https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0c5Gfh2ZWY

Richard D. Wolff

Wednesday, July 12, 2023, at 7:30 PM Premieres: d@w YouTube channel on Wednesday, July 12, 2023 @ 7:30 PM EST. This lecture can be found as our most recent video on the "Global Capitalism" Playlist. It will also be published on our website: www.democracyatwork.info.

Capitalism Turns to the Authoritarian State ·

Why Private Capitalism Makes That Turn ·

Why State Capitalism Makes That Turn ·

Will the Authoritarian State Save or End Capitalism? (United States vs. China) ·

Socialism and the Authoritarian State.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Marcel Salikhov: Here’s how the end of the US dollar’s global dominance will play out

 

Much of the world now supports de-dollarization. It will happen, but not as a “big bang” 

The de-dollarization of the global financial system is set to continue. This will be facilitated by the development of new financial technology. Central banks will seek to settle directly with each other without using the currencies of developed countries. In the future, central banks’ digital currencies may also be used for international transactions, reducing costs for economic transactions. However, this process will be rather slow.  

The US dollar has long been the world’s dominant currency. Its use in international transactions has for many decades far exceeded the American share of the global economy, which now stands at around 24%. For example, according to the IMF the dollar accounted for 58.4% of central banks’ international reserves by currency at the end of 2002. According to SWIFT, the Greenback’s share of interbank transfers in April 2023 was 59.7 per cent. This was significantly higher than a year earlier.

Several factors contribute to the active use of the US dollar, even in transactions between third countries: the size of the American economy (the largest and most liquid market for financial instruments, including reliable ones), political influence and the role of US multinationals in global markets. All these aspects interact and are mutually supportive over a long period of time. It’s also worth remembering that the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, which originated in the US economy itself, did not affect the position of the dollar globally.

However, the blocking of the Bank of Russia’s reserves by Western countries, as well as large-scale financial sanctions against Russian banks and companies, have caused many to question whether the advantages of dollarization might not be all they seem. The non-economic risks of US dollar transactions and dollarized assets have become apparent to everyone, especially central banks. In particular, Article 21 of the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property guarantees immunity for central bank assets. However, this did not protect the assets of the Bank of Russia from being frozen, which has now set a precedent.

Russia’s actions under these conditions were expected and understandable. From the beginning of 2023, the Central Bank began to conduct operations under the budget rule in Chinese yuan. Russian companies are restructuring their foreign-trade operations and how they accumulate foreign assets, preferring to use of the currencies of “friendly” countries. This basically means non-Western.

At the same time, current data does not show a mass abandonment of the use of the US dollar by central banks. The share of the US currency in international reserves has been declining steadily over the past few decades, but at a relatively slow pace. While around 70% of global central bank reserves were held in US dollars in the early 2000s, this figure fell to less than 60% by 2020. There was no radical decline in dollar reserves in 2022. Its share of reserves fell by 0.44 percentage points, while its use in interbank transfers actually rose.

Are there alternatives to the dollar?

The main reason for this, despite obviously increased political risks, is the lack of serious alternatives that can absorb significant amounts of central bank savings.

The traditional role of foreign exchange reserves, both for private actors and governments, is to ensure financial stability and diversify risk. Central bank reserves are one of the instruments that serve this purpose. They are highly liquid and can be used quickly for currency intervention if necessary. The downside is the high vulnerability of such assets in terms of sanctions. Plus low yields.

The Eurozone government bond market is fragmented into individual countries, many of which have low credit ratings. The Chinese yuan is not a freely convertible currency. It is split into internal (offshore) and external (onshore) parts, and is under the strict control of the National Bank of China. Gold as an asset can be a good hedge in times of crisis, but it does not generate interest income and has low liquidity. It is therefore far from obvious to central banks in developing countries which assets –and in what currency– can be an alternative to those held in US dollars.

Storing wealth not only in gold and foreign exchange reserves  

A more important factor than the nominal share of the US dollar in international reserves is the changing approach to the management and accumulation of foreign assets. The same IMF data shows that the total value of central bank reserves has remained virtually unchanged at $11.5-12 trillion over the past decade, even as the global economy has grown. China’s foreign exchange reserves peaked at $4 trillion in 2014 and have been declining ever since. Their current value is $3.2 trillion, down 20% from 2014. Many other developing countries are not increasing their international reserves, if not reducing them.

This does not mean, however, that external assets are not being created. They can be formed in “non-standard” forms, such as assets of sovereign wealth funds, state banks, development institutions and other structures not directly related to central banks. Foreign direct investment by government structures can also be classified as a type of reserve asset. Such a strategy is not aimed at maximising the availability and liquidity of assets, but at securing one’s own economic interests in foreign markets. To some extent, it provides greater protection against the political risks of asset freezes, as their legal status is less transparent.

China’s strategy 

A similar strategy is being pursued by China, which is seeking to gradually “internationalize” its currency. Formally, the yuan’s share of central banks’ international reserves is small, amounting to no more than 3%. Moreover, between a third and a half of this demand is provided by the Bank of Russia.

China’s strategy is to secure the international status of the RMB through trade rather than investment. In recent years, China has actively sought to motivate and encourage its partners to trade in RMB rather than other currencies. This is being done in a number of ways, including infrastructure development, its own analogue of the SWIFT system, development of clearing, international lending in the currency and so on. Many people have heard of the term “petroyuan” – an analogue of the petrodollar. In essence, it is the signing of long-term contracts for the supply of oil in yuan in return for a flow of goods and equipment. So, trade is already being conducted in yuan rather than US dollars. This creates demand outside the Chinese economy. At the same time, the Chinese authorities maintain restrictions on capital transactions. 

*** 

The de-dollarization of the global financial system will continue. This will be facilitated in particular by progress in financial technology. The development of automated trading platforms will reduce the cost of exchanging one currency for another. Central banks will seek to directly clear each other’s currencies without directly using the currencies of Western countries. In the future, central banks’ digital currencies may also be used for international transactions, reducing costs for economic agents. However, this process will be slow and we should not expect a fundamental change in the global financial system in the foreseeable future.

 

This piece was originally published by Valdai Discussion Club and edited by the RT team

https://www.rt.com/news/579670-end-of-dollars-global-dominance/

 

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

By Derrick Broze

Despite a blackout by the American media, the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact brought more than 50 world leaders to Paris for a meeting which is sure to have far reaching consequences for the world.

On June 22 and 23, President Emmanuel Macron welcomed 50 heads of state, representatives of NGOs and civil society organizations to Paris for the “Summit for a New Global Financing Pact.” Although the summit received little to no reporting from the American media, it was the latest effort to reset the international financial system as part of the continued push towards the 2030 Agenda and “net-zero” goals.

The French government stated that the objective of the gathering was to “build a new contract between [the global] North and South” which will better equip the nations to fight poverty and climate change. The summit was attended by US President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

 

In addition to heads of state, the summit was organized with support from the Open Society Foundations [SOROS], the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others.

France24 reports that Macron first announced his intention to host the finance summit at the end of COP27 in November 2022 after environmentalists were dissatisfied with the climate negotiations. At that meeting an agreement was reached to create a fund to compensate developing countries who suffer the effects of climate change. One of the goals of the June summit was to establish tools to finance such a fund.

One of the other stated goals of this summit was to transform the entire international financial system by adapting the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to modern challenges.

These goals mirror recent statements made by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres when he called for a “new Bretton Woods moment”, referencing the infamous 1944 international agreement which established rules for governing monetary relations among independent states, including requiring each nation to guarantee convertibility of their currencies into U.S. dollars. The Bretton Woods Agreement established the IMF.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva also called for a “new Bretton Woods moment” in October 2020.

One of the suggestions for generating the trillions of dollars needed to transform the financial system (and the world along with it) is to tax the biggest polluters, particularly fossil fuel companies because of “their historic responsibility for climate chaos.” There have also been discussions on taxing ships transporting goods.

NGOs are also proposing various forms of debt forgiveness for developing countries who have the dual task of repaying loans from developed nations and banks, such as the World Bank, while also battling environmental degradation.

“Today, countries in crisis are forced to repay their debts to creditor states, financial institutions and private banks, and this prevents them from investing in public services or fighting against climate change,” Lison Rehbinder, development finance advocacy officer at the CCFD-Terre Solidaire NGO, told France24. Rehbinder also says plans are being discussed to introduce clauses in loan contracts which allow debts to be suspended in the event of a “climate disaster.”

The actual “New Global Financing Pact” states that the goal is “Building a New Consensus for a More Inclusive International Financial System.” The document also outlines “key international milestones” for 2023 and 2024 where further commitments and discussions are expected to take place.

 

World Leaders Offer a Peek at the Agenda

Just days before the summit Le Monde published an opinion piece from 13 political leaders attending the summit, including Macron, US President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The politicians wrote that they are “urgently working to fight poverty and inequalities.”

“Climate change will generate larger and more frequent disasters, and disproportionately affect the poorest, most vulnerable populations around the world,” they wrote. “These challenges cross borders and pose existential risks to societies and economies.”

The political leaders echoed the usual language used by the UN, with talk of a “just and inclusive transition.” They also noted that going forward “poverty reduction and the protection of the planet are converging objectives.” The idea that fighting against worldwide poverty is tied to the fight to protect the environment is mentioned several times throughout the summit documents.

Macron, Biden, and friends stated that the transition to “net-zero” and goals of the Paris Agreement present the opportunity to “unlock a new era of sustainable global economic growth.”

They also noted that the New Global Financing Pact is “inspired by the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)” and called for “new economic models that recognize the immense value of nature for humanity.”

The KMGBF was adopted in December 2022 at the UN Biodiversity Conference, also known as the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The text of the document makes it clear that the agreement “sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad–based action to bring about a transformation in our societies’ relationship with biodiversity by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals.” The KMGBF also calls for “living in harmony with nature” by 2050.

As I have written before, we must be cognizant of the fact that organizations like the UN, WEF, and other globalist NGOs, non-profits, and politicians pay lip service to ideas like diversity, sustainability, and being inclusive. However, their actions show they do not respect diversity of thought, do not desire actual regenerative practices, and do not care about being inclusive of all people or thoughts.

Instead, what they envision is a world where nature is placed above the needs of man, and civil liberties, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech are curtailed in the name of some fantastical vision of saving the planet. This is not to say that every single individual working on this summit, or with the UN, WEF, and other organizations are aware of the larger agenda, the long-term goals. These globalist organizations often fool well-intentioned people into collaborating with them in an attempt to give an air of legitimacy to their anti-liberty actions.

 Looking Towards the “Summit of the Future”

While the “Summit for a New Global Financing Pact” is an important event worth taking note of, we should also be aware that it is simply the latest in the globalist meetings taking place this year. The roadmap of the Pact makes it clear that the meeting’s main purpose is to draw up a guide that will be used at the next G20 summit in India in September, the Africa Climate Summit in September, the Sustainable Development Goals Summit in September, the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in October, and COP28 in Dubai in early December.

I recently wrote about how the UN is attempting to rally member states to recommit to complete the SDGs and Agenda 2030 by participating in the SDG Summit in September in New York City. Whatever happens at the September gathering of world leaders and politicians, it is likely to be extremely consequential for the future of Agenda 2030.

However, the document makes it clear that all of these meetings are leading towards the Summit of the Future in September 2024.

According to the Summit for the Future website, the summit is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to address gaps in global governance. The summit will also continue the push for nations to “reaffirm existing commitments” to the SDGs and the UN Charter. Member states will be expected to build on the outcomes of the SDG Summit and “breathe new life into the multilateral system” and accomplish the 2030 Agenda. The website also states that the Summit of the Future will conclude with a “Pact for the Future” which will be endorsed by Heads of State/Government at the summit.

I encourage all readers to pay attention to the SDG Summit in September of this year and the Summit of the Future in 2024. I believe we will see major steps towards the creation of a one world government between now and then.

The Predator Class may use the threat of a looming pandemic, or climate crises, or even threats from beyond our world, but the goal is the same: complete control and cataloguing of all human life. We must resist these plans at the local level if we have hopes to prevent The Great Reset from becoming reality.

Source: The Last American Vagabond

 

READ FROM TOP

 

"TO THE AMERICAN DOLLAR, GOLD IS LIKE GARLIC TO A VAMPIRE" — COLONEL MCGREGOR.

 

FFRREEEE JJUULLIIAANN AASSSSAANNGGEE NNOOWWWWWWWWWWW

 

Ex-CIA advisor predicts date when U.S. dollar hegemony will collapse

 

The collective push to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency has much to do with Washington's "weaponization of the dollar through the use of sanctions."

 

In an op-ed posted on The Daily Reckoning on Tuesday, former CIA and Department of Defense advisor and investment banker James Rickards predicted that August 22 will be the day the U.S. dollar’s status, as the world reserve currency and medium for exchange will formally collapse.

Many factors are worth considering, including the weaponization of the dollar against Russia’s economy amid the conflict in Ukraine, the U.S.’ own national debt of $31 trillion, and recent talks on the part of the BRICS+ group to create an alternative trade and reserve currency that would rival the dollar.

“On August 22, about two-and-a-half months from today, the most significant development in international finance since 1971 will be unveiled,” Rickards writes in reference to the upcoming BRICS+ Leaders Summit which will unveil plans for substituting the dollar in global trade.

What is interesting to note is that on that same day in 1971, August 22 was also the day the U.S. dropped the gold standard. “It involves the rollout of a major new currency that could weaken the role of the dollar in global payments and ultimately displace the U.S. dollar as the leading payment currency and reserve currency,” Rickards added, noting that the shift could span over a period of “just a few years.”

Rickards says the push for a new currency spearheaded by the BRICS+ group will “affect world trade, direct foreign investment and investor portfolios in dramatic and unforeseen ways,” and cause an “unprecedented […] geopolitical shockwave.”

He also said that the BRICS+ plans for expansion are “the most important development of the BRICS system,” noting that eight countries have so far already applied for membership, along with twelve others expressing an interest in joining the bloc, including Saudi Arabia, which assisted the U.S. in propelling the dollar currency to the status of world hegemon through establishing the petrodollar system.

“There’s more to this list than just increasing the headcount at future BRICS meetings,” Rickards emphasized, pointing out that “if Saudi Arabia and Russia are both members, you have two of the three largest energy producers under one tent (the U.S. is the other member of the energy Big Three).”

On another note, the BRICS countries make up 30 percent of the world’s surface, with 50 percent of global wheat and rice production, and 15 percent of the planet’s gold reserves. It accounts for 40 percent of the world population, 28 percent of nominal GDP (pending Saudi Arabia’s membership), and 52 percent is measured under the PPP formula.

“By every measure—population, landmass, energy output, GDP, food output, and nuclear weapons—BRICS is not just another multilateral debating society. They are a substantial and credible alternative to Western hegemony,” Rickards said.

Accordingly, when the bloc launches its new currency, it will not simply “fall on an empty field,” but be integrated “into a sophisticated network of capital and communications,” which should “greatly enhance its chances of success,” he argued.

Elsewhere in the op-ed, Rickards said that the BRICS currency is expected to be pegged to a basket of trade commodities or gold, and will likely appear in the form of a digital currency instead of paper money.

He also said that chances for success for the BRICS currency to replace the U.S. dollar will depend on the formation of an alternative to the U.S. bonds market which is seen as the safest bet to safeguard assets value.

“The key is to create a BRICS+ currency bond market in 20 or more countries at once, relying on retail investors in each country to buy the bonds. The BRICS+ bonds would be offered through banks and postal offices and other retail outlets. They would be denominated in BRICS+ currency, but investors could purchase them in local currency at market-based exchange rates. Since the currency is gold-backed it would offer an attractive store of value compared with inflation,” Rickards writes.

He added that “if the BRICS+ use a kind of Liberty Bond patriotic model, they may well be able to create international reserve assets denominated in the BRICS+ currency even in the absence of developed market support. This entire turn of events—introduction of a new gold-backed currency, rapid adoption as a payment currency, and gradual use as a reserve asset currency—will begin on August 22, 2023, after years of development.”

The collective push to replace the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency has much to do with Washington’s “weaponization of the dollar through the use of sanctions,” Rickards writes.

“On numerous occasions from 2007-2014, I warned U.S. officials from the Treasury, Pentagon, and intelligence community that overuse or abuse of dollar sanctions would lead adversaries to abandon the dollar to avoid the impact of sanctions. Such abandonment would lead to the diluted potency of sanctions, unforeseen costs imposed on the U.S., and eventually to the collapse of confidence in the dollar itself. These warnings were mostly ignored. We have now reached the first and second stages of this forecast and are dangerously close to the third,” the observer wrote.

Western sanctions imposed on Russia in 2022 have particularly hastened the process of de-dollarization, causing “many other nations” to realize that “they could be next if they run afoul of the U.S. on certain issues.”

In sum, Rickards predicted that the process of de-dollarization could occur at a “much faster” pace than he previously expected, owing to the fact that several countries are opting to carry out trade and financial transactions in local currencies, but also because of the “growing strategic relationship” between Beijing and Moscow “as the two superpowers jointly confront the U.S.”

https://mronline.org/2023/06/09/ex-cia-advisor-predicts-date-when-u-s-dollar-hegemony-will-collapse/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

"TO THE AMERICAN DOLLAR, GOLD IS LIKE GARLIC TO A VAMPIRE" — COLONEL MCGREGOR.

 

FFRREEEE JJUULLIIAANN AASSSSAANNGGEE NNOOWWWWWWWWWWW

 

BY Vladimir Terehov

 

On July 4, the 22nd summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) since its founding in 2001 took place in New Delhi via video conference. Following is a list of the participating countries in the order that their heads of state signed the final “Declaration,” which was adopted at the start of the event: India, Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. They were joined by Iran, which was one of the main results of this summit.

In the author’s opinion, its significance is rather conditioned by the context of the current stage of the “Big World Game” and mainly by the increasingly clearly defined threat of the formation of lines of division in the Indo-Pacific region, which may spread to the entire human race (with multiple obvious negative consequences for the latter).

In terms of its original goals and the composition of participants, the SCO could be considered a “truncated version” of another platform, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) established in the early 1990s. Even though the ARF seems to be the best place to put policies in place to “sanitize” the threats of a regional division, the simultaneous existence of two major geopolitical competitors, the United States and China, reduces the ARF’s effectiveness.

In this regard, it seems natural that the original plan was to form a new interstate platform in the Indo-Pacific region in the form of the SCO by “cutting off” an “extra-regional” player (the US) from it. Washington would deal with all of the region’s concerns in a “cozy, domestic, comfortable” setting.

But the fact is that the removal of the world’s leading power from the list of participants in the new platform does not mean that it will not be de facto present in almost all regional problems. And in such a way as it sees fit.

Furthermore, (and most important), the majority of these issues are purely “local” in nature. One of the most serious issues was brought to the SCO by India and Pakistan, which joined the organization in 2017. This is primarily the Kashmir problem (no less dangerous than the Taiwan problem), which is more or less regularly commented on in the NEO.

Apparently, the founders of this organization, i.e. China and Russia, were guided by two considerations when making a positive decision on the request of these two countries to join the SCO. First, by the very need to resolve this problem. Without this, it would be challenging to develop any substantial, regional-scale projects. Second, it was probably anticipated that the mere presence of two rivals in the same organization would prompt them to work together to “cure” this disease that causes tremendous suffering for everyone.

Perhaps this would have been the case if, in the last ten years, potentially one of the main problems on the global game table had not become more and more pronounced due to the various difficulties in relations between the two Asian giants (and, again, SCO members), China and India. There are different opinions on the nature of these difficulties, which are also presented on international expert platforms. But all that matters today is that they exist, and, for example, certain “incidents” in border zones are rather an outward manifestation of said difficulties than their true cause.

India, for example, has a negative attitude toward the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a huge transport and infrastructure project that has been underway since 2016 and, among other things, is strategically important for China, since it makes it possible to solve the Malacca Dilemma, i.e., to secure China’s safe land access to the Indian Ocean in general and the Persian Gulf area in particular.

But CPEC passes through a part of the former principality of Kashmir that India considers “illegally occupied by Pakistan.” New Delhi has therefore refused to respond positively to repeated appeals from Islamabad and Beijing to become part of its implementation. On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of CPEC, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on July 6 once again urged India to benefit from rather than hinder the project.

It should be pointed out, however, that Pakistan also refers to the part of former Kashmir, which is now part of India, in the same way (i.e. in the vice versa format). That is, it considers it not only possible but also necessary to give its assessments to any measures that New Delhi takes in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. In particular, a number of measures made by the Indian Parliament on August 5, 2019, have received strong public criticism in Pakistan. Since then, “Mourning Day” has been held on this occasion.

In Shehbaz Sharif’shttps://www.nation.com.pk/06-Jul-2023/pakistan-will-fulfil-imf-conditions-violated-by-pti-govt-pm-shehbazremarks at the summit under discussion, long-standing claims to India were evident (although without mentioning it directly). These included the same CPEC, “religious minorities’ rights,” or state terror. In the latter case, the actions of Indian law enforcement agencies in the “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir” were implicated. It should be noted, however, that practically every incidence involving the use of guns is viewed in New Delhi as a justification for accusing Islamabad of “sponsoring terrorism.”

The speeches of all participants in the summit, including UN Secretary-General António Guterres, as well as the above-mentioned final document, were made in what is called “politically correct tones.” Both for each other and for the SCO as a whole.

Nonetheless, expert are rather skeptical in their appraisals of the event’s outcomes as well as the SCO’s future. In particular, China’s Global Times commented in critical tones on the Indian side’s refusal to sign the “Economic Development Strategy for 2030.” India’s stated reason was the abundance in the prepared document of so-called “Chinese catchphrases” characteristic of Beijing’s political rhetoric.

However, this reality appears to reflect India’s determination not to bind itself to any long-term commitment with a country with whom relations are rather “complicated.” It is this last factor that explains the “tilt” in Indian foreign policy towards Washington with its main allies, primarily Tokyo,https://journal-neo.org/ru/2023/06/26/indiya-i-yaponiya-formiruyut-novyj-aziatskij-alyans/ including India’s membership in interstate configurations involving the UShttps://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-modi-us-visit-state-luncheon-hosted-by-kamala-harris-antony-blinken-praises-bilateral-cooperation-101687545076941.html, and its acceptance of the development of relations with Taiwan “at the regional level.”

And that despite the fact that India’s government frequently states its lack of intentions to infringe on the interests of other key parties in relation to these and comparable questions in Indian foreign policy, Most likely, it is being honest. However, the reality is that real-life circumstances almost always outweigh “good intentions.”

It is precisely these current, increasingly worrisome “circumstances” that are at the root of practically all international structures and platforms’ near-paralysis. They did not spare the SCO, which is fundamentally fraught with universal issues that threaten to divide both this particular organization and the global system as a whole.

There is no other means to resolve them other than the refusal of each of the emerging geopolitical “poles” to attempt to “trip up” its neighbor, only to then giggle up their sleeve from around the corner, watching the hapless neighbor wipe his bloody face. That is the nature of the conflict in Ukraine, by the way.

Only the joint elaboration of (nowadays mostly taken in vain) “rules of conduct” in the international arena, reflecting the emerging new conditions, as well as the mandatory adherence to these rules, can prevent the deepening of the emerging lines of division.

Otherwise, we would all have to listen to the howls of adherents of “Sarmats,” “Poseidons” and other “Hypersonics.” Which, however, did not bring anything new in terms of the approaches to solving some annoying problems.

For it has long been observed that the guillotine is the surest cure for dandruff.

 

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2023/07/19/on-some-aspects-of-the-latest-sco-summit/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

"TO THE AMERICAN DOLLAR, GOLD IS LIKE GARLIC TO A VAMPIRE" — COLONEL MCGREGOR.

 

FFRREEEE JJUULLIIAANN AASSSSAANNGGEE NNOOWWWWWWWWWWW