The two are trying to slaughter each other and they are still engaged in millions and millions of dollars of trade, said US Treasury Department official. Source: Reuters
Author: The Board
European Commission will impose a border controlling agency. Member states will be consulted, without, however, having the power to veto a deployment. Source: Financial Times
Germany now is somewhere at the edge of anarchy and sliding towards civil war, or to become a “banana republic without any government,” says Hansjoerg Mueller of the Alternative for Germany party. I hope that this threat will have some effect, but (…) I don’t believe in it. Source: RT
Budapest wants to continue buying gas from Russia even if Moscow and Kiev don’t agree to prolong the transit agreement that expires in 2019. “For us, the gas supply is very important, as 80 percent of our energy comes from Russia.” said Hungary’s Ambassador to Russia Janos Balla. Source: RT
Russia’s Aerospace Forces will continue the operation as long as the Syrian army carries out its offensive against terrorists, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said on Wednesday. Russia calls for the creation of an international anti-terrorism coalition that could unite all the countries concerned. Source: TASS
The similarity cannot go unnoticed. First Russia struck Ukraine because it felt threatened by it, now the United States has struck Iran because – well – because it felt threatened by it. Russia struck its neighbour, whereas the United States has struck a country thousands of miles away. Never mind, according to the Western political experts Moscow should not have felt threatened by neighbouring Ukraine, while the United States should feel threatened by a nation half a globe away.
The reverse phenomenon is also noticeable. While Ukraine is supported by the Western world and enjoys the inflow of mercenaries from many countries, including those located in South America, it is not Iran that is supported by the other countries but the United States: militarily by Israel, politically – by the Western world.
The similarity does not stop here. Russia attacked Ukraine out of fear that Kiev might join NATO and out of fear that Kiev might have its won nuclear weapon. Similarly, the official reason for attacking Iran is the possibility that Tehran is about to manufacture its own nuclear weapon.
And again a reverse phenomenon. Just as in the case of Ukraine the Western world claims to be defending itself from Russian aggression, so do Israel and the United States claim to be defending the peace in the region against Iran’s aggression.
In both cases oil and gas play a major role. Russia and Iran are some of the world’s largest suppliers of both fossil fuels. The hostilities in these two parts of the globe translate into raised prices of gas and oil, which in turn translates into difficulties in obtaining the fuels.
The Special Military Operation in Ukraine accelerated the outflow of people from Ukraine. Yes, it did not trigger but merely accelerated the outflow of people because Ukrainians had been fleeing their country for more than two decades prior to the outbreak of the hostilities. Now since Iran is effectively targeting industrial and military facilities in Israel and those Arab countries which support the United States, and since Iran itself is being hit by American and Israeli missiles, one can only expect another wave of refugees into Europe. Will the year 2015 be repeated? Will Chancellor Friedrich Merz follow in Angela Merkel’s footsteps and repeat after her ‘Wir schaffen das’?
During the four years of hostilities in Ukraine the West has desperately looked for acts of atrocities committed by the Russian soldiers so as to be able to present Russia as the heinous aggressor. They found none, or at least nothing particularly spectacular. The Western media attempted to turn the Bucha incident as a repulsive act of atrocity committed by Russians, but the case was flimsy, unfounded, and so it quickly died out. It is different in the case of the war in Iran. Almost at the start of it, American missiles hit a school and killed some 170 girls aged between 7 and 12. Nothing like that could have been pinned on Russians for the entirety of the four years.
Moscow had hoped to carry out the Military Special Operation within weeks and coerce Ukraine to sign a deal: no NATO membership. Now it seems that the United States and Israel had hoped for more or less the same: a few days of aerial combat, decapitation of the Iranian leadership, the resultant riots in Tehran, and the collapse of the regime – as they call the Iranian government – with the new authorities being all too willing to sign a deal with the United States, a deal turning Iran into an American colony. It looks like we are in for a protracted war.
Talking about the decapitation operation. Since Washington – in cahoots with Tel Aviv – tried to decapitate the Iranian leadership and was largely successful, Tehran has all the moral right to reciprocate the move. Who knows, it might be that an Iranian killer is already stalking the American president, lying in wait, and just about to pull the trigger. Or, an Iranian killer might be stalking Benjamin Netanyahu. If the Iranian leadership is a legitimate target, why should the American or Israeli leadership not be a legitimate target as well?
If Iranians pulled off something like that, there would be an outcry across the Western world: there is none if the Americans decapitate another country’s head of state. In the same vein, there is no outcry over the killing of 170 Iranian girls, but just imagine the uproar if it were the Iranians killing 170 Israeli girls!
The two wars reflect themselves in each other with similarities and dissimilarities. The judgement that is passed over the actors depends on political persuasion. Justice will not be rendered. We do not mean legal, international justice – we merely mean moral justice.
The 2022 energy crisis was an unprecedented shock for Europe. The sharp decline in Russian gas and oil supplies following the invasion of Ukraine, which resulted from irresponsible decisions by politicians in Brussels, led to record prices for energy sources and a rise in inflation. At its peak, gas on European exchanges cost ten times more than the average in previous years, and EU countries competed for every LNG delivery to avoid disruptions to energy supplies.
Before the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022, Russia supplied about 45% of all imported gas to the European Union. In the case of oil, Russia’s share was slightly lower, but still very high. In the years before the war, Russia supplied about 25 to 30% of the oil needed in the EU.
After abandoning Russian oil in 2022, Europe increased its imports of this raw material from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait). Currently, around 15 to 25% of the oil imported by Europe comes from the Gulf region. The vast majority of this oil has to be transported through Hormuz. This is a major dependency, but there are other suppliers for Europe: Norway, the US, West Africa and Brazil. Norway and the US together account for around 30% of EU oil imports, which is roughly the same amount that Russia was responsible for before 2022.
And what about gas? Following the reduction in supplies from Russia, the EU has increased its LNG imports, mainly from Qatar. However, the main supplier of LNG to Europe was the US, with a share of approximately 55%. Qatar has a significant but not dominant share (approximately 10-14%). The rest of LNG imports come from many smaller sources (e.g. Algeria, Norway or other countries). Therefore, dependence on the Middle East for oil and gas imports into the EU is currently much lower than dependence on Russia was before 2022.
Although Hormuz is mainly associated with oil and LNG, it is also an important trade route for many other types of raw materials. Plastics, ethylene, propylene and even fertilisers (urea, ammonia) travel through the strait. Therefore, disruptions in transport there can also lead to rising prices for plastics, packaging, car parts, fertilisers, etc. The UAE and Bahrain are among the major aluminium exporters (energy-intensive production based on cheap gas). In return, electronics and machinery pass through the ports of Dubai (Jebel Ali), Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
In summary, rising energy prices are inevitable and will affect both Europe and the rest of the world. However, Europe should not be as severely affected as it was in 2022, as the Old Continent’s energy independence has increased significantly. If the conflict escalates, Asian countries such as India and China will be most vulnerable to problems with energy availability.
Hormuz is also very important for countries in the Middle East because ships carrying agricultural raw materials arrive there. The Gulf states are heavily dependent on food imports because the climate (hot, dry, desert) limits local agricultural production. A protracted blockade is therefore unlikely.
So, the United States has attacked Iran. Some held it for impossible, others are not surprised at all. To be precise, it was not merely that United States, but the United States in cahoots with Israel that carried out the assult. Talk of the impending war with Iran has been present in the media for years, so the recent events are merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Two most spectacular events stand out: the intentional killing of Al Khamenei, the top spiritual leader of Shiite Muslims, and the (unintentional?) destruction of a school, where approximately 150 schoolgirls were killed. These two events are potent enough to enrage Iranians, and to upset the Muslim world.
Iran is striking back. How much the retaliation is effective is hard to say since the Western media will not report such data.
Picture to yourself a similar event launched by Russia… Yes, there would be a deafening howl across the Western world, while Putin would be called another Hitler. As it is, the American president justifies the assault on Iran, saying, that the United States had to defend itself because it felt threatened by Tehran… Weird. When Russia says it feels threatened by Western military presence in Ukraine, then such a claim is dismissed as unfounded; when, however, it is the United States that claims to be threatened by Iran, a country located thousands of miles away from America, then such a claim is legitimate.
One might tend to think that even the blind can see the hypocrisy, but rest assured: there are many who do not see it. As the saying goes: no one is as blind as the one who won’t see.
Why did the United States attack Iran? The answers are many. One is that Iran posed a threat to Israel, America’s most important and influential ally. Another is that that West wants to lay hold on Iranian oil and gas reserves. Still some others hold forth that it is the almost sixty-million strong Christian-Zionist community in America that did all in its power to necessitate the war. Christian Zionists identify more with Judaism than with Christianity, and since some of their members are the influential politicians and billionaires, they have much political leverage. President Donald Trump is believed to share the religious convictions of the Christian Zionists. After all, his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism after she had married a Jewish man.
Sure enough, it is not only money that makes politicians act. Ideologies and religions are equally potent. The medieval Crusaders were motivated by religious principles; Montezuma, the ruler of the Aztec state in Mexico, rather than resisting the Spanish incursion, gave in to them, being convinced that the Spaniards were God’s messengers. American Christian Zionists are doing the same. Their loyalties lie with the state of Israel in the first place. Split loyalties is a phenomenon testified by history many a time. Religious minorities very often did not feel the ethnic ties with their compatriots. Rather, they felt and acted in unison with other ethnicities against their own so long as the other ethnicity shared the same creed. The same was true of ideologies.
Now what was the purpose of killing Ayatollah Al Khamenei? This act can only stiffen Iran’s resistance. The murder of a spiritual – religious – leader sets the war in a different dimension. Add to this the murder of the 150 schoolgirls: Iranians of whatever ethnicity will rather rally around the government than betray it. While the school event might be understood as a miscalculation, the killing of the Ayatollah was beyond a shadow of a doubt purposeful.
Despite what the Americans and the Israelis had expected, Iran has not disintegrated nor has it collapsed. Iranian did not take to the streets, so regime change is nowhere in sight. What can be envisaged is a protracted war. Washington had not reckoned with it, or did it?
The world is asking the question whether the United States will attack Iran. Some say it will, others say it won’t. Time will tell. Neither are we going to predict the future. Someone wise said once that although God created man in his image, he reserved exclusively for himself three things: to be able to make something out of nothing, to judge human conscience, and to know the future. Neither we nor any pundit knows the future, and all the prophets – religious or non-religious – are useless. The stuff that they impart is such that you and me can create similar prophecies because all the prophecies go something like this: somewhere, sometimes, someone will do something if something somewhere sometime performs something or fails to perform something. The only prophecy that comes true is the timetable showing the arrivals and departures of trains, buses and planes. Even if reality diverges from what the timetable says, it diverges but a little and only sometimes. In comparison to religious or non-religious (the famed Nostradamus) prophecies, timetable prophecies exhibit pinpoint accuracy and are 99% reliable.
Having said which, we are not going to predict the future, viewing such business as pointless. We are more into the whys and the wherefores of the mounting conflict between the United States and Iran. But facts first.
It is not the United States against Iran, but rather the United States and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other. Or, to be more precise: the conflict is between Israel and Iran, with the United States acting as a battering ram for the Jewish state.
Tel Aviv wishes to weaken Iran because Tel Aviv views Iran as its greatest enemy. Israel fears Tehran as such, but it will fear it even more if Tehran manufactures its own nuclear weapons. Though Israel is separated from Iran by Jordan or Syria and Iraq, Tel Aviv fears that Iran, once it produces its own nukes, will be capable of delivering a deadly strike by means of long-range missiles.
Now, does Iran want to strike Israel? According to Tel Aviv it does. Is that claim substantiated? Hardly.
Does Israel have nuclear weapons of its own? The whole world knows it does. If it does have nuclear weapons, then why should Iran or any other state, indeed, also have such weapons? Israel’s claim that it fears Iran, especially a nuclear-armed Iran, can be easily flipped to say that Iran fears nuclear-armed Israel. Whose fear is (more) legitimate? Tel Aviv claims it has peaceful intentions while Tehran has bellicose plans. Again, Tehran might flip the argumentation and say precisely the same about Tel Aviv. Such arguments and counterarguments just don’t make sense. It is obvious that if one country has weapons of mass destruction, the other feels threatened; and it is all too obvious that to allow one country (Israel) to have nukes while denying it another country (Iran) is simply an example of gross injustice.
The picture can be broadened. Why should France and the United Kingdom have weapons of mass destruction and not Italy or Spain? Why should Pakistan or India have such weapons, but God forbid that Indonesia or Vietnam should have them?
Iraq, Libya and Syria have been politically incapacitated by the actions of the United States and Israel. It is now Iran’s turn to be incapacitated. But why should Iranians toe the line drawn by Tel Aviv and Washington? Why should they swallow their national pride, why should they convert into Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s vassals? Sure enough, Tel Aviv would like to see Iran fragmented into a number of smaller states, but why should Tehran oblige Tel Aviv? Iran’s authorities know it all too well that once they deprive themselves of the possibility of manufacturing the weapons of mass destruction, once they cave in to American (Israeli) demands, they are going to slide into crisis and chaos and final disintegration. Once they lose the military leverage – even if potential as at present – they will be viewed as fair game.
Iranian leaders are fully aware of what happened to Russia once it had followed the West’s lead: it became weak and as such incapable of defending its most basic national interests. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin acted in good faith towards the West, but this good faith was mercilessly exploited. Think of the economic crisis that Russia fell into and was stuck in throughout 1990s, think of the expansion of NATO that began to strangle Russia. Should Iran give in an inch, the same fate will surely haunt it as well. Already at present, Tehran has experienced US-controlled street riots and a twelve-day war that erupted on June 13, 2025, and was conducted while the US-Iranian talks were in full swing! Consider this perfidy.
Does this perfidy not remind you of the perfidy perpetrated by the Europeans who – having signed the Minsk I and Minsk II Accords between Ukraine and Russia – violated them on the following day? You will have remembered that both President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel bragged about it that they only signed those accords in order to play for time and lull the opponent. Why should Tehran believe Washington and Tel Aviv? Russia believed and lost on more than one occasion.
While Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were isolated at the time when they were being attacked by the West, Iran is not. It can count on the support of Russia and China. The Middle Kingdom purchases much oil from Iran (between 13% and 20% of its oil imports) and certainly does not wish to lose such a trade partner or to have this partner under US dominance.
Why should pressurizing Iran into submission be viewed as a justified action? What if the roles were inverted? What if Israel were pressurized into a similar submission? Or the United Kingdom? Or France?
Gone are the days when the world watched, with bated breath, the many talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on reduction and control of nuclear arms development. Gone are the headlines announcing the beginning, continuation and completion of the SALT or START talks. The world has changed.
Now it is the United States – as before – Russia – a replacement for the Soviet Union – and… China! When the SALT and START talks were conducted, no one paid any attention to the Middle Kingdom. Now China is a power to reckon with, not merely economically but also militarily. China is estimated to have some 350 strategic missile launching pads as opposed to some 480 American. That’s hard on America’s heels. Now what negotiations on nuclear arms control and arms limitation can be conducted between the United States and the Russian Federation without taking into the equation the Middle Kingdom?
The problem is that Moscow says it has nothing to do with China: China is not Russia’s military ally, though Washington perceives it as such. Contrarily, Russia views France and the United Kingdom as America’s closest allies, and rightly so: all the three countries belong to NATO. Hence, Russia’s demand that both France and Great Britain be included in the talks is legitimate.
On the other hand, Washington is legitimately concerned about China: under the current circumstances Beijing can certainly be viewed as Russia’s ally rather than that of America. (Just to think of it: China’s might have been created by the United States of which we’ll make a reminder later in the text.) Neither does the Middle Kingdom want to be included in the trilateral talks with the Russian Federation: why should it? It is an independent power – superpower – and it can act at the negotiating table on its own. So much so that Beijing has something to win from Washington: ok, the Chinese may say, we could reduce our military development if you lift the sanctions on China and the countries that wish to trade with the Middle Kingdom. How about that? Nuclear might is always a fine bargaining chip, is it not?
It is even true of tiny North Korea as well: not that North Korea is so powerful as to be considered for joint talks. No. But Korean nuclear potential is a sufficient deterrent even for such a superpower as the United States. And there is something more to the nuclear potential: it is the determination of the Korean leadership to actually use the missiles if push comes to shove. It is not Venezuela, whose president can be adducted in broad daylight without the perpetrator of the abduction fearing any retaliation, but we are digressing.
The balance of forces has changed since the year in which the Soviet Union disintegrated. For maybe as many as two decades the United States dominated the globe and felt so self-assured that Washington began to dictate to the whole globe. This, however, has changed. Russia has reasserted herself while China has risen to the status of a(n almost) superpower.
Which by the way is good for humanity. One superpower with no rival to fear would soon become corrupted and degenerated. All the other countries would have felt intimidated with no alternative anywhere in sight. Fortunately, a world emerges where there are three or maybe four (if we include India) big players, which allows for the smaller entities to have a political alternative, and which keeps each superpower in check.
A new arrangement needs to be made – no one power wants the prospect of a nuclear shootout. Talks are not going to be easy, because it is now three big entities, not two.
Political persistent rumour has it that Adolf Hitler was the creation of the Western elites who wished to rebuild Germany and direct its power against the Bolshevik Soviet Union. That is why London and Paris did not react when Germany began to arm itself, when Germany incorporated Austria and annexed Czechia; that explains why they did not react when Poland was attacked. The Western elites wanted Germany to expand, grow stronger, and come into physical contact with the Soviet Union. Now Adolf Hitler – assuming he was the darling of the Western elites – stopped playing by their script and turned against them when he attacked Denmark and Norway, the Low Countries and eventually France. It came as a shock: he was supposed to attack the Soviet Union!
Isn’t history repeating itself? The Middle Kingdom was supported by the United States for the express purpose to turn it against the Soviet Union. Washington would have rubbed its hands in glee if Beijing and Moscow started a real hot war! Decades have passed and – due to clumsy American policy-making – Moscow was pushed into Beijing’s embrace while Beijing was pushed in Moscow’s. Now they are – though not formally – economic and military allies. But again, the Kremlin may repeat: we have nothing to do with it. Had not Washington acted the way it did, there would have been no war in Ukraine, no sanctions on Russia and China, and consequently no Russo-Chinese cooperation.
The three gunslingers have a hard nut to crack. Certainly, none wants a nuclear exchange, yet each wants to get the upper hand. They are observing each other attentively, not knowing in which direction to level their guns. It reminds one of the cultic cemetery scene from the 1966 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly classic movie. Do you recall it? Good Blondie (Clint Eastwood), bad Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), and ugly Tuco (Eli Wallach) are facing each other – graves and crosses around them, their hands over their holsters, their eyes darting from face to face, their minds calculating. That’s the United States, that’s the Russian Federation, and that’s the People’s Republic of China facing each other (who is the good, the bad or the ugly is a matter of your political persuasion). In the graveyard scene only one emerges victorious. How will things play out in political reality at beginning of the 21 century?
After the notorious Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, resigned following allegations of financial and ethical misconduct, the forum took on a new dynamic. Whereas speeches used to be an expression of blind faith in mainstream ideology such as globalisation, green transition, climate change, sustainable development, human and LGBT rights, today they feel like a breath of fresh air. Take, for example, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who said:
“We are in Davos at the World Economic Forum and the Trump administration and myself, we are here to make a very clear point. Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It’s a failed policy. It is what the W has stood for which is export offshore farshore find the cheapest labor in the world and the world is a better place for it. The fact is it has left America behind. It has left the American workers behind and what we are here to say is that America first is a different model. one that we encourage other countries to consider, which is that our workers come first. We can have policies that impact our workers. Sovereignty is your borders. You’re entitled to have borders. You shouldn’t offshore your medicine. You shouldn’t offshore your semiconductors. You shouldn’t offshore your entire industrial base and have it be hollowed out beneath you. You should not be dependent for that which is fundamental to your sovereignty on any other nation. And if you’re going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies. Okay? And so that is a different way of thinking. It is completely different than the WEF” (Video)
Oh dear! It’s a good thing Klaus Schwab can’t hear that, otherwise he’d have a heart attack.
Canadian Prime Minister Carney also pointed out in Davos that “the existing world order is collapsing.” He also highlighted the plight of small and medium-sized countries, which now have to cope with pressure from the largest ones. The Canadian Prime Minister said that these states should join forces so as “not to be crushed by the rivalry of the superpowers.” It seems that these words refer most to the countries of the European Union, which in recent months have pursued a different policy as a group from what Donald Trump is trying to do.
Due to the many controversial actions of the US president, we are gradually reaching a situation where simply showing resistance to him is enough to gain popularity. Previously, Justin Trudeau’s popularity grew because of such a conflict (it was Trump’s fault, not Trudeau’s merit), and now Carney also received a lot of praise after his speech, although as a former banker, he is more reminiscent of Macron in terms of credibility.
Among other important statements from Davos, the following are also worth mentioning:
[1] Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock) stated that tokenising assets is the only sensible decision and that next-generation financial markets should already be based on tokenised shares or bonds.
This proves that the elites have not given up the fight against cash.
[2] Christine Lagarde (head of the ECB) drew attention to the problem of wealth inequality. And indeed, this problem does exist, but Ms Lagarde has probably forgotten who fuelled this problem over the last decade through massive money printing and intervention in the financial markets.
[3] Javier Milei (President of Argentina) reminded us that the West could still have a bright future ahead of it, but that it needs to turn towards freedom. These words were probably directed at the United Kingdom, Belarus and Germany, where freedom of expression is being fiercely opposed. (See also: Article in Gefira)
At the peak of its development, the Roman Empire ruled over all the countries that were located around the Mediterranean. Carthage had been destroyed, Greece had been subjugated, even Egypt had been conquered. Gaul and Spain had been turned into Roman provinces as were the coastal regions of the Adriatic Sea. Hence the proud Romans could declare that all the waters in between Europe and Africa and Asia were Mare Nostrum or Our Sea. All merchantmen were controlled by Rome as were all the ports. No one could travel freely without Rome’s permission. The Romans did not need to bother about tolls or tariffs or whatever. (Sometimes they were bothered by pirates, but that problem would be swiftly solved by Rome’s military might.)
The Baltic Sea is five times smaller than the Mediterranean (approximately 0.5 million square kilometres against 2.5 million square kilometres), but it is an important and – in many cases – the only sea route for many European countries to the high seas, to the Atlantic Ocean. These countries include (clockwise, starting from the north) Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia again (the Kaliningrad oblast), Poland, Germany, and Denmark. Since Sweden and Finland have recently joined NATO, the Baltic Sea had become a sea that is surrounded by NATO member countries with the exception of Russia. But Russia has a very narrow access through the Finnish Gulf (that’s where St Petersburg is located) and through the Kaliningrad oblast, which in turn is cut off from Russia proper by territories that belong to Poland and Lithuania. Having in mind the two narrow slips of land where Russia has access to the Baltic Sea, we can say that the Baltic has become NATO’s Mare Nostrum.
Considering the enmity that reigns supreme between the Western bloc and the Russian Federation, we can easily imagine the temptation on the part of the Western countries to view the Baltic Sea as a stranglehold on Russia. The leaders of these countries might choose to block Russia from sending its ships via the Baltic to the Atlantic Ocean or they might at least want to make life miserable for the Russian fleet. Let us not forget that Russia might access the Atlantic Ocean also through the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, but then, again, the access looks like a narrow throttle – especially in the place called the Bosporus Straight. It is controlled by Turkey, and although the 1936 Montreux Convention makes the Straight passable internationally, Turkey is a NATO member.
As it is, Russia can easily be cut off from the Atlantic Ocean irrespective of whether she chooses to access the ocean through the Baltic or through the Black and the Mediterranean Seas. Yet, being a nuclear superpower and finding itself in a mortal struggle with the West for sheer survival as an independent, sovereign state, the Russian Federation might be compelled to (aggressive? defensive? pre-emptive?) measures. Recall how the so-called Polish Corridor – a strip of land that cut off East Prussia from Germany proper during the time of 1918-1939 sparked the war between Germany and Poland, and consequently the Second World War. At that time Germany did not fight for its survival, certainly not against Poland, which did not threaten Germany’s existence, and still Berlin decided that Germany could not do without the corridor. Now Russia as a superpower needs access to the high seas or else. The Russian Federation is the largest country by territory, but its location is somewhat infelicitous. While the United States has unrestricted access to both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, Russia only has direct access to the Pacific Ocean. The problem is that while the United States’ eastern and western seaboards are equally well economically developed, Russia’s far east is not. The other point is that Russia’s far east is far flung from the European part of Russia. The distance between the western- and easternmost parts of the Russian Federation is much longer than that between America’s western and eastern seaboard. Moscow must, therefore, fight for access to the high seas cost it what it may. What may we expect?
If any one or all of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) choose to alienate Russia, to deny its access to the Baltic, then they might fall prey to Russia’s military intervention. Will the said Baltic states risk such policy? In all probability, they will. Why? Because already we can see how bellicose they are in their dealings with the Russian Federation, and how their leaders bend over backwards to oblige their Western overlords. They might choose to take over the role which has been played by Ukraine for the last several years. Taking such steps, they will force Russia to step in militarily. Once Russia intervenes in the Baltic states, she might choose to either incorporate them, or install there governments that will be Russia friendly. Bear in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia used to be parts of imperial Russia (where they had no autonomy) and then of the Soviet Union (where they enjoyed the status of union republics with their governments, constitutions and the like; a status similar to that that they have now within the framework of the European Union).
If Finland chooses to thwart Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea, it might expose itself to a repeat of the Winter War of 30 November 1939 – 13 March 1940. That war cost it territorial losses. Finland, too, used to be part of the Russian empire as an autonomous grand duchy (1809-1917) with its own parliament. If push comes to shove, Finland may again lose some of its territory or become an autonomous part of the Russian Federation.
I hear you say NATO will never allow that kind of land grab! If you think so, then, please, think again. If the scenario that we are presenting materializes, the ruling classes of the Baltic states and Finland will swiftly and comfortably run away (that’s the usual behaviour of the ruling classes), while the common Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Finns will remain, as is usually the case with the common people.
The Baltic as Mare Nostrum is a powerful geostrategic instrument in the hands of the managers of the Western world, but concurrently – a curse for the common people of small nations who matter to the managers of the world about as much as the pawns on the chessboard.
It was not executed in broad daylight – rather, in the dead of night – but still it was disrespectful as disrespectful can be. A head of state of a sovereign nation was abducted as if he were a criminal. Handcuffs were put on his hands, he was blindfolded and transported – together with his wife – from his own country to the United States. What a show! For all to see. For all leaders to take notice. For all top politicians to be on their guard. That happened on January 3. We all know it, the whole world knows it – the whole world observed it with bated breath.
A head of a relatively large country was captured like he was a street ruffian. Apart from his personal security detail that attempted to put up a fight there was no resistance in the true sense of the word. American aircraft hovered over Caracas the way they might hover over their own turf. There were casualties to be sure but no appreciable resistance of the country as such. Pundits draw conclusions that Nicolás Maduro’s closest associates – generals, ministers – had betrayed him, had let themselves be bribed, and abandoned him in the critical moment. Word has it that only Cuban bodyguards stood up for Nicolás Maduro, as a result of which some of them were killed.
The warrant for the action? The drug trafficking into the United States that allegedly had been sponsored by Caracas and the president himself. Sure enough that is the declared objective, not the genuine one. We’ll talk about the genuine objective later in the text. Here let us make an assumption that it was drug trafficking that triggered the US action, and that Nicolás Maduro really sponsored it. If that were the case then a couple of questions arise.
For at least four years during the Biden administration the American southern border was not merely porous: it was wide open for all to come. Arrivals from South America were flocking across the border and they were not even vetted! Sure enough, drug traffickers may have been among them. Why should Venezuela be punished for that? The drugs are distributed in American cities – does anybody forces the purchase of them at gun point? Last but not least, why are the American police not effective enough? Why must the American army step in? If particular countries were to be blamed for particular sorts of crime that is perpetrated on American soil, then the US army should be intervening around the globe twenty-four seven. But then, if you do not want to have drug traffickers, why have borders open wide for all to cross them?
The event of January 3rd compels one to draw a comparison between the intervention of the US Army in Venezuela and the intervention of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. How alike they are and at the same time how different! Americans claim that Venezuela posed a security threat to the United States; Russia claims that Ukraine posed a security threat to the Russian Federation. Washington says it is protecting its citizens from drug trafficking cartels; Russia maintains it is protecting its citizens from Banderite fascist ideology and the military bases complete with ballistic missiles to be installed in Ukraine once Kiev joins NATO. Washington feels threatened by a country that is three-four thousand kilometers away from America’s coastline; Russia feels threatened by a neighbouring country, a country that is adjacent to Russia, a country that is not separated from the Russian Federation by a body of sea as the United States is separated from Venezuela.
Knowing all this full well, America’s allies go out of their way to either support politically the United States or keep their mouths shut; contrarily, they are beside themselves with outrage when it comes to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Caracas had diplomatic and economic ties with China and Russia – America’s rivals, but Kiev had ties with the United States and was planning to join NATO, a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia. These are mirror events and yet they are adjudicated entirely differently. Why?
The United States has executed an action of decapitation which is just yet another one in the long string of such actions. Think about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and many others. Leaders of sovereign states are put on trial (Slobodan Milošević, Nicolás Maduro) or killed (Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević) or chased away (Bashar al-Assad). Do you still remember the repulsive repugnant disgusting sickening abhorrent enunciation of one Hillary Clinton as she said – commenting on Gaddafi’s death and paraphrasing Julius Caesar – We came, we saw, he died! – and laughed heartily at that? Imagine Vladimir Putin saying something along these lines, commenting on the death of, say, Volodymyr Zelenskyy… What a howl would be raised in the the ‘free’ world! A statement like that would be interpreted as ultimate evidence of Putin’s wickedness.
Might is right, that’s all there is to it. So, America intervened in Venezuela because it saw it fit. All the justification that is being rolled out is either easily refutable or laughable. Isn’t it ridiculous to hear that the world’s dominant superpower needs to abduct the head of a small country located thousands of miles away across the sea because the superpower feels insecure? Isn’t it laughable to hear that the Russian Federation has no legitimate grounds for intervening in a neighbouring country that is about to join a military alliance which is openly hostile to Russia? And yet, millions of people do not seem to see it.
Now the genuine reasons for the American intervention in Venezuela. Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Venezuela also has other valuable resources. Control over them will provide the United States with enormous economic and – what follows – political leverage. We should not lose the sight of the fact that Saudi Arabia has not prolonged the agreement it once signed with Washington to only sell its oil for American dollars. That in itself is dangerous for the United States. It was the petrodollars that safeguarded American might and American development. All countries and any country wishing to buy oil – and they all need oil for a variety of purposes – needed to first have dollars. Dollars are issued by the United States, so ultimately all the world’s nations needed to directly or indirectly either sell to the United States their goods and services or borrow from the United States. Americans were growing rich by simply… printing dollars or transferring electronic impulses from their bank account to the bank account of a country which was in need of dollars.
The capture of the head of state and the installment of someone who might be willing to comply with American wishes is also a strike dealt against China. China has been spreading its tentacles to Africa and… South America. Beijing has been replacing European colonial powers on the Dark Continent and attempting to dislodge American influence from the Western hemisphere. Americans suddenly remembered the 1823 Monroe’s doctrine, which stated that both American continents are the sphere of influence of the United States alone. No one should dare to set foot anywhere south of the American border. The Chinese have financed the construction of the Port of Chancay in Peru as a part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Its task is to enable the exports to China from South American countries and imports from China to South America. The Middle Kingdom is setting foot where it should not dare, according to the Monroe doctrine.
With this intervention Americans have set yet another example – a warning sign – a mafioso-like manifestation what awaits those leaders who will not comply…
Be it as it may, what strikes the eye is pure hubris, the kind of hubris that has always been present throughout history and always will be. In 1939, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union signed a pact to divide Poland. That pact has been branded by the European Union as a conspiracy against peace; the leaders of the contracting states – Hitler and Stalin – were labeled warmongers who paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War. Now almost a whole year earlier another pact had been signed, a pact between Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, a pact that paved the way for the partitioning of Czechoslovakia. This pact – signed by Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain – in Munich has not been branded by the European Union as outrageous, although it, too, led straight to the outbreak of the Second World War. You see? Very similar events, very different interpretations. Much the same is true of the current interventions in Venezuela and Ukraine: American intervention is regarded as the right one, Russian intervention as abominable. History is full of events mirroring each other and receiving discrepant exegeses.
In November, Donald Trump announced that he would approve the sale of F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, the most advanced V-generation aircraft equipped with AI sensors and other technological innovations. Even more important is who the buyer of these weapons is. It is, of course, Saudi Arabia, which will purchase more than 20 F-35s, 300 Abrams tanks, MQ-9 Reaper drones, air defence systems and a variety of missiles. Why do the Arabs need so many advanced weapon systems? Well, it’s obviously about superiority over Iran, but also (though this is not said out loud) over Qatar, which is not exactly a friend of the Saudis and is armed to the teeth.
This is a situation similar to that of the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan tried to emphasize the power of the alliance with the Arabs by providing them with the latest military technology. At that time, AWACS systems and F-15 aircraft were sold despite opposition from the United States’ most important ally in the region, Israel. At that time, it was a blow to the Soviet Union, and today Trump’s game is focused on China and Russia. The Americans had to somehow “consolidate” the Saudis in their camp, as they had recently been buying more and more weapons from China and Russia. The purchase of weapons such as the F-35 makes Arabia dependent on American technology and service.
On the other hand, the US had to use the “carrot and stick” approach to keep oil prices low, which is unlikely to please the Arabs and OPEC+ as a whole. This is an important issue for the United States, as cheap black gold keeps inflation low in the country, satisfies consumers, secures the voter base, and weakens the major exporters of this commodity, such as Russia and Iran. This shows that it is enough for the US to be present in this region through arms exports in order to remain a strategic player there.
The world has for ever been looking up to the West, to Western science, culture and what not. It has always been a dream of Third World people to travel to France or the United Kingdom, to Germany or the United States, just to be there for a moment or – still better – to work there or to study there. When towards the 19th century Japan began to modernizing, Japan’s authorities sent delegates to Germany to study German law and German administration. Why? Because Japanese reforms were to be grounded in German experience, in German solutions. When the Chinese adopted the communist ideology, they adopted it from the West, where it was born, although mainly via the Soviet Union. Vietnam uses the Latin script which was imposed on the nation by the French colonizers and remained in use because it was estimated to be good. India still recognizes the English language as one of the official languages of the country.
Much the same can be said about Africa. African governments, constitutions and social or administrative solutions are modelled on European solutions, while the country of Liberia (settled by liberated American blacks) is an African copy of the United States. Throughout Africa – European languages are spoken hand in hand with the local tongues.
All of this, the whole spiritual and moral capital that the West had throughout the world has been squandered and gambled away. The Western know-it-alls – graduates of the Ivy League, graduates of the Sorbonne, Oxford and Cambridge – in their unbounded self-pride and their bottomless feeling of superiority that whispered into their ears that the West would always be a dominant player began to dig their own grave or shoot themselves in the foot. In a word: the Western smart alecs have brought about the collapse of their own civilization. How did they do it? We’ll list some of the actions but not in any particular order.
First, in their passionate hatred they put a lot of effort into destroying the Soviet Union. They hated the Soviet communist ideology (which, as said above, originated in the West), and they were scared of the Soviet might. Not wishing, however, to take losses themselves, the West was looking around for a country that could be used as a battering ram against Moscow. They found it: China. Though the Middle Kingdom was as communist as the Soviet Union (if not even more communist), Beijing let itself be used by Americans to align itself against Moscow. This step was facilitated by the stupidity of the Russian leadership whose members rather than ingratiating themselves to China preferred to show the Chinese communists their inferior place in the global communist hierarchy. The Chinese comrades caught hold of the opportunity that presented itself to them and began to surf the American wave of support.
As if that was not enough, Washington, or rather the rich elites who are always in pursuit of enriching themselves, came up with an idea of dividing the world into three economic zones, with the West being the ruling head, Africa and Russia being assigned the role of suppliers of natural resources, and Asia being turned into a world’s factory. The men and women from the Ivy League and from the Sorbonne, Oxford and Cambridge dreamt about controlling and shaping the minds of the whole of humanity. Africa’s human resources were estimated as too unskilled and too uneducated to be tasked with manufacturing, but the African continent was known for its natural resources. The Asians on the one hand were known for their diligence and work stamina, so they were naturally selected as providers of labour. A nice global division, was it not? Something like the social division that we observe in ant or bee communities.
Acting on this idea the Western elites began to shift production from the West to Asia, especially to China. The word outsourcing was coined and made hugely popular. Why pay Americans or Western Europeans for their labour if the Chinese, the Vietnamese and others can do the same for a much smaller remuneration? The greed that took the better of the Western elites blinded them to a few simple facts. One is that outsourcing meant providing China with technology and teaching China’s labour valuable skills. Concurrently, outsourcing meant depriving the West of its manufacturing potential along with depriving the West’s people of income. The American products made in China could not easily be sold in the United States because Americans would not have much money. Outsourcing enriched the American or generally Western elites in the short term, and strengthened China economically in the long term. As soon as the economic development in China had translated into China’s rising military might, while the growing welfare had secured the firm position of the Communist Party of China among the billion of the Chinese people, an outcry could be heard on the Potomac! China is America’s arch enemy! Why?
It was the United States that created a powerful China, was it not? True, China is developing rapidly, but is it threatening the United States? It looks like Washington is threatened not by a country’s military strength but rather by a country’s economic growth. Well, if that is so, the proponents of the free market i.e. the whole West ought to put more and more effort into outperforming China on the economic level. Why is China perceived as a military threat? Does the Middle Kingdom have a record of conquest? China is bordered by tiny Vietnam and Korea: do these nations feel threatened by the Chinese dragon? Why should America feel threatened? If Washington assumes that China’s economic might will translate into China’s military might – a substantiated assumption – then why did the American elites contribute so much to turning the Middle Kingdom into an economic power? Was it that greed – profit, to use a more elegant word – switched off their reasoning? Was it a shot in their foot?
Second, Washington’s acts of alienating concurrently China and Russia (and Iran, and – recently – India) have necessarily pushed those countries into each other’s embrace. Moscow and Beijing as well as Beijing and Moscow on the one hand and Tehran and Delhi on the other are coming politically and economically closer not so much because they are in love with each other, but because they have been left with no other choice. Again, was such a development of events hard to predict? The United States had its hand in the 1989 Tienanmen Square riots and in the 1999-2009 Second Chechen War, in either case trying to weaken respectively China and Russia from within. Does that alone not make Beijing and Moscow want to cooperate and support each other? At first there was the idea on the part of Washington to use China against the Soviet Union; then there was the idea to use Russia against China. It seems that the United States have overplayed its hand in either case. If Washington wanted to pit Moscow against Beijing, it shouldn’t have schemed in Ukraine to tear this country away from Russia’s zone of interest. Another shot in the foot?
Third, the de-industrialization. We have mentioned outsourcing. We need to add to it the intentional process that has been going on in Western Europe within the framework of which Europeans have deprived themselves of much of their industry. Factories and power plants, internal-combustion engines and growth in general have come to be perceived as detrimental to the environment, hence to the planet. All these activities have been limited or stopped. With the war in Ukraine Europe has also cut itself off from cheap Russian gas. Now amid the war hysteria and the plans to militarize the Old Continent a simple question arises: does Europe have the industry and cheap resources with which to re-militarize itself? Was the green economy not yet another shot in the West’s foot?
Europe wants war, and Europe wants war badly. Yet, Europeans have unlearnt patriotism. Europeans have unlearnt patriotism because their authorities have wanted them to unlearn it. Germans and the French, the Italians and the Spaniards were supposed to drop their national identities and replace them with European if not cosmopolitan identities. Why should they now feel an willingness to fight? It is even worse: Europe has been intentionally flooded with total foreigners from Africa and Asia. Are these foreigners going to fight against Russia? Is that the reason why they left their own countries? Have they come to Europe to fight for it? Who can ever believe that?
The armed forces cannot be assigned all the money Europeans might want to spend on the military: there are millions and millions of immigrants, and rising, and the incomers need constant social support, social welfare. Go try withdrawing some of that support from them and you will have Paris and London, Brussels and Hamburg go up in flames!
Fourth, the dollar. It was an ingenious trick played by the United States of America at the end of the Second World War that Washington managed to impose the dollar on the rest of the world as a reserve currency or currency of international trade. The dollar began to be sought after, the dollar began to be accumulated by the treasuries of almost all countries around the globe. This alone meant that the United States could burden the other nations with its own debt and with its own inflation. Ingenious as this sleight of hand may have been, it carried its undesirable effects. If America provides the currency for the whole world, then America must print this currency for the whole world. Since the whole world stands in need of the dollar, the only ultimate way to acquire it is to sell goods and services to the United States. If the United States can have all the goods and services from around the world by simply issuing the dollar, America is naturally tempted not to manufacture much itself. The United States becomes a country whose main product on offer is its currency, is its dollar. To put it bluntly, America’s main export product are paper banknotes or electronic impulses in computers or servers! America ceases to really develop, America becomes like a rich individual who having millions at his disposal has absolutely no incentive to work, to create, to develop. Doesn’t it remind one of the once powerful Spanish Empire? The Spanish Empire fell under the weight of gold that had been brought from South America. Blessing at first, gold turned to be the final nail to the Spanish coffin. The case with the dollar is similar: blessing at first, but a final curse.
So much so that the West’s reckless steps precipitate the working of the curse: the freezing of the Russian financial deposits has become a wake-up call to the rest of the world. Assets in the dollar or, indeed, any Western currency can be lost at the drop of a hat. Hence the idea, then the urge that was born in the wide world toward de-dollarization. It is not that China or Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia would necessarily like to get rid of the dollar. No. Rather, they see no other way out. Who in his right senses will continue to keep his money on an account in a bank that can freeze the money whenever it pleases? Thus, the dollar policy has proved to be yet another shot in the foot. If the West loses the war in Ukraine, which is highly likely, the West might as well start digging its own grave.
The conflict between Israel and Hamas is good for Russia. When the Israeli army began its operation in the Gaza Strip and the Houthis began attacking container ships in the Persian Gulf in retaliation, shipments through the Russian Northeast Passage increased rapidly. No wonder: the route is 30% shorter than the one through the Suez Canal, free of terrorists and Somali pirates (who have something to say in the case of the other alternative route – around Africa).
The ice is melting and Russia, having the largest fleet of icebreakers, is modernizing the ports in Murmansk and Sabetta and is expanding old military bases built during times of the Soviet Union in the north. Experts believe that the Arctic Ocean will probably be ice-free by the 2040 summer season due to climate change. Moscow estimates that 44% of the Arctic shelf is under its control, and the oil and gas reserves there are estimated to be worth around 20 trillion dollars. The Arctic has huge energy reserves of global importance. According to the US Geological Survey, around 30% of the world’s natural gas reserves and 13% oil fields (90 billion barrels) lie beyond the Arctic Circle. However, there are technical and financial problems with their production. The extraction of deposits in difficult polar conditions requires modern technologies and enormous investments, which Russia is still often unable to afford.
And this is where the Chinese friends come to the rescue, for whom the Northeast Passage (NSR) is a plan B for the New Silk Road: the Chinese are financing LNG projects, developing cooperation in the construction of satellites to monitor ice density, participating in the modernization of ports and the construction of transhipment terminals. Examples include the participation of CNPC, the largest Chinese oil and gas trading company, and the Chinese Silk Road Fund in the Yamal LNG project, as well as the announced investment in Arctic LNG 2. In the fall of 2024, the Chinese Coast Guard announced its first patrol in the waters of the Arctic Ocean, and the operation was carried out in cooperation with the Russian Coast Guard. Chinese shipping companies and logistics firms are increasingly operating transits via the NSR; specific liner projects (container shipping) and joint ventures with Russian players (e.g. Rosatom cooperation) emerged in 2023-2024.
Meanwhile, America is letting go of its opportunities in the north, is barely expanding its fleet of icebreakers, no new bases are being built and Donald Trump is on a collision course with Canada, the most important partner when it comes to the alternative northern passage through Canadian waters. Period.
Trump has no luck or talent when it comes to choosing people for his government or entourage. Yes, Melanie may be an exception, but when the president nominated Jerome Powell as chairman of the Fed in 2018, he immediately came into conflict with him. Trump wants complete control over the dollar and financial policy, which is not possible under the Fed’s mandate. Powell acted independently, saw the danger of a return to inflation and did not lower interest rates, which angered Trump, as he wanted to increase the competitiveness of the US economy through a cheaper dollar.
Now Powell’s term is slowly coming to an end, and Trump was looking for a suitable successor. At first, he wanted to nominate Kevin Hasset, the head of the National Economic Council (NEC), but then he realised that he wanted to keep his key adviser close by. So, he opted for the young but experienced Warsh. Will he disappoint him?
There are two camps among central bankers and members of the FOMC: doves, who advocate easing, and hawks, who favour higher interest rates. Warsh is currently pursuing a hybrid approach that combines elements of both camps:
- Easing Contrary to his former reputation as an inflation hardliner, Warsh currently advocates interest rate cuts. He argues that current monetary policy is too restrictive. His thesis: productivity gains (AI and deregulation) could enable the economy to grow faster without fuelling inflation, which would justify lower key interest rates.
- Tightening He remains a hardliner when it comes to the Fed’s balance sheet. He calls for a significant reduction in the central bank’s balance sheet (active quantitative tightening – QT) and less market intervention. He believes that a smaller balance sheet reduces market distortions and creates the scope for permanently lower short-term interest rates.
Yes, AI is a key argument in his logic. According to Warsh, it is responsible for the “performance miracle” that is essentially disinflationary. If companies can use AI to produce more goods and services at lower costs, this increases supply. The effect? It is assumed that a larger number of raw materials on the market at lower manufacturing costs naturally prevents price increases (inflation), even when the economy is growing rapidly. However, in this case, growth is not the result of printing empty currency, but the result of increased productivity. Warsh compares this situation to the internet revolution of the 1990s, when inflation remained low despite an economic boom.
However, this may be a misconception, as AI consumes enormous amounts of energy, chips and resources for data centres, which could increase the prices of these specific services and raw materials in the short term. The performance effect should only occur in a few years, which could trigger inflation before AI can suppress it. Many analysts are also critical of the reduction in the central bank’s balance sheet. Let’s see if the Senate will accept Warsh’s nomination. In any case, it could cause turmoil in the markets.
After the notorious Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, resigned following allegations of financial and ethical misconduct, the forum took on a new dynamic. Whereas speeches used to be an expression of blind faith in mainstream ideology such as globalisation, green transition, climate change, sustainable development, human and LGBT rights, today they feel like a breath of fresh air. Take, for example, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who said:
“We are in Davos at the World Economic Forum and the Trump administration and myself, we are here to make a very clear point. Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It’s a failed policy. It is what the W has stood for which is export offshore farshore find the cheapest labor in the world and the world is a better place for it. The fact is it has left America behind. It has left the American workers behind and what we are here to say is that America first is a different model. one that we encourage other countries to consider, which is that our workers come first. We can have policies that impact our workers. Sovereignty is your borders. You’re entitled to have borders. You shouldn’t offshore your medicine. You shouldn’t offshore your semiconductors. You shouldn’t offshore your entire industrial base and have it be hollowed out beneath you. You should not be dependent for that which is fundamental to your sovereignty on any other nation. And if you’re going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies. Okay? And so that is a different way of thinking. It is completely different than the WEF” (Video)
Oh dear! It’s a good thing Klaus Schwab can’t hear that, otherwise he’d have a heart attack.
Canadian Prime Minister Carney also pointed out in Davos that “the existing world order is collapsing.” He also highlighted the plight of small and medium-sized countries, which now have to cope with pressure from the largest ones. The Canadian Prime Minister said that these states should join forces so as “not to be crushed by the rivalry of the superpowers.” It seems that these words refer most to the countries of the European Union, which in recent months have pursued a different policy as a group from what Donald Trump is trying to do.
Due to the many controversial actions of the US president, we are gradually reaching a situation where simply showing resistance to him is enough to gain popularity. Previously, Justin Trudeau’s popularity grew because of such a conflict (it was Trump’s fault, not Trudeau’s merit), and now Carney also received a lot of praise after his speech, although as a former banker, he is more reminiscent of Macron in terms of credibility.
Among other important statements from Davos, the following are also worth mentioning:
[1] Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock) stated that tokenising assets is the only sensible decision and that next-generation financial markets should already be based on tokenised shares or bonds.
This proves that the elites have not given up the fight against cash.
[2] Christine Lagarde (head of the ECB) drew attention to the problem of wealth inequality. And indeed, this problem does exist, but Ms Lagarde has probably forgotten who fuelled this problem over the last decade through massive money printing and intervention in the financial markets.
[3] Javier Milei (President of Argentina) reminded us that the West could still have a bright future ahead of it, but that it needs to turn towards freedom. These words were probably directed at the United Kingdom, Belarus and Germany, where freedom of expression is being fiercely opposed. (See also: Article in Gefira)
I. The Magnificent Seven lose their cohesion
Analysts are beginning to divide the Magnificent 7 into smaller subgroups. They talk about the “Fab 4” or “Mag5” – that is, the 4 or 5 companies from the group that continue to drive the market upwards, while the rest have become a burden. Only Alphabet and Nvidia outperformed the S&P 500 in 2025. The gap between Mag7 share prices in the second half of 2025 was enormous.
Competition in the field of AI has become a wedge that divides the group. Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure and data centres. Nvidia dominates the market for the chips needed to power these models. Apple and Tesla are lagging behind. Apple has been criticised for lower costs and slower AI development, while Tesla has suffered from slowing electric car sales. Nevertheless, the “magnificent seven” still have a huge impact on the market, accounting for about 36% of the S&P 500’s capitalisation.
Source: MSN
II. Withdrawal from defensive sectors
The defensive sectors of the US economy are currently the most undervalued relative to high-tech companies in history. Defensive sectors include companies whose services are in demand regardless of the state of the economy or consumer sentiment: healthcare, consumer staples, utilities, including electricity, water and gas companies, and the telecommunications industry. We observed similarly low valuations for defensive companies before the dot-com bubble burst in 2000. Investors were so obsessed with the internet craze that they forgot about the major sectors. The same is true today, with the difference that the above-mentioned glorious companies are benefiting from it.
III. Can precious metals continue to shine?
In 2025, the price of gold rose by 64% in dollar terms. Over the past 5 years, this growth has been 152%, and the price of gold is currently at its ATH (all-time high). Does gold have a chance for further growth? Let’s take the ratio of US stocks to gold. Every time gold reached its 1929 peak of 1.54 gold, it provided a solid foundation for growth in the gold market.
Factors that point to a further rise in GOLD prices include geopolitical tensions, interest rate cuts by central banks, mistrust of the bond market and the weakness of the US dollar. Another such factor is high demand from central banks. In 2025, after a hiatus of almost 30 years, central banks hold more gold than US bonds. However, we must remember the dangers. These include a possible recovery of the dollar, the return of investors (at least temporarily) to the bond market, and young investors choosing Bitcoin over gold. It should also be noted that gold has grown by an average of 11% per year since 2000.
2025 was also a phenomenal year for silver. The metal rose 146% in dollar terms. This growth had a solid foundation, as it was driven by demand for silver in the economy and the limited availability of the metal. Another important factor was that the US classified the metal as strategic and China (the world leader in silver processing) restricted its exports. Is silver expensive now? At over $90 per ounce, silver is at an all-time high. However, compared to M2 (a measure of money in circulation that takes into account funds in current and savings accounts), this value is well below its historical peak. If the price of silver had reached a level similar to that of 2011, given the growth in M2, the price would be $97. But if it were the same as in the 1980s, an ounce of silver would cost approximately $531!
Silver therefore has potential for further growth. This may be driven by increased demand from industry, the aforementioned export controls from China, or the fact that the silver market is relatively small and demand for silver is high. Since 2000, silver has grown by an average of 10.4%. The 146% growth projected for 2025 is a significant deviation from the norm. It is also worth noting that the gold-silver ratio, i.e. the ratio of how many ounces of silver we can buy for one ounce of gold, is currently at a low level of 50. This indicates that silver has become significantly more expensive compared to gold over the last 30 years. Speculators, industrial lobbies and politicians, who would benefit from a fall in the price of silver, could have a negative impact on the price of the metal.
IV. Refinanzierung von US-Schulden
The high price of precious metals is mainly due to capital migration from bonds. The US debt will have to be repaid in 2026. This problem will be solved through refinancing, i.e. issuing new bonds (taking on new debt) to repay bonds that are approaching maturity. The last two times we saw a similar situation – during the GFC, the global financial crisis, and the “Covid recession” – interest rates were at 0%. Currently, interest rates are at 3.75%. The higher the interest rates, the higher the borrowing costs and the burden on the government, which is already enormous. In the current fiscal year 2026 (since October 2025), the government spent $179 billion in just two months to service its debt. This is the second largest expenditure after social spending.
V. Die Globalisierung des Renminbis
The dollar’s share of global reserves (black line) is falling in favour of gold. The decline in confidence in the US financial system will not go unnoticed by its biggest competitor, China. Beijing is expanding its financial payments network and developing an alternative to the US-led Swift system. The Middle Kingdom is lending more and more money to developing countries and encouraging international companies to issue bonds denominated in Chinese currency. About half of cross-border transactions in China are currently denominated in its own currency, compared with almost zero yuan share in such transactions 15 years ago. As a former member of the Chinese central bank said, the government wants the yuan “to be seen as a strong currency that is used more globally”. The yuan currently accounts for 8.5% of global foreign exchange transactions. That is a small amount compared to the dollar, which accounts for 89% of this category. However, the message is clear: China will fight to strengthen the role of its currency in international trade. This is another area in which Beijing is challenging the United States.
Nowadays, it is central banks that steer economies, not governments. A central bank should act in the name and for the benefit of the people, but the policies of all central banks, starting with their abandonment of the gold standard, only lead to our currencies becoming increasingly worthless as purchasing power declines. This can be seen, for example, in the US, where consumers can now buy less and less due to the particularly weak dollar.
Currencies are just pieces of paper that we are supposed to trust. We are supposed to trust the notes issued by central banks, but it is all just an illusion. Jacques Delors’ famous quote, “Not all Germans believe in God, but they all believe in the Bundesbank,” may no longer apply since the introduction of the euro, because the euro is not the German mark and today’s dollar does not have the same purchasing power as it did in the 1960s.
Trust in central bankers is declining. Politicians are also less willing to cooperate with them. Trump’s dispute with Powell is well known. Less well known is the fact that the current head of Poland’s central bank is going against government policy. And the example of Italy shows that where the ECB has a say, there is no freedom of decision-making and no trust in this central bank.
At the end of November, Senator Lucio Malan of the Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) party, the party of Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, proposed an amendment to the draft budget. It was to be added that the gold reserves of the Banca Italia belong to the nation. The proposed amendment aimed to establish once and for all that gold is a national asset held in trust by the central bank for the benefit of the country. Those affected at the ECB immediately began to protest, and instead of the entry about “national ownership,” the law only included a confirmation that gold remains on the balance sheet of the Italian bank, which manages it within the Eurosystem.
This was no insignificant event, as Italy’s gold reserves are the fourth largest in the world and represent 14% of GDP. By comparison, Germany’s reserves represent 10% of GDP and those of the US 4%. We are talking about 2,451 tons of gold, which has been placed under the heavy hand of the bankers in their tower in Frankfurt am Main. If a crisis were to occur, the gold reserves would be “managed within the framework of the Eurosystem.” Another argument for being Eurosceptic.
Trump may have stopped the left-wing revolution, but his achievements as a top manager in the top position remain miserable: the US is running a record deficit and DOGE is ceasing to exist.
The first year of Donald Trump’s second term will soon be over. In January, the public watched with interest as the new president made statements about restoring national finances. Elon Musk and his DOGE were supposed to reduce waste, fraud and bureaucracy and optimize the government’s work. New IT systems were to be introduced, useless jobs abolished, and unnecessary expenses reduced. Musk ran across the stage with a chainsaw accompanied by Javier Milea (the Argentine president), and Trump said that DOGE was a revolution and that they would find hundreds of billions in savings and reduce bureaucracy, including the federal administration. In short: America will be great again!
However, reality proved cruel. October marks the start of a new financial year in the US and thus a new budget. The budget deficit reached a record high of $284.3 billion this month, which is $300 million more than during the Covid-19 crisis, a time when the entire economy was shut down and the world was turned upside down. Never before in US history has there been such a high budget deficit at the start of the financial year.
However, it is important to note that an increasing proportion of this is attributable to the rising cost of servicing the debt. At present, it already accounts for 19% of all revenue, and forecasts indicate that expenditure on servicing US debt will exceed all social programmes and transfers within 10 years. Therefore, it can be argued that DOGE attempted to clean one room without realizing that the entire house is dirty and the owner is constantly walking around in dirty shoes. The savings should have amounted to more than $200 billion, while audits showed that this could be four times as much. This means that not only did loud statements come to little, but in the end there was still a record budget deficit. Ultimately, DOGE ceased to exist after 11 months, even though it was supposed to function until mid-2026.
Hopefully Mr Trump manages world affairs better on the military front than he does on the economic front in his own backyard, otherwise…
In 2006, the Bush administration passed the Pension Protection Act, which automated the American retirement plan, 401(k). Whereas Americans had previously been able to decide voluntarily whether or not to join the pension plan, after the new law was introduced, they had to explicitly state if they did not wish to do so. And since most people hardly ever check their contributions, participation in the program rose from 20% to 70%—an enormous cash injection for the stock market. Since in most cases 401(k) is a passive investment concept, i.e., the image of an index is purchased rather than stocks carefully selected through fundamental or technical analysis, the US stock market rose and continues to rise exorbitantly.
The danger is that if, for demographic reasons (declining US population, aging society) or economic reasons (higher unemployment), less money is thrown into the market, the market will begin to decline at a rapid pace as exorbitant sales are made.
Yes, there are numerous sellers of financial products who are currently dazzling us with their positive attitude toward the US economy. However, the stock market is completely overheated, especially in the US. At the moment, it is reminiscent of the dot-com bubble of 2000, especially since passive investment concepts now account for over 50% of the entire US stock market.
In addition, such concepts lead to large corporations being weighted more heavily due to automatic purchases. The best example was and is The Magnificent Seven, a stock index of seven large technology companies—Alphabet (parent company of Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla—that have, or rather had, a dominant position, as Nvidia currently dominated them all. The market became narrow. If Nvidia falls, they all fall with it. In Europe, it is no better: in Germany, SAP, Siemens, and Airbus alone account for 30% of the weighting among the 40 DAX companies – which, incidentally, also facilitates manipulation of the DAX by large speculators.
One thing is certain: automated investment processes are stupid; they also mean that when a bubble bursts, there will be hardly any time to react accordingly.
Do you believe that every central bank acts independently of other countries? That the currency you pay with every day means anything in the world? Well, francs or crowns do, but others… Anyway, central bankers from all over the world gather from time to time at their headquarters in Basel to set the course for all currencies, their appreciation or depreciation, at secret meetings. Yes, at secret meetings, which is not in keeping with the transparent, democratic world and Switzerland in particular. There in the tower of their bank (the headquarters of the BIS – the Bank for International Settlements) they pay their bills, plan the next crises, the next helicopter monies, the next bailouts. Yes, there are such circles and their history goes back to the times before the Second World War.
The headquarters of BIS, the infamous bank about which numerous authors such as Le Bro and Ronald Bernard wrote volumes. Source: Wikipedia.
Now some are stepping out of line: the BRICS countries are throwing down the gauntlet to the dollar, the king of all currencies, to which they have all had to submit up to now.
The absolute dominance of the dollar is beyond doubt because:
First
When the Second World War ended, the US economy undoubtedly became the most powerful in the world. In 1970, the United States accounted for about 40% of the world’s GDP. It was the only one left untouched after a major armed conflict and was able to use its position to introduce convenient rules for itself. For example, funds under the Marshall Plan (post-war reconstruction of Europe) were nominated in dollars.
Second
The US has created a financial system based on its currency. Until its link to gold was severed, every other currency was firmly tied to the dollar. This meant the need to hold dollar reserves. For example, the UK had up to 70% of its reserves in US currency at the time.
Third
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are institutions dependent on the USA (30% of the dollar reserves gave the USA a decisive vote). Therefore, loans in dollars were granted to countries in a difficult financial situation. In addition, they often had to open their markets to American exports, which only strengthened their dependence on the dollar.
Fourth
Until recently, all commodities were traded on the stock exchanges and always denominated in dollars, be it gold or oil, it doesn’t matter. All of them.
However, the era of globalization set in motion in the USA has begun to have negative effects. One of these was the unprecedented economic growth of many countries, especially China. They all increased their production and trade, and so their currencies became more and more relevant. In the 1980s, the dollar was the currency of 80% of trade accounts. Later, this share declined: from the 1990s to today, it has fallen from 70% to 54%. JP Morgan predicts that it will be around 50% by 2030.
A similar trend can be observed by analyzing the share of individual currencies in global reserves. The dollar’s dominance peaked at the beginning of the 21st century, when it accounted for around 72% of all reserves. As you can see in the chart below, this share has gradually declined over the last two decades.
Source: Arcadiawm.com
As you can see, the majority of the new shares of currencies other than the dollar are due to the development of the economy in almost the entire world (“Other” in the chart). This is the effect of globalization and the growth of wealth in many countries. Interestingly, the Chinese yuan only started to play any significance in 2017.
The growing popularity of the yuan can also be seen even more clearly by analyzing SWIFT data, i.e. the American payment system used worldwide: In 2023, the value of transactions made in this currency increased dramatically. This made the yuan the 4th most popular currency in this system. This is indirectly due to the sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. This forced the Russians to bypass the dollar, which is why the yuan and ruble currently account for around 90% of the country’s trade with China. To this should also be added bilateral agreements with Brazil and Argentina, which were signed at the time and have included the yuan in trade between these countries.
However, one of the main reasons for the popularization of the Chinese currency is the activity of the BRICS. This bloc accounts for 31.5% of global GDP, 40% of the population, 40% of the oil market and 72% of the rare earths market. The participating countries cooperate with each other through investment in infrastructure and trade. One of the group’s most important assumptions is the pursuit of a multipolar world order and thus a world in which the dollar is no longer the most important currency. Within the framework of the BRICS, institutions were created that represent alternatives to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These are the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement. Their business is very similar to their Western counterparts, but there is one fundamental difference. Loans are granted in local currency, which reduces dependence on the dollar. As a result, 69% of trade between the BRICS countries will bypass the US currency in 2025.
In addition, BRICS countries are buying gold instead of dollars. Recently, it has been the very countries (with China in the lead) that have been most responsible for global gold purchases, mostly directly from local miners, further reducing dependence on the dollar. It is worth noting that the BRICS countries account for 20% of global gold bullion supplies. Therefore, it is obvious that many countries (including the BRICS) are trying to have as many gold reserves as possible, which should further boost demand for this metal.
What’s more: In October 2025, the Moscow Precious Metals Exchange was launched on the initiative of the BRICS. It enables calculations in gold, platinum, diamonds and rare earth metals. It bypasses the SWIFT system and the London Metal Exchange system. This decision makes countries such as Russia and China independent of possible sanctions and supports trade in commodities and currencies of the BRICS countries.
In addition to the newly opened Moscow Exchange, there is also a Shanghai Exchange specializing in gold and silver, which supports 30% of gold trading in the yuan. A merger with a newly opened organization could create a common market for metals within the BRICS, making the bloc further independent of Western influence. These events only emphasize that the role of gold will only increase in the coming future.
A thorn in the side of the Americans and Western bankers is the fact that the BRICS are using their control over 72% of rare earth element (REE) reserves as leverage against the West. The recent information about Chinese restrictions on the export of these commodities and Trump’s threats that followed only confirm this.
China, a tycoon in this market and the most important member of the BRICS, is also trying to establish alternative supply chains in order to circumvent Western influence as broadly as possible. One example is the Middle Kingdom’s investments in Africa. The Dark Continent is a kind of gateway to the implementation of the de-dollarization strategy, as there are huge, unknown REE deposits (up to 10% of global supply in the next 5 years). In Angola, for example, a new mine is being built. From 2026, it is planned to produce 20,000 tons of mixed rare earth carbonate (MREC) per year, which will cover 5% of the global demand for magnetic metals. Lobito Corridor (the Banguela railroad) will be used for export. It is an infrastructure financed by China as part of the New Silk Road (BRI). The key here is the fact that it completely bypasses the routes controlled by the West, facilitating trade with China and Russia. Therefore, China is building a new network of dependencies and cutting off its competitors from access to attractive markets in order to obtain economically critical minerals. We would not be surprised to see Angola join the BRICS in a few years, as well as Nigeria, where Africa’s largest REE processing plant is located.
To summarize: The emergence of a multipolar world order is very likely, even if the dominance of SWIFT, the BIS, the IMF and similar US-dependent institutions will continue for some time to come.
One of the very important outcomes of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) conference held on 31 August – 1 September was the deal made between Moscow and Beijing about constructing and completing by 2030 the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline (the Power of Siberia 1 is already in operation), which will run through Mongolia. The pipeline will be built by Gazprom and it will provide the Middle Kingdom with natural gas extracted – among others – from the same fields which up to quite recently supplied Europe with this resource.
The consequences of this move are neither to be overlooked nor underestimated. Waging a crusade against Russia, Europe deliberately and purposefully cut itself off from Russian gas. Long before the conflict in Ukraine broke out, the leaders of the Old Continent for years kept complaining about the continent’s dependence on Russian gas. For years they they would make the cooperation for Gazprom ever more difficult. Then came the war in Ukraine and an eruption of Russophobia. Europe turned its back on Russian gas while the United States made sure that no one would think about reversing course: as we know the supply pipelines – NordStream and NordStream 2 – were sabotaged.
Europe is still purchasing some Russian gas through middlemen, but generally the Old Continent has switched to American LNG, which is more expensive as it requires shipment, liquefaction, and vaporization. The Russia-China deal will make it impossible for Europe to return to purchasing Russian gas: the Chinese market will swallow up any quantities of it. We are witnessing an epic change: the two NordStream pipelines are about to be replaced by the two Power of Siberia pipelines, redirecting immense amounts of gas from Europe to Asia. Simultaneously, since the Power of Siberia 2 will run through Mongolia, it is Mongolia that will greatly benefit from the Moscow-Beijing deal rather than Poland or Ukraine, through which the pipelines Yamal and Druzhba/Brotherhood run. Russian gas was supplied to Germany and Italy. It was cheap, cheaper than its American alternative, and so both these countries benefited from it a lot economically. All of this is in a complete reversal. What was done during the SCO session is like switching the railway points: the tank cars full of gas that used to be headed for Europe will all soon be headed for China.
Just as over time European and Russian economies will diverge one from the other, those of Russia and China will become closer and closer. The pipelines supplying Europe were in operation for decades, long before the collapse of the Soviet Union. With them gone, a new economic alliance between Moscow and Beijing will be forged. We can only wonder what European leaders think about this change. Sure, on the face of it they are still belligerent, but are they in their heart of hearts? If they are clever enough, they must be smelling a rat. The war that they had hoped to win is going sour, the sanctions that they had thought would coerce Russia into submission backfired, while the economic situation of the Old Continent is deteriorating with every month. Still, once they all invested so much hatred and scorn into Russia, they simply cannot put into reverse. Such is human psyche. They must wage their crusade to the bitter end.
President Donald Trump wants the FED to lower the interest rates. The FED’s board is made up of governours who have the authority to either raise or lower the interest rates. The governours are nominated by presidents, and consequently, the parties that rally behind them. It so happens that democrats have more governours than the republicans. Since the FED does not want o lower the interest rates, President Donald Trump resorted to exerting pressure on one of the governours who are of democratic persuasion. Obviously on the advice of the members of his closest circle the president decided to dismiss one of the governours – Lisa Cook, who was appointed to this FED position by President Joe Biden. To be able to dismiss a governour, the president needs to have a valid reason – a cause as it is legally referred to. The president’s lawyers maintain there is cause enough, the lawyers from the opposition contradict. As usual, when it comes to legal matters, much depends on interpretation.
Now we do not want to delve into the case concerning Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook as such. What appears to be of greater importance is the mechanism of wielding power in the United States in particular and, generally, anywhere in the world.
A country’s leader – who may go by the name of president, prime minister, monarch, secretary general – has a job of managing and guiding the country. To do this job successfully, he needs to have a vision, a plan, and… wiggle room. We are not going to decide whether the interest rates ought to be higher or lower. What we are concerned with is whether you can be a successful leader of a country without having sufficient influence on the country’s finances. In the general election people choose their leader. Theoretically at least, they choose their leader on the basis of the promises that a candidate for office makes. Now the candidate running for office may of course be mendacious – having no intention of delivering on his promises – but let us assume that we are dealing with well-meaning candidates. Once elected to a high office, the successful politician needs to have real power or else he will not be able to deliver on what he promised, irrespectively of his good intentions.
On the flip side we have a mechanism enshrined in law – a constitution – statues that safeguards the proper balance of power, the famous checks and balances. We have such mechanisms because we fear to entrust full power to an individual or a group of individuals who might – as not infrequently happens – turn out to be socio- and psychopaths. But, the same checks and balances on the other hand hamper a well-meaning leader from discharging his duties in terms of fulfilling the promises that he made.
The refusal of the FED to lower the interest rates might be dictated by a couple of factors. One, the FED governours might be right from the economic or financial point of view. So far, so good. Two, those FED governours who are from the opposing party might simply want to act in spite of the president’s wishes, just out of malice. That’s bad enough. Three, the FED governours might want to please others than the president or the be ulk of the citizens of their country. That’s pretty bad. Who do the FED managers want to please? The FED’s shareholders. If for whatever reason the shareholders want the rates to be high or low, the FED will act accordingly. Sure enough, for public consumption the governours will frame their financial policy in terms of aiding the country’s economy rather than pleasing their shareholders. In any of the three cases the FED finds itself on a collision course with the President of the United States.
The question arises why the country’s leader cannot decide on financial matters? The answer is: because it is the law of the land to have a central bank that is independent or semi-independent of the country’s authorities. Indeed, the FED was established in 1913 and at that time it was agreed that the country’s financial policy would be placed in the hands of the financial entity which is for all intents and purposes not strictly a government agency but a private enterprise. One of the arguments was that if it were the presidents who could decide about the interest rates and the amount of money in circulation, they would soon trigger huge inflation and consequently bring the United States to rack and ruin.
Indeed, that might be so, the argument is somehow valid. Still, the same arrangement appears somewhat weird. It looks like a ship’s captain cannot give orders to the ship’s helmsman and decide about the course of the voyage. The passengers have entrusted their lives to the ship’s captain, not to the ship’s helmsman (by the way, governour derives from Latin gubernator, which means helmsman); consequently, if the ship runs aground or remains adrift, it is the captain who is held accountable. But the ship may run aground or be left adrift not because the captain was not competent enough, but because the ship’s helmsman refused to take the captain’s orders. Now the ship’s helmsman may be right in refusing to carry out the captain’s orders, but then in case of accident it ought to be the helmsman who should be held responsible rather than the captain. It may equally be so – as mentioned above – that the ship’s helmsman may act out of malice or may take orders from some of the influential passengers (shareholders). That’s a nice fix, isn’t it?
The problem of such or similar checks and balances is not limited to the United States. If leaders are restricted in their action, how can they be expected to deliver on their promises? If leaders cannot deliver on their promises because they are restricted, what sense then is there for having elections?
The USA recently officially classified silver as a “critical mineral” on the Department of the Interior’s list. What is this list and what does it mean? It contains minerals that the United States considers critical to its economy and national security. Many come from countries that are considered political adversaries, such as Russia or China. What does it mean for silver to be included on this list? First of all, any project related to the extraction, exploration or processing of such a mineral can claim state financial support. In addition, the process of obtaining mining permits is reduced from 10 years to 1-2 years, which can significantly support the development of national resources of this mineral.
Silver, together with gold, has been a real hit for stock market players in recent years and is steadily gaining in value. Readers of our Bulletin may recall our multiple recommendations for gold and silver. The US government’s decision and the possible imminent upheaval in the financial world – the switch to digital currencies by some central banks (CBDCs) with a return to gold backing – will ensure that the two precious metals will continue to shine for a long time to come.
The media in the EU tend to condemn and ridicule the US president. Yes, you could say that for them he has become the second biggest threat to the Western world (after Putin of course). Now thinking coolly and analyzing the latest facts, it can be concluded that Trump is doing everything good for America’s budget and economy.
Trump’s tariffs, for example, are portrayed as malicious and harmful to the global economy. In fact, they are an effective tool to successfully negotiate with all countries. The latest example: After negotiations with Japan, the US has lowered tariffs from 25% to 15%, but tariffs on steel and aluminum (50% and 25% respectively) remain unchanged. To reach this agreement, Japan agreed to open its market to American goods, including cars or agricultural products. Japan also offered a package of USD 550 billion in the form of loans and investments in US sectors such as semiconductors and energy, with the US retaining 90% of the profits.
If you want to take the propaganda of the leading Western media (CNN, BBC, ARD and all who serve the US Democrats) at face value, then consider the following:
① when someone/something hurts the US economy, stocks on Wall Street fall – since the stock market has realized that Trump is boosting the economy again, the indicators are rising and reaching their all-time highs.
② many companies listed on the Japanese stock exchange recorded growth following the announcement of the deal with Trump. The Nikkei index rose by almost 4%, while automotive companies rose from 9% (Nissan) to 17% (Mazda). The solid announcement of tariffs in April and tough negotiations by the United States have put pressure on trading partners to make concessions. Although the tariffs are lower than stated, the US has secured preferential terms such as opening markets for US exports (for example, Japan will buy 100 Boeing).
③ revenues in the US budget are rising hyperbolically and Trump will probably be able to realize his election promises.
Quelle: Daily Treasury Statement
Tariffs are, of course, a double-edged sword – they can increase prices and inflation in the US – but they have allowed them to obtain favorable terms that would be difficult to achieve under normal circumstances.
