The two big stories in the news today are the Trump administration saying Ukraine is going to have to give up territory and NATO ambitions in order to secure a peace deal, while Israel appears to retreat from its ceasefire standoff with Hamas.

US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday that the US “does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome for a negotiated settlement,” and that “returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.” This comes as Trump announces that he is in talks with Vladimir Putin to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.

Both NATO membership and recapturing all territory lost to Russia have been the goal of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and the NATO enthusiasts throughout the Western world who adore him. Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp explains:

Restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders has been a war goal of Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, although there have been signs in recent months that he’s accepted that’s unrealistic. But he is still calling for strong security guarantees from the US that involve the deployment of troops, which Hegseth also dismissed.

“Any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission, and they should not be covered under Article 5,” he said.

“There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact. To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,” Hegseth added.

“Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive had Biden been willing to say this three years ago,” Aaron Maté wrote on Twitter regarding Hegseth’s comments. “Instead, Biden refused, fuelled a proxy war, presided over Ukraine’s decimation, and then turned around and said that Ukraine isn’t ready to join NATO anyway. It was all a bait and switch with one goal only: use Ukraine to bleed Russia. Whoever went along with this epic disaster  —  and that sadly includes progressive lawmakers and media  —  should ask themselves if it was worth it.”

And now the US treasury secretary is meeting with Zelensky to negotiate a deal granting the US access to Ukraine’s considerable rare earth mineral wealth  –  not to continue the war, but to pay for a post-war “security shield” that the US would be supplying under President Trump’s plan. Ukraine has been scorched, shredded and spat on by its buddies in Washington, and now it’s being strip-mined.

Everyone who knew anything about anything said from the very beginning of the war that this would happen. Professor John Mearsheimer warned back in 2015 that the West was leading Ukraine down the primrose path and that the result would be Ukraine getting wrecked. Many other experts and analysts warned that NATO provocations would lead to disaster for Ukraine, long before the war began.

So much easily avoidable death. This war was provoked, and was provoked deliberately, solely to move a few pieces around on the grand chessboard to help the US secure planetary domination. The US and its allies refused off-ramp after off-ramp after off-ramp to this nightmare, both before Russia invaded and in the weeks immediately afterward.

Imagine being a Ukrainian fighting on the front lines right now as the US secretary of defence says you’re going to lose your territory and you’ll never join NATO while Kyiv signs over your nation’s rare earth mineral wealth to Washington. I would desert so hard.

Other US-aligned proxies take note: this is what happens when you put your country on the line for the advancement of US strategic agendas. I hope Taiwan is watching these events closely.

The other major story today is that Israel appears to be backing down on its ceasefire brinkmanship in Gaza. Barak Ravid reports for Axios that, according to an unnamed Israeli official, Israel has told mediators that it will abide by the ceasefire terms as long as Hamas releases three hostages on Saturday as originally planned.

This would be a significant walk-back from the Netanyahu regime, who shortly beforehand had been insisting that Hamas must release “all” hostages on Saturday, which went against the terms of the ceasefire agreement.

Additionally, the aid requirements Hamas had been demanding now appear to be flooding in from Israel. Palestinian journalist Abubaker Abed reports from the Gaza Strip:

Thousands of tents and caravans have entered Gaza. The situation is becoming more stable, and aid has been flowing in consistently over the past hours.

The same is true in terms of medical aid as local reports indicate that at least five medical aid trucks have gotten into Gaza during the last 24 hours.

The ceasefire will likely hold as Hamas gears up to release the three Israeli prisoners on Saturday in exchange for dozens of Palestinian hostages.

Israel is beginning to allow a surge of aid instead of a trickle.

It’s hard to see this as anything other than a win for Hamas. The ceasefire became jeopardised when Hamas announcedit would be delaying the scheduled release of Israeli hostages until Israel began abiding by the ceasefire, and Israeli officials have been admitting to the press that Israel was violating the ceasefire while Hamas was not. Hamas demanded Israel hold up its end of the bargain and Israel made some threats, but apparently eventually backed down. Perhaps Tel Aviv was just practising the Israeli tradition of “shitat hamatzliah”  –  just trying to do whatever you want to do and seeing if you get away with it.

So all is not lost. Amidst all the madness of this world, peace may yet get a word in edgewise.

Republished from Caitlin’s Newsletter, Feb, 13, 2025

https://johnmenadue.com/washington-drops-ukraine-israel-backs-down-on-hamas-demands/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

BRICS Signals Shift Towards Global Multipolarity
As Russia, China unite with new members, West faces growing push for financial reform
Friday, February 14, 2025

By Sajjad Ashraf 

The 2024 BRICS Summit drew attention like no other before. It was an ideal occasion for Russian president Vladimir Putin, Chinese president Xi Jinping and other leaders to promote a vision of a world that the United States does not lead.

Four new countries, UAE, Iran, Ethiopia and Egypt participated for the first time. The central theme that came to unite BRICS members is their disillusionment with the Western led institutions of global governance, especially those dealing with economy. And with 30 countries lined up for membership they seem to be on road towards their goal of setting up an alternate to the American led world.

In the final communique the BRICS found a common ground in areas such as cooperation on the environment, financial reform, and resolving global conflicts. They strongly condemned Israeli attacks over Gaza and now Lebanon.

But in the lead up to the Summit Russia’s interest was (and remains so) an agreement to launch “BRICS Bridge” a payment system free of Western controls allowing Russia and other member states to trade free from strangulation by the US dominated SWIFT system.

An alternate system?

The communique does mention an alternate payment system but the concept is still vague. The fear of launching into an unknown is holding countries back even though they disapprove American control over the payment systems.

Members are still divided over whether to urgently devise an alternate system or continue with the current. They would however, like existing global institutions to be more open, more representative and more effective.

Awaiting further refinement of the proposal the BRICS is focusing on use of national currencies for bilateral trade and to also insulate them from fluctuations and cut their dependence on the US dollar. Entry of additional members boosts BRICS. Dozens more are knocking at the door. As the BRICS expands the emphasis will more likely be on ‘complementarity.’

To a degree BRICS draws its inspiration from Non-aligned Movement (NAM) that was founded in 1961 largely to resist American pressure during the Cold War years. From 5 states NAM grew to 120 — the largest after the UN, and played a sterling decolonisation role during the Cold War years. As BRICS enlists more members it is likely to follow a similar trajectory. BRICS therefore, considers itself a step towards multipolar world.

A moment of reflection

For the US and its Western partners, it is moment of reflection to examine where they are falling short and what compels such a diverse group of countries to band together and seek an alternate voice in the international arena.

The West should engage with BRICS meaningfully and complement each other in support of the Global South’s aspirations. By a strange coincidence while BRICS was going on in Kazan the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings were being held in Washington. They were talking about changing the archaic quota systems that makes the US the largest shareholder into a more equitable future, reflecting the newer economic realities. The US must make room for the emerging economies in the power halls of global financial centres — without that happening BRICS appeal will only grow.

Organisations that challenge the existing order inevitably face resistance from the status quo powers. Notwithstanding their modest start they become harbingers for change over time.

Sajjad Ashraf served as an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore from 2009 to 2017. He was a member of Pakistan Foreign Service from 1973 to 2008 and served as an ambassador to several countries.

https://infobrics.org/post/43444/

BRICS Is Non-West, but Not Anti-West
Victoria Panova, who is head of BRICS Expert Council-Russia, tells Mustafizur Rahman about the philosophy and journey of the grouping in an interview with New Age
Thursday, February 13, 2025

New Age: Russia initiated BRIC initially as an alliance of Brazil, Russia, India and China, formed in 2006. South Africa joined the group later, making it BRICS. How do you evaluate the journey as many more nations have by the time joined the organisation?

Victoria Panova: Let me start with the fact that BRICS is not an organisation in its formal sense. It now has official establishment documents, charter or secretariat. This is a new type of mechanism, the way a club functions, that allows informal, open and comprehensive exchange of ideas between the leaders, a flexible and fast achievement and implementation of commitments taken, the construction of all-out horizontal ties not only within the official track, but also with all different parts of society — civil society, business, academia or youth, etc.

I should say that it definitely grew into something much bigger than it was initially seen. While even today, some experts try to say that this is primarily an economic entity, it is clearly seen that the scope of issues offered for consideration and where BRICS does have a global influence is much wider. BRICS has become a comprehensive grouping, based on three main pillars — politics and global governance; economics and finance; and humanitarian ties and people-to-people contacts. It is nowadays recognised that the grouping has power and what is even more important is the authority to think and offer for consideration the new model of international relations, as the old developed, ‘geriatric’ powers and the system sponsored by them has clearly failed more and more over the past decades. Today, more than 40 countries have in different ways asked to join BRICS. It is rightly seen not just an alternative to the existing world order but also a group that does not dominate and dictate, but is able to lead by their own example and to offer a new model of mutually beneficial and forward-looking relations, without hidden agenda and based on trust and mutual respect, supporting principles of multi-lateralism and multiculturalism, with the equality of all civilisations, of all countries and their all peoples. And this alternative offered is not about revolution and not about countering the west. It is simply non-west, global east and south, world majority. But what is key is that it does not hint at any confrontation and rather looks into ways of evolution and progress to fit interests of all the stakeholders. And all this poses stark contrast with what the western countries are trying to impose — negative agenda; cancelling and trying to destroy those who are not fitting in with the narrow frames offered for others by western judges; thinking of their somehow divine right for ultimate truth, changing rules as they see fit best for themselves on the go and discarding international law; seeing blackmailing and pressure as the only way of how relations between the ‘flourishing garden’ and ‘wild jungles’ could be constructed. BRICS represents something absolutely opposite — positive agenda, directed at what can be done for common benefit; search for compromise and common ground and preserving culture of dialogues; ability and desire to elaborate new forms and institutes contributing to global development.

One can name numerous initiatives and projects already launched within BRICS that are making the international system more fair, more responsive to the needs of the countries of the world majority. The most well-known case is definitely the BRICS New Development Bank, offering new options to boost investment opportunities for critically important infrastructural projects in member countries, allocating financing free of politicisation and bias. But the New Development Bank is not the only one. BRICS countries have vast activities alongside the adopted STI architecture — gradually advancing to create BRICS Network University, showing progress alongside the plans of the BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy, deepening work on the premises of the energy research platform, contributing to the general cause of just energy transition in line with the interests and needs of developing countries, continuing to search for solutions to issues of global food security progressing with the agricultural platform and launching the BRICS Grain initiative this year and many many more ideas and projects implemented.

Do you as an expert think that the group of emerging economies has more influence on international politics than before, especially in the global financial system as expected?

LET us start first with what kind of changes we have been witnessing over the past three decades while the political power continued to be usurped by the collective west, economic power balance has shifted more and more vividly to the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Today, China comes as number one powerhouse economically while the first, second and fourth places in this list is also taken by BRICS countries. BRICS altogether occupies more than 30 per cent of global landmass, twice as much as with the G7 countries, contains more than 45 per cent of the global population, four times that of the G7, and its GDP by PPP has already reached a historic 35.7 per cent this year. Although Goldman Sachs was forecasting a few years ago that by 2032, BRICS would surpass the G7 cumulative gross domestic product, today what we see is that this has already become a fact of life, even before the actual enlargement took place. The original five have already surpassed the cumulative gross domestic product of the G7 countries.

What else do we have here? About 45 per cent of global oil reserves are centred in BRICS countries and oil remains the blood of economic production. Industrial capacity is a vital aspect of a country’s development capacity, even during the current digital age. Various estimates also show that from 68–79 per cent of rare earth metals are also possessed by BRICS countries and it is common knowledge that they are indispensable elements of high-tech production. Talking about food security, it is also noticeable that BRICS countries are leaders both in production and consumption of grain, with both figures accounting for about 44 per cent. Once again, there could be a long list of all the figures along different sectors and types of resources where BRICS parameters are seen as undoubted leadership.

At the same time, political leadership are still mostly retained within the west. Institutes existing in the paradigm of what was once the Bretton Woods system continue to be dominated by the west. Needed reforms are blocked. The World Trade Organisation continues to be paralysed as it no longer supports only developments that are beneficial for advanced economies despite all their failures in preventing or managing international financial crises that the International Monetary Fund continues to stall on further quota reform while the leadership positions of both the International Monetary Fund and the world Bank remain under the control of ‘traditional’ European and American candidates.

Similarly, the UN Security Council has only two BRICS members in its ranks, with absolutely excessive presence from Europe, which has by far lost its influence globally but still seems to be living in the realms of the Euro-centric world. While western powers are not eager to give up on their dominant position and would like to continue enjoying benefits of the past glory, emerging and developing economies with their significantly grown weight and consciousness are not eager to continue playing the subordinate role. Thus, we see further growing attractiveness of non-western entities — BRICS, SCO, ASEAN or others. We could also witness self-consciousness and independent position of the global south with the series of G20 presidencies of Indonesia, India and Brazil, with the current one transferred to South Africa. It is true to say that what saved this format from vanishing in such turbulent geopolitical times is the firm and consistent policies of the presiding countries.

Western nations dominate international financial bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Is there any change in the system, with China emerging as a major economy coming up with more development projects in African/Asian countries?

INDEED, major international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank continue to be dominated by the west and real reform to make them more responsive to the needs of the developing world is far from any foreseen reality. One of the reasons BRICS went ahead rather speedily with the establishment of the BRICS NDB is exactly this crustiness and the lack of desire on part of the west to share its powers in accordance with today’s changed realities. While there still lies a road ahead for NDB perfection, specifically regarding its financing capacities and using the US dollar as major investment currency — although immediate plans include the use of no less of 30 per cent of national currencies and issuance of such sovereign bonds — at the same time, NDB offers more opportunities for such an area as infrastructure investment. Another such initiative recently proposed is the one of the BRICS investment platform. It is meant to maximise the potential of emerging economies. It would allow BRICS countries, and also its partners, to use the advantage of the new wave of global economic growth. The proposal has been pronounced amidst the need to intensify the intra-BRICS dialogue in fields such as technology, education, trade, logistics, the rational use of resources, finance and insurance. As a means of reliable and secure investments, this platform would boost multilateral cooperation in respective areas. Further details concerning the platform are yet to be discussed at the expert level.

The idea to create BRICS investment platform didn’t appear out of the blue. BRICS gradually ramps up its global financial influence. BRICS’ outward FDI stock mushroomed from $1.1 trillion in 2011 to $3.7 trillion in 2021, an increase of 235 per cent. BRICS has become one of the most important players on the international investment market and initiatives such as a common investment platform will help to solidify the BRICS position and further strengthen the group’s financial might.

Also as rightly noted, many rising powers are also arriving with more options for the world to ensure that more opportunities exist. One of such options could be China’s Belt and Road Initiative, another is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. More initiatives of the kind could be traced to a large-scale initiative from Russia on Greater Eurasian Space but also with the work led as part of efforts within the Eurasian Economic Union as well as the Eurasian Development Bank. Those countries are very much interested in ensuring stable and prosperous neighbourhood, meaning that they are arrangements that could be beneficial for all those involved, not just offering a one-sided approach.

But what is more is that BRICS is not coming up with the zero sum game proposals. BRICS philosophy is about maximum available choice, with one criterion being solid in stone — no demands are given to choose between different actors. Being a partner in BRICS and its member is definitely not a barrier to have equally beneficial relations with anybody else ready for cooperation, be it the west or any other region, country or entity.

Is there any progress in the creation of a BRICS currency to reduce dominance of dollar across the globe?

I should say that there has not so far been any discussion of the kind to introduce a BRICS currency. What was discussed from the start was an alternative BRICS payment system. An important mechanism of coordination within BRICS was created in 2010 — the Mechanism of Interbank Cooperation — while four years later, BRICS countries arrived at signing a national currencies framework agreement, which was meant to stimulate the use of national money in BRICS economic exchange.

This year, a new analysis on BRICS cross-border payment initiative has also been prepared while at the Kazan summit, we could see the Russian initiatives on the creation of BRICS Clear and BRICS (Re)Insurance. All such instruments are to lower transaction costs and risks when we talk of mutual settlements in national currencies, but they are yet to be operationalised within the next year financial track. Definitely, one of prospective ways to go ahead with financial settlement system would be the use of digital currencies.

Bangladesh applied for BRICS membership in 2023. Do you have any idea of its present status? How could the country benefit if it becomes a member of the group?

As you know, more then 40 countries altogether applied to join BRICS in different forms and BRICS definitely very much adheres to principles of inclusivity and is seen as a core of the world majority. Each application is extremely important and, definitely, it is a great honour for BRICS to be the most attractive alternative in this turbulent world. But honour brings along responsibility. It is no less important that BRICS nowadays has responsibility in the face of that very world majority not to fail its mission of offering that new, fair, equally beneficial and sustainable world order. There are certain publicly proclaimed criteria that are necessary for the country to become a member or a partner. But, what is even more important to understand is that the membership of the grouping is not just about benefits. Definitely, deeper and more qualitative intra-BRICS cooperation offers benefits across the whole number of areas, but membership is not just what you get. It is also what you are ready to give, give for the common good. BRICS membership is a two-way street. It is not about donor-recipient relations and that is how equality and mutual respect are kept intact. The primary question to ask is what the country is willing to contribute to ensure a faster formation of a better world for all.

Does BRICS have the capacity to challenge wealthier counties of North America and Western Europe in the present context?

I believe that I have already given the answer to this question earlier in this interview. BRICS today has grown substantially and its countries now represent serious forces worldwide in economics and finance, in politics and security, in development, technology and innovation and in science and education. But that said, it is not envisioning itself as a countering force neither to North America nor to Europe. As we keep saying — we are non-west, but not anti-west. Rather we should say that BRICS and the countries going along with it could be following an independent path of their own development and their preferred model of international relations and cooperation based on trust, equity, equality, fairness and common interest. If the west is eager to go the same way, we are happy to go the same way. Otherwise, it is their own choice. But, we will follow ours. If you call the ability to follow your path is a capacity to challenge, you can describe it that way. But for me, BRICS is about positive leadership and constructive engagement. A win-win situation is always better than zero sum. No one comes as a real winner in the latter case.

https://infobrics.org/post/43435/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.