me at the time, “In this political chess match, I will not let Ukraine be a pawn.” Do you worry that Ukraine has now ended up in a similar situation, used by various political actors to push their own agenda or advantage in the U.S. political context?

To be honest, the incident you mention no longer feels as relevant. That was a long time ago. And since then, many things have changed.

Nonetheless, you must have drawn some conclusions from this experience.

I think Ukraine has demonstrated the wisdom of not becoming captured by American domestic politics. We have always tried to avoid influencing the choices of the American people—that would simply be wrong. But, in that incident and elsewhere, I believe we have always demonstrated that Ukraine is definitely not a pawn, and that our interests have to be taken into account.

You have to work to maintain that every day, though. Because the second you relax, that’s exactly what will happen. A lot of world leaders want to have some sort of dealings with Putin, to reach agreements, to conduct some business with him. I look at such leaders and realize that they are very interested in playing this game—and for them, unfortunately, it really is a game. But what makes a real leader? A leader is someone whom Putin needs for something, not a person who needs Putin. Flirting with him is not a sign of strength. Sitting across the table from him might make you believe you’re making important decisions about the world. But what are those decisions really about? Has the war ended? No. Has it produced the outcome you wanted? Not yet. Is Putin still in power? Yes.

Ukraine is a very painful topic for Putin—he wanted to defeat us and couldn’t—which means that it offers a way to build a bond with him. But the truth is that you can only develop relations with Putin on his terms. That means, for instance, proposing that Ukraine should give up some of its territory. This, in a way, is the easiest thing to call for. It is very concrete. And for Putin, it’s a morsel that he doesn’t even have to cut in order to eat—you have already chewed it for him and placed it right in his mouth. When you give it to him, you think you’re so smart and cunning, that after such a gesture Putin will listen to you and support your positions. Well, tell me, when did Putin respect those who come to him from a position of weakness?

After Russia invaded, many people were inclined to compare you to Winston Churchill, Britain’s leader during the Second World War, but you’ve said in interviews that you prefer the example of Charlie Chaplin, who waged a struggle against fascism through appealing to his audience, the public. How do you regard your role as a communicator?

People are always more comfortable relying not on abstract ideas but on some specific historical examples. But it feels immodest to compare myself with the people you mentioned. That said, Chaplin had an unquestionable talent for telling a story, for finding a way to get through to people. He didn’t merely broadcast some facts and numbers—he used the language of cinema to craft an emotional narrative. He used that talent to fight fascism. As for Churchill, he was the leader of a country that found itself in very difficult circumstances, but still managed to be the only country in Europe that firmly said no to fascism. It’s not that other countries necessarily said yes—some were invaded, lost battles, or were subdued in other ways. Hitler occupied much of Europe. But from Churchill and the U.K., there was a firm no. And this no convinced America that it should become a serious ally in the war.

Let’s talk about the Kursk operation. What is its motive? And who is the intended audience: Putin, to show him that Ukraine, too, can go on the offensive, or Ukraine’s Western partners, to demonstrate to them what Ukraine can achieve if given the proper resources?

Both these motives are important, but there is more at stake here. First, it was clear to us that Russia is pressing us in the east. No matter how the Kursk operation ends, military analysts will someday calculate the speed of Russia’s progress and ask, What prevented us from stopping them earlier? How fast were they moving in the east before the Kursk operation began, and why? Ukraine had trouble mobilizing people, they might say, and didn’t have enough strength to stop them, but that is diverting the focus from the more pertinent point—namely, the fact that we should receive what we’ve been promised. I say, first give it to us, and then analyze if the root of the problem is with Ukraine or with you.

Imagine: you’re struggling in a tough war, you’re not receiving aid, you strain to maintain morale. And the Russians have the initiative in the east, they have taken parts of the Kharkiv region, and they’re about to attack Sumy. You have to do something—something other than endlessly asking your partners for help. So what do you do? Do you tell your people, “Dear Ukrainians, in two weeks, eastern Ukraine will cease to exist”? Sure, you can do that, throw up your hands, but you can also try taking a bold step.

Of course, you’re right to wonder if this action will go down in history as a success or a failure. It’s too early to judge. But I am not preoccupied with historic successes. I’m focussed on the here and now. What we can say, however, is that it has already shown some results. It has slowed down the Russians and forced them to move some of their forces to Kursk, on the order of forty thousand troops. Already, our fighters in the east say that they are being battered less frequently.

I’m not saying it’s a resounding success, or will bring about the end of the war, or the end of Putin. What it has done is show our partners what we’re capable of. We have also shown the Global South that Putin, who claims to have everything under control, in fact does not. And we have shown a very important truth to the Russians. Unfortunately, many of them have their eyes closed, they don’t want to see or hear anything. But some Russian people could not help but notice how Putin did not run to defend his own land. No, instead he wants to first and foremost look after himself, and to finish off Ukraine. His people are not a priority for him.

It has been more than a month since the start of the Kursk operation. We continue to provide food and water to the people in territories we control. These people are free to leave: all the necessary corridors are open, and they could go elsewhere in Russia—but they do not. They don’t understand why Russia didn’t come to help, and left them to survive on their own. And people in Moscow and St. Petersburg—far from Kursk—saw that, if one day the Ukrainian Army showed up there, too, it’s far from certain they would be saved. That’s important. That’s also a part of this operation: long before the war gets to these places, or there’s some other crisis, Russian people should know who they have placed in power for a quarter century, with whom they have thrown in their lot.

This war is being fought not just over territory but over values. But during war, in the name of victory, it may not always be possible to maintain these values as one might in peacetime. Do you feel that there are occasions when these two interests—democratic values and the reality of wartime—can clash, or end up in conflict? The United News TV Marathon, for example, which has been on air since the beginning of the invasion, pulls together multiple television channels to broadcast news about the war and other events in a highly coördinated way.

The truth is that journalists came together because, in the early days of the war, when people feared a total occupation of the country, no one knew what to do. Some people took off in one direction, law enforcement in another. There were even stories about how the President had run off somewhere. It was chaos. The fact is that I was among those who stayed and put an end to that chaos, and I don’t think that has led to anything so terrible. Many would say it’s one of the factors that gave people the strength to fight for their country.

But the centralization of power has a downside.

I want to finish. Journalists in Ukraine decided to join forces in order to combat Russian disinformation. I want to make it clear that simply because the news departments of these [six] TV channels have come together it does not mean the channels themselves are destroyed. They exist as they did before. They have kept their own places in the broadcast lineup. They are free to show what they want. But this telemarathon has become a resource for people who, say, have no electricity or see drones flying overhead. There have been lots of periods when there were all kinds of misinformation going around, and the telemarathon provides the truth. And you’re saying this is a bad thing. O.K., if that’s the case, I’m not insisting.

A last question about how war changes a person. It’s hard to imagine an experience with a more profound effect on the human psyche.

I’m still holding it together, if it’s me you’re talking about.

But I wonder if there are moments when you catch yourself reacting to things differently than you might have before. Do you notice you’ve changed at all?

Perhaps I’ve become less emotional. There’s simply no time for that. Just like there’s no time for reasoned discourse and arguments. I only have the opportunity to think aloud in that way during interviews. I don’t do this with my subordinates and colleagues in the government. If I were to sit down and ruminate on every decision for an hour, I would be able to make only two or three decisions a day. But I have to make twenty or thirty. ♦

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON ― President Joe Biden is hiking tariffs on electric vehicles, semiconductors and several other goods imported from China, escalating a trade war between the two world's largest economies as the U.S. accuses Chinese competitors of unfair practices in industries the U.S. is trying to grow.

The moves, which come amid rising tensions between the U.S. and China, are designed to protect American industries in clean energy that the administration has targeted with major investments to try to catch up with China.

Other goods from China slapped with higher tariffs include solar cells, batteries, battery materials, cranes used at ports, and certain medical supplies, as well as steel and aluminum imported from China.

The Biden administration has for months accused China of unfair trade practices by flooding the global markets with goods at artificially low prices, putting U.S. manufacturing of electric vehicles, microchips and other goods at a steep disadvantage.

Lael Brainard, director of the National Economic Council in the White House, said the objective of the higher tariffs is to "make sure that historic investments in jobs spurred by President Biden's actions are not undercut by a flood of unfairly underpriced exports from China."

Biden, whose administration reviewed the tariff rates over the past year, is keeping intact more than $300 billion in tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. Biden will announce the new increases during a White House speech Tuesday.

Some of the tariff hikes include:

Electric vehicles from China: from 25% to 100% beginning this year.

Semiconductors from China: from 25% to 50% by 2025.

Lithium-ion batteries from China used in electric vehicles: from 7.5% to 25% this year.

Solar cells imported from China: from 25% to 50% this year.

Steel and aluminum products: form 0%-7.5% to 25% this year.

Ship-to-shore container cranes imported from China: from zero to 25% this year

Hospital syringes and needles made in China: from zero to 50% this year.

China pushed back strongly against the higher tariffs.

Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called the moves "self-defeating" and against the consensus reached last November by Biden and Chinese President Jinping Xi during a summit in San Francisco.

"More importantly, it will harm the world’s green economic transition and climate action," Wenbin said. "We urge the U.S. to stop repairing and digging up the road at the same time, so to speak, and create enabling conditions for China-U.S. climate cooperation and global green transition."

Another ministry spokesman last Friday said, "China will take all necessary measures to defend its rights and interests."

The moves come as Biden is courting the support of working-class voters in Midwest battleground states including Michigan, the center of the U.S. auto industry, for the November election.

Biden is borrowing from the trade playbook of Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee, who routinely raised tariffs on Chinese goods during his four years in office.

"Where have you been for the last three and a half years? They should have done it a long time ago," Trump said Biden's tariffs, speaking outside a New York courtroom, where is attending day 17 of his hush-money trial. "But they've also got to do it on other vehicles, and they have to do it on a lot of other products. Because China's eating our lunch right now."

Biden has sought to differentiate his tariff approach with his predecessor's plan for new tariffs. Biden last month slammed Trump's campaign proposals as "across-the-board tariffs on all imports from all countries that could badly hurt American consumers." Trump has proposed a 60% or more tariff on all Chinese imports and warned the U.S. auto industry will face a "bloodbath" if he loses his election in November.

Biden has staked his economic agenda on reigniting a U.S. manufacturing boom centered on electric vehicles and clean energy.

The Biden administration says it has helped spur more than $860 billion in private investment through legislation passed during Biden's first two years in office that incentivized the manufacturing of electric vehicles, clean-energy products, microchips and other investments.

Brainard said the tariff hikes will "ensure that American businesses and workers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in industries that are vital to our future such as clean energy and semiconductors."

Biden called for the tripling of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from China during a campaign speech last month before the United Steelworkers union in Pittsburgh.

Each of the tariff increases reflect the recommendations of Biden's United States Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, who evaluated the rates as part of a mandatory four-year review.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

BRICS Summit: Brazil Blocks Venezuela's Partner Bid Amid Expansion

Although Brazil is the first country in the BRICS acronym, it is not the most powerful member of the group. It has a smaller economy than those of Russia, China, and India, and it also lacks nuclear weapons. But because for years BRICS remained small and exclusive, adding only South Africa, Brazil enjoyed internal influence.

That could all change as BRICS experiences a growth spurt. Four countries joined the group in January—Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates—with more in line. China has long sought to expand BRICS to boost its influence, and the group’s growing use of non-dollar currencies became more attractive to some countries in the wake of Western sanctions on Russia.

Cuba and Bolivia are reportedly on the list of 13 new BRICS partner countries announced Wednesday, as well as NATO member Turkey, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Partner status is not the same as full membership in BRICS, but it could be a doorway to it in the future.

While growing interest in BRICS accession increases the group’s clout, expansion also stands to diminish Brazil’s sway. Not only that—the addition of U.S. antagonist Iran complicated Brazil’s longtime claim that the bloc was “not against anyone,” as Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said this week, but rather in favor of correcting inequities in the international system.

“At present, the group is torn,” Jorge Heine and Ariel González Levaggi wrote this week in Foreign Policy. “China and Russia would like to build it into an anti-Western entity, while Brazil, India, and South Africa would prefer it to take a stance closer to nonalignment.”

Continue reading.

[militantinremission]

American Geopolitics: Corporations over Citizens

So 'Jim Crow Joe' Biden signed a $95.3B Foreign Aid Bill for Ukraine, Israel, & Taiwan. Most Americans think that Border Security is a higher priority, but as expected, Congressional Democrats were in lock step w/ Biden's Warmonger Agenda. Members of the CBC & Progressive Party played a major role, providing overwhelming support for this measure. $1B in Military Aid is slated to go to Ukraine WITHIN HOURS of signing this Bill, but a Military Package estimated at $300M was secretly shipped and was already being used last Week. The $61B 'Foreign Aid Package' for Ukraine includes:

$23.2B slated to replenish U.S. Defense stockpiles

$11.3B for current Ukrainian Defense operations

$13.8B for future Ukrainian Defense measures

This is on top of the $113B in American Aid already sent. The Package also includes $26B for Israeli Defense, w/ $1B set aside for 'Aid Relief' in Gaza, & $8B going to Taiwan. This sounds like a good thing for Defense Contractors, Lobbyists, & Commercial Banks (The Industrial Military Complex), but there is No Mention of funding for America's porous Southern Border.

Volodomyr Zelenskyy's Government has received over $300B in Global Aid for his War, but all he has to show for it are 500,000+ slain Ukrainian Soldiers, devasted Cities, & Tens of Millions of displaced Citizens. Accounts of WHERE these resources have gone are murky at best. Reports of American Weapons & Relief Materials appearing on the Ukrainian Black Market have persisted since shipments began. It's apparent that the situation is Critical. Ukraine has recently issued a Draft, calling ALL Ukrainian Men of fighting age to return Home to join the Theater of Battle; failure to do so, will lead to being labeled a 'Draft Dodger'. Meanwhile, rumors have circulated that 1,000- 2,000 French Infantrymen (possibly French Foreign Legionaries) have joined Ukrainian Soldiers on the Battlefield; discarding their French Uniforms & donning Ukrainian ones.

Taking ALL of these factors into account, why is The Biden Administration throwing more Money at Ukraine? Why isn't NATO trying to negotiate a Truce between Putin & Zelenskyy (i.e. Istanbul Summit Communique)? A recent Summit in Switzerland showed that Volodomyr Zelenskyy is sticking to his guns. He is demanding the Same Terms that he offered at the Beginning of the Conflict. Vladimir Putin obviously has momentum, so why is NATO & Ukraine refusing to hear his Terms? The effort by Western Powers & the WEF to humiliate Putin publicly & topple his government has been a dismal failure. The Sanctions placed on Russia have not worked; in fact, it has galvanized the Russian Public & made Vladimir Putin something of a Super Star in the Global South.

Despite U.S. imposed Sanctions, Russia continues to have robust trade w/ several Western European Nations. Germany & France alone have spent Billions on Russian Fertilizer & Timber. Billions more in Natural Resources like Coal, Cobalt, Copper, Tungsten, & Zinc are also being sold throughout Europe. China & North Korea are purchasing the Natural Gas & Oil that once flowed through the Nord Stream Pipeline, & Global South Nations are purchasing Russian Armaments. To be clear, Russia isn't starving. In fact, The Russian Ruble is stronger than it was Last Year. Julius Malema recently stated that Russia's & South Afrika's Gold & Platinum wealth will be the backbone of a BRICS Currency. Saudi Arabia has already began accepting Rubles over American Petrodollars. All of this may explain The Biden Administration's determination to press on in Ukraine.

Military Minds like Scott Ritter & Col. Douglas MacGregor have been talking about Russian dominance over NATO in Ukraine since The War began. They both point out how the diplomatic moves being made by Vladimir Putin are well thought out, & Geopolitical Minds like John Mearsheimer agree. Putin is playing a Long Game, & his actions have aroused 'Russian Patriots'. Since the 'Special Operation' in Ukraine began, the Russian Army has grown from 900,000 Soldiers to over 1.4 Million. Even Men over 40 are seeking Enlistment. Roughly 1,400 Men/Day are volunteering to join the Battle in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Soldiers are SERIOUSLY depleted, & American Armed Forces Enlistment numbers are down; THIS may explain the number of Young Male Illegal Immigrants being allowed into the Country. The Roman Empire also faced an Enlistment problem; They hired Visigoth Mercenaries to beef up their numbers. History shows how THAT worked out for the Romans.

The Role of Multinational Corporations in all of this has to be considered. Black Rock is buying up large tracts of land in Ukraine, while Defense Contractors rake in 10s of Billions from U.S. Military Aid Packages. The Pentagon says that We have to replenish the stocks that are being shipped to Ukraine & Israel, but neither Front has an 'End Game'. Volodomyr Zelenskyy is fighting a losing battle. He doesn't have enough Soldiers to confront a growing Russian Army; he doesn't even have enough Experienced Soldiers to operate the equipment that Biden intends to ship. As for Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has been very successful in devastating the Gaza Strip, but he hasn't done any real damage to Hamas. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is forcing Israeli Settlers South, & the Houthis have hurt Israel economically... Now Iran has SERVED NOTICE on Israel that their vaunted Air/ Missle Defense Systems (& America's) cannot stop a [bonafide] Iranian assault.

Back in America, Detroit, Flint, & Jackson Ms. STILL need clean drinking water! The Gulf States STILL suffer from the effects of Hurricane Katrina, & Our Roads, Bridges, & Tunnels continue to deteriorate. $200B would go a long way to solving some of these Home Grown problems. Corporations can make their money HERE; improving Trade Routes & increasing the incomes of American Workers. Why isn't this a priority? 'Jim Crow Joe' likes to tout Job Growth numbers, but these are mostly 'Gig Economy' Jobs, or Jobs that offer 30hrs/ Week, w/ NO BENEFITS. Then there's the Border Crisis. Improving the Southern Border IS a National Security Issue, but it's been put on the back burner- Why is that? Why are MILLIONS of unvetted Young Men not just being allowed into America, but also being subsidized?

Why are struggling Black Communities being forced to compete w/ these Men for resources meant for Us? Why are Black Politicians ignoring their Constituents & lending their support to these people, along w/ 2 Wars that have NOTHING to do w/ Us? The 'Fix' is obviously In, but We WILL have the Last Laugh on Election Day.

-Best believe That!

[xtruss]

World: A Growing BRICS Bloc Shows U.S. Is Losing the Battle for the Global South

— BY Tom O'Connor | August 22, 2023

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa Delivers a Speech at the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. © Sputnik/Grigory Sysoev/Go to the Mediabank

While Russian President Vladimir Putin's in-person absence due to international legal troubles looms over the BRICS conference attended by the leaders of fellow member states Brazil, India, China and South Africa, the growing interest in expanding the group to include additional countries from across the globe is likely to cement the bloc's future as a force in global geopolitics.

And with no seat at the table for the United States, the three-day summit that began Tuesday in Johannesburg demonstrates how Washington has struggled to project influence throughout the vast, developing Global South.

"The U.S. is trailing countries such as Russia, India and China in the Global South," Akhil Ramesh, a senior fellow at the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum, told Newsweek. "The Global South does not have this special solidarity it has with nations such as China and India. As victims of Western imperialism/colonialism and having faced similar challenges in reconstruction and development, they have a unique solidarity."

"The U.S. approach continues to be one where they use nations of the Global South as pawns in their future, larger cold/hot conflict with China or Russia," Ramesh added. "This understandably has not helped them win friends."

Such solidarity continues to extend to Putin, who has accelerated his country's outreach to developing nations, especially in Africa, in recent years.

Moscow's overtures have been met with ongoing interest, as evidenced by the recent Russia-Africa Summit in Saint Petersburg. The summit was attended by 16 African heads of state and representatives of 25 additional African countries, even as the West has accused Putin of war crimes, resulting in an International Criminal Court warrant, and of weaponizing food by bombing grain infrastructure and allowing a deal that safeguarded the continued export of Ukrainian grains via the Black Sea to collapse.

U.S. warnings about forging closer economic ties with China have been met with even stiffer resistance, as President Xi Jinping presses on with his ambitious Belt and Road Initiative extending across continents despite a slowing economy at home.

Ramesh argued that nations of the Global South simply "do not view Beijing and Moscow the same way the West does," and instead see new opportunities where traditional mechanisms have failed.

"So, when there was a group presenting an alternative to the Western-led world order/vision of the world," he added, "nations were quick to jump on the bandwagon."

Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. State Department for comment.

Still, obstacles to progress exist within a bloc whose core members already have little alignment in their broader geopolitical goals, while some, especially China and India, have active disputes between them. Such feuds have the potential to only grow as the coalition considers taking on new members, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Others who have applied include Algeria 🇩🇿, Argentina 🇦🇷, Bahrain 🇧🇭, Bangladesh 🇧🇩, Belarus 🇧🇾, Bolivia 🇧🇴, Cuba 🇨🇺, Egypt 🇪🇬, Ethiopia 🇪🇹, Honduras 🇭🇳, Indonesia 🇮🇩, Kazakhstan 🇰🇿, Kuwait 🇰🇼, Morocco 🇲🇦, Nigeria 🇳🇬, the Palestinian National Authority 🇵🇸, Senegal 🇸🇳, Thailand 🇹🇭, the United Arab Emirates 🇦🇪, Venezuela 🇻🇪 and Vietnam 🇻🇳, according to the most recent count offered last week by South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor.

Brazil, Lula, arrives, BRICS, summit, South, Africa! Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva arrives in Johannesburg, South Africa ahead of the 15th BRICS summit. The leaders of 67 countries have been invited to join the forum led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Ricardo Stuckert/Presidency of The Federative Republic of Brazil

"Those who are there for the day-to-day negotiations, at least from the Brazilian government side, say it is already very hard to come to consensus when you have China, India and Russia at the table," Ana Elisa Saggioro Garcia, a professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro's Institute of International Relations and general coordinator of the BRICS Policy Center, told Newsweek.

But "there's another side of the story," she said. That's the growing view, including from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, that "a strong BRICS" is necessary, and a "strong BRICS is also a big BRICS."

South Africa, the current chair, is the only nation to have been added to what began as an informal BRIC bloc, born out of a term coined by then-Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill in 2001 to describe emerging economic powers. Russia led the initiative to bring Brazil, China and India together for the first summit in 2009, and South Africa was admitted the following year.

Initially, BRICS was focused on effecting reform within existing, primarily Western-led economic institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis.

"The first common agenda that they had, despite their differences, was the reform of the international financial architecture," Garcia said. "So, international financial institutions, those grounded in the Bretton Woods Conference, in the post-war period, they do not represent the world anymore. Those huge economies don't have enough voice in those institutions, they need to be reformed. They need to reflect the new configuration of the world economic power."

© Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Go to the Mediabank

Gradually, the group became more focused on creating alternative mechanisms, most notably in the establishment in 2014 of the Shanghai-based New Development Bank, which today also counts Bangladesh, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as members. With this transformation, Garcia explained, "the geopolitical character of BRICS started to be more important and more relevant than only the economic one."

China, in particular, she argued, "has been very clever and very strategic to use this opportunity to advance and to expand another coalition where China is predominant, where China doesn't have to deal with negotiations with Western powers."

But as evidenced by Brazil's enthusiasm for a more active role for BRICS and the growing list of prospective members, it's not all about Beijing.

"BRICS has become this pole of attraction of all countries now who've seen that they can have more power if they ally with a coalition such as BRICS to face measures that the West has been doing for years now," Garcia said, "and also to face these sorts of constraints and repression in terms of worldview and values."

Ryan Berg, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) Americas Program in Washington, D.C., also discussed how countries like Brazil were becoming more interested in the geopolitical nature of BRICS as an exercise in "active nonalignment."

"It can heighten the relevance of a country like Brazil, which is sometimes overlooked and feels overlooked and neglected," Berg said in response to Newsweek's question during a CSIS call held in the leadup to the BRICS summit.

"By pursuing this strategy," he explained, "you can basically make it a competition for the affection or for the attention of major world powers or leading world powers that would otherwise overlook Brazil's position on a particular issue."

BRICS, Summit, South, Africa, 2018! (Left to right) Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Brazilian President Michel Temer pose for a group picture during the 10th BRICS summit on July 26, 2018 at the Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. South Africa's most populous city against hosts the BRICS summit in 2023, after each of the other four members hosted gatherings, three of which were virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mike Hutchings/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Speaking on the same call, CSIS Africa Program director Mvemba Phezo Dizolele highlighted the importance of the host nation itself, saying BRICS membership "strengthened the position of South Africa among non-aligned countries" at a polarizing time in global geopolitics.

"Non-aligned countries have absolutely been at odds at least with Western countries, particularly ideologically because they do not want to align either with the Russians or with the United States and allies," Dizolele said.

A key goal for the summit's participants "will be discussing their disillusionment with U.S. leadership or at least the U.S.-led coalition around the world and how that world order is affecting adversely the countries of the Global South," he said, noting that "this will be a time when they will be seeking an alternative to that power."

The phenomenon of a competition among major powers to court the Global South was also observed by Mrityunjay Tripathi, a research fellow at the New Delhi-based Public Policy Research Center who previously served as part of India's delegation to the 2018 BRICS Youth Summit in South Africa.

"U.S. attempts to engage the Global South will only benefit the region, as the U.S. will act as a balancing power in the region dominated by China," Tripathi told Newsweek. "This competition will only benefit the developing economies and the multipolarity of the BRICS will ensure that region remains free and open to all."

Here, he said that "the presence of India adds credibility to BRICS and assures the West that India will act as a balancing power in the alliance that consists of Russia and China."

While New Delhi and Washington have strengthened ties in recent years, this does not mean total alignment in their positions. Tripathi argued that the trends apparent in the summit and context surrounding it show that Washington was on the backfoot in this competition over developing nations.

BRICS, Business, Forum, meets, in, South, Africa! (From left to right) Shaogang Zhang, vice chair of China's Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Onkar Singh Kanwar, chair of the BRICS Business Council's India chapter, Sergei Katyrin, chair of the BRICS Business Council's Russia chapter, José Serrador, chair of the BRICS Business Council's Brazil chapter, Busi Mabuza, chair of the BRICS Business Council's South Africa chapter, and Nozipho Tshabalala, CEO of the Conversation Strategist, attend a panel discussion during the 2023 BRICS Business Forum in Sandton, north of Johannesburg, South Africa, on August 22. Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images

"The growing interest in BRICS does suggest that the U.S.' attempts to assert influence, particularly across the Global South, have not always produced desired results," Tripathi said. "The rise of BRICS is indicative of a shift in power dynamics from the traditionally Western-dominated world order to a more multipolar global scenario."

A key part of this shift identified by Tripathi was not only expansion, but the vision of "instituting a common currency," something that "further solidifies the group's commitment to long-term sustainable progress of the Global South."

"A common currency will not only boost intra-BRICS trade," he added," but also eliminate the high dollar conversion costs of international transactions."

Shen Shiwei, a journalist and analyst with a background in Chinese business dealings in Africa and the Middle East, argued that "the only thing that can beat the U.S. dollar is the dollar itself, driven by weaponization from Washington."

"The global trend of increasing the use of multiple currencies, instead of fully relying on U.S. dollars, is not a new idea," Shen told Newsweek. "Three decades ago, the euro was created in part because the majority of the EU wanted to move away from its deep reliance on the U.S. dollar."

"The dollar is still essential to global investments and trade," he added, "but the process of de-dollarization is accelerating, mainly because its weaponization has caused an erosion of confidence and alerted emerging economies to take actions to safeguard economic security."

People walk past a banner outside the venue for the 2023 BRICS Summit at the Sandton Convention Centre in Sandton, Johannesburg, on August 20. The BRICS countries, an acronym of the five members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, meet for three days for a summit in Johannesburg from August 22-24. Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images

The U.S. dollar continues to command a significant lead against competitors, comprising some 59 percent of the world's foreign exchange reserves. The euro constitutes around 20 percent, with other currencies such as the Japanese yen, the United Kingdom's pound sterling and the Chinese renminbi in the single digits.

Still, a number of countries, particularly members of BRICS, have called for conducting bilateral trade in their own national currencies, and the idea of a common currency has been increasingly put forth. In April, Lula delivered an impassioned speech at the New Development Bank headquarters in which he railed against the notion that "all countries are forced to do their trade backed by the dollar."

The message has continued to gain traction among existing and prospective BRICS members.

"But that doesn't mean BRICS is anti-West," Shen said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses BRICS summit in South Africa, August 22, 2023. © Sputnik/Grigory Sysoev

He argued that "the zero-sum game narrative developed in the West that the BRICS was created as competition to the G7 or the Global North is very misleading."

The G7, officially the Group of Seven, is a bloc consisting of the world's largest developed economies, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States and the U.K., with participation from the European Union as well. The G7 existed as the G8 until 2014, when it was expelled due to its role in the first major outbreak of conflict in Ukraine.

"All BRICS members have important political and economic cooperation with the G7 countries," Shen said. "More importantly, BRICS doesn't want to copy the Western hegemony in mentality and reality, which has brought too many problems to the Global South."

As opposed to the G7, "the BRICS mechanism has met the demands of the Global South, especially marginalized countries, to advance a collective agenda and push the building of a more inclusive, representative, just and fair global architecture," Shen argued.

"BRICS is not an exclusive club or small circle," he added, "but a big family of good partners."

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Nikkei is Private Japanese Media]

China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) came at the "right time" for boosting Africa's development, a top African Union (AU) official told Nikkei Asia, as he played down concerns that it was a debt trap for poor countries. Last week, Beijing said it would ramp up the decade-old infrastructure drive to build ports, roads and railways by pushing into the digital realm, as the multibillion-dollar program becomes China's key foreign policy tool for influence in developing nations. Chinese President Xi Jinping's renewed focus on industrialization, agriculture and talent development was also just what the continent needs, said Albert Muchanga, head of trade and industry for the African Union Commission, the AU's Ethiopia-based secretariat.

"China will continue BRI, at the same time there is a complementary effort to support us in those three areas. ... Both came at the right time," Muchanga said in an interview on the sidelines of last week's Turkey-Africa Business and Economic Forum in Istanbul. "Africa was making massive investments in developing infrastructure, connectivity, telecommunication systems as well as energy facilities [when BRI launched] and that helped quite a lot." "We need to start the process of adding value on the continent to push industrialization," added the former Zambian diplomat.[...]

Asked if Western powers were being drawn to Africa in competition with China, Muchanga replied, "Well, they are reacting to it, which is good." He also questioned growing criticism that the BRI's massive infrastructure loans and an opaque structure have saddled some recipient countries with unsustainable debt. Some $76.8 billion worth of Chinese overseas loans were renegotiated or written off between 2020 and 2022, according to U.S. research firm Rhodium Group, compared to $17 billion in the preceding three years. "When you discuss with the scholars from China and other people, I think there's an acknowledgment that if we demonstrate greater transparency, I think some of the allegations that are made may not be well founded," Muchanga said, without elaborating.

AU member nation ministers will gather in November to adopt a critical minerals strategy, the official said, adding that the commission is working on a document for approving its new leaders at a summit scheduled for February. "We are responding to the issue of green transition by coming up with a critical minerals strategy," he said, "but the message is to come and produce at source to contribute to decarbonization."

16 Oct 23

[workersolidarity]

🇨🇳🇺🇲 🚨 CHINA WARNS U.S. TO STOP INTERFERING IN TAIWAN'S ELECTIONS

Speaking at a Press Conference Wednesday, December 13th, the spokeswoman for the Chinese State Council Office for Taiwan Affairs, Zhu Fenglian, warned the U.S. the upcoming election of Taiwan's Chief Executive in January is China's internal affair, and the United States should stop interfering.

Elections for Taiwan's Chief Executive are scheduled for January 13th, 2024.

The current incumbent for the Chief Executive's Office is Tsai Ingwen, who is finishing her second term and is no longer eligible for re-election due to term limits.

"Taiwan's elections are China's internal affairs and interference by outside forces is unacceptable," Zhu Fenglian said.

Fenglian noted that the recent U.S.-China Summit, the United States made commitments to China on the Taiwan issue, with U.S. President Joe Biden clearly stating in front of reporters that he does not support "Taiwan Independence."

"The United States must keep its promises, stop sending false signals to pro-Taiwan independence forces, and stop interfering in Taiwanese elections,” a department spokeswoman said.

#source

@WorkerSolidarityNews

[pannaginip]

Filipino-American activists protested Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s visit to the United States for the first trilateral U.S.-Japan-Philippines leaders’ summit on April 11.

In a statement, Brittany Tabora of Anakbayan-DC and Bayan-DMV said that it is critical for Filipinos around the world to know that Filipinos in the US do not stand for Marcos.

For the progressive groups, the trilateral summit is among the series of efforts to leverage the Philippines’ strategic geo-political location for economic and military benefit as tensions rise between the U.S. and China, “at the expense of the sovereignty of the Philippines, the economic conditions of Filipino workers, and the health of the environment.”

"We’re here bringing the voices of the Filipino people to oppose the trilateral summit that’s happening around the US, Philippines and Japan. The US government talks about bringing economic growth, prosperity, clean energy and peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. But we know this is a guise for more war and militarism in the Asia Pacific region and also an opportunity to perpetuate unequal economic and military agreements,” said Julie Jamora of Malaya Movement USA.

2024 Apr. 14