Governments are running huge deficits, and their central banks are inflating currencies. This will end sooner or later because it can’t go on. From Daniel Lacalle at mises.org:
Global money supply has soared by $20.6 trillion since 2019, according to Bloomberg.
Additionally, global debt surged by over $15 trillion in 2023, reaching a new record high of $313 trillion. Around 55% of this rise came from developed economies, mainly the U.S., France, and Germany. Unfunded liabilities in the United States amount to $72 trillion, almost 300% of GDP. This may seem high until you look at Spain with 500% of GDP, France with close to 400%, or Germany with close to 350% of GDP.
There is no escape from debt. Paying for the government’s fictitious promises in paper money will result in a constantly depreciating currency, thereby impoverishing those who earn a wage or have savings. Inflation is the hidden tax, and it is very convenient for governments because they always blame shops or businesses and present themselves as the solution by printing even more currency.
Governments want more inflation to reduce the impact of the enormous debt and unfunded liabilities in real terms. They know they can’t tax you more, so they will tax you indirectly by destroying the purchasing power of the currency they issue.
High taxes are not a tool to reduce high debt, but rather to perpetuate the expropriation of national wealth. Countries with high taxes and big governments also have enormous public debt levels.
If you thought the monetary destruction we have witnessed in recent years was excessive, just wait for the suffering we will endure in the future.
In 2024, the world has seen more than seventy elections where none of the parties with access to power even bothered to present a realistic plan to cut debt. Governments and politicians understand that they can make any promises using someone else’s money, and many voters will readily accept the fallacy of taxing the wealthy. Naturally, currency debasement leads to widespread impoverishment.
Craig Murry has already been a victim of British tyranny. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:
Here is a summary of the speech in the video below of former British Ambassador Craig Murry describing the transition of Britain and the West in general into Tyranny
The UK has criminalized dissent. A new Public Order Act makes it illegal to hold a rally or demonstration if it “inconveniences” anyone. This gives the state unlimited power to clamp down on any demonstration.
A new National Security Act makes it illegal to accept funding if it comes from “a hostile state” (there is no definition of what qualifies as a “hostile state”) A new Public Safety Act makes it a criminal offense to publish “misinformation” (there is no definition of “misinformation” — the government decides).
It is all about control of the narrative. Zionist lobbies have great influence on official narratives across the West.
Citizens of the West are not allowed to accuse Israel of genocide; this is increasingly being equated with being a “terrorist”.
Anti-terrorism powers are being used to prevent any criticism of Israel.
Murray, a former British Ambassador, was arrested at the airport under the “Terrorism Act” for attending a pro-Palestine demonstration in Iceland. Under the Terrorism Act, if you are arrested at an airport, you have no right to remain silent, no right to a lawyer, you must turn over all your electronic devices with the passwords. If you refuse to turn over your electronic devices, it is two years in prison. Two years in prison for refusing to answer a question.
In the early 2000s, Vladmir Putin prevented the West from doing what it wanted to do to Russia, and Western leaders have never forgiven him. From Peter Hensler at VoiceFromRussia.ch via zerohedge.com:
In order to understand Russia’s current strength, stance and strategy, it is necessary to understand developments since 1990. Only then will it become clear why President Putin is doing what he is doing and why he will be successful.
Development since 1990
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was devastated. Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first president, did not succeed in lifting the country out of its misery. There were solid reasons for this, both inside and outside Russia.
The West – under the leadership of the US – pursued an unequivocal strategy of destruction. Sachs provides first-hand evidence that Poland, which later became an EU and NATO member, was helped back on its feet from 1989 with billions in aid from the G7, the IMF and other Western institutions – and very successfully so.
The approach to Russia was completely different. Russia was never supposed to become a partner of the West and Professor Sachs shows how, as an advisor to Gorbachev and then Yeltsin, he failed to organize support from the West. The US’s goal was not the recovery of Russia, but the disintegration of the country into small, digestible portions, which would then be taken over by puppets from the US. This plan is still being pursued today with enormous effort and is currently culminating in the war in Ukraine. We already reported on this last summer in an article entitled “The planned dismemberment of Russia”.
You can bet that if the election is even halfway fair, the voters will reject the insanity known as the Democratic party (assuming Trump can stay alive). From James Howard Kunstler at jameshowardkunstler.substack.com:
If anything like civil war ignites in this country, the sides will not be the political Red and the Blue but the sane and the insane. Now it happens, unfortunately, that the insane are driving the engine of government. They have been at war with the people of this land for years, depriving them of livelihoods, stuffing them into prison, breaking the social contract, wrecking the country’s relations with the rest of the world, and belaboring the peoples’ minds with one insulting absurdity after another.
They comprise a bizarre coalition of the permanent bureaucracy, the Democratic Party, and the news media. The permanent bureaucracy includes its own machine for making war on citizens: the intel blob, whose tentacles reach into other agencies: Homeland Security, the State Department, the so-called Justice Department, the Pentagon, the myriad Public Health offices, and the shadowy clique that stands-in for a disabled president in the White House.
You can tell they are insane because they are driven by a single motivation: to remain in power for no other purpose than to escape responsibility for their many crimes against the people. This is insane behavior because it depends on the proposition that reality does not matter, that reality is optional, that there is no such thing as truth, and if it happened to exist, to be a thing, it would have no greater value to the human project than its opposite, untruth.
Most Americans approached last weekend thinking about how they would spend the much-anticipated end of the work week with their friends and family.
Few realize how close they came to actualizing the scenario so horrifyingly spelled out in Annie Jacobsen’s alarming must-read book, Nuclear War: A Scenario.
72 minutes.
That is all it takes to end the world as we know it.
That is less time than most movies playing at the local cinema.
Most people could not drive to the local home improvement store to buy the materials needed to do the little repairs around the home that usually wait for the weekend.
Walk the dogs?
Play with the kids?
Forget about it.
72 minutes.
And everything you thought you lived your life for would be dead.
And if you survived?
To quote Nikita Khrushchev, “The survivors would envy the dead.”
Ukraine, together with many of its NATO allies, has been asking for permission from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to be able to employ precision-guided long-range weapons systems provided by these countries against targets deep inside Russia.
On Sept. 6, at a meeting of the Ramstein Contact Group, a forum where U.S.-NATO military support to Ukraine is coordinated, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky personally appealed to the group for more weapons support from its Western allies and called on allies to allow Ukraine to use the weapons they provided to strike deeper inside Russia.
Zelensky Seeks ‘Long-Range Capability’
Zelensky and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, on Sept. 6. (DoD/Chad J. McNeeley)
“We need to have this long-range capability,” Zelensky said, addressing the attendees, who included U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin,
“not only on the divided territory of Ukraine but also on Russian territory so that Russia is motivated to seek peace. We need to make Russian cities, and even Russian soldiers think about what they need: peace or Putin.”
Secretary Austin, in comments made afterwards, said he didn’t think the use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russia would help end the war, adding that he expected the conflict would be resolved through negotiations. Moreover, Austin noted, Ukraine had its own weapons capable of attacking targets well beyond the range of the British Storm Shadow cruise missile.
Despite Austin’s pushback, President Joe Biden appeared to be on track to give Zelensky the green light he was looking for regarding the use of British-provided Storm Shadow cruise missiles and U.S.-provided long-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles for strikes on Russian soil.
On Sept. 11, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, accompanied by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, visited Ukraine, where they held meetings with Zelensky and his newly appointed foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha.
Blinken & Lammy in Ukraine
Blinken and Lammy, on right side of table in center, meeting with Sybiha, opposite them, in Kiev on Sept. 11. (State Department/Chuck Kennedy
Blinken and Lammy, however, failed to make the announcement the Ukrainians were waiting with bated breath to hear. Instead, Blinken and Lammy reiterated the full support of their respective nations to Ukraine’s victory, adding that they would adapt their support to meet Ukrainian needs. “The bottom line is this: We want Ukraine to win,” Blinken said after his meeting with Zelensky.
The stage was now set for Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, to fly to Washington, D.C., last Friday, where he would meet with Biden and jointly agree to give Ukraine permission to use Storm Shadow and ATACMS against targets inside Russia.
Starmer Goes to Washington
Starmer with members of the press on his way to Washington last Friday. (Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Russia has long made it clear that it would view any nation which authorized the use of its weapons to strike Russia as a direct party to the conflict.
In comments to the media in Russia last Thursday — one day before the Biden-Starmer meeting at the White House — Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear that any lifting of the restrictions on Ukrainian use of U.S.- and U.K.-provided long-range weapons would change “the very essence of the conflict.” He said:
“This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, European countries are fighting Russia. And if this is the case, then…we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, speaking after Putin’s announcement, noted that the Russian president’s words were “extremely clear” and that they had reached their intended audience — U.S. President Biden.
Biden didn’t seem happy about the message. In responding to a question from reporters prior to his meeting with Prime Minister Starmer at the White House about what he thought about Putin’s warning, Biden snapped angrily, “I don’t think much about Vladimir Putin.”
Putin in a meeting in Moscow last week. (Kremlin)
The evidence suggests otherwise.
At a White House press conference that same day, Robbie Gramer, the White House correspondent for Politico, asked John Kirby, the spokesperson for the National Security Council, “Do you take Putin at his words that strikes into Russian territory by U.S. — or British — or French-made missiles would actually expand the war?”
Kirby’s response was telling in many ways. “It’s hard to take anything coming out of Putin’s face at his word. But this is not rhetoric that we haven’t heard from him before, so there’s really not a lot new there.”
Gramer followed up: “So, in other words, you know, in the deliberations about this long-range strike, threats from Putin are not a big factor for you guys in your deliberations on this?”
“Well,” Kirby responded,
“you didn’t let me finish the answer, so let me try…I never said, nor have I — would we ever say that we don’t take Mr. Putin’s threats seriously. When he starts brandishing the nuclear sword, for instance, yeah, we take that seriously, and we constantly monitor that kind of activity. He obviously has proven capable of aggression.
He has obviously proven capable of escalation over the last, now, going on three years. So, yeah, we take these comments seriously, but it is not something that we haven’t heard before. So, we take note of it. Got it. We have our own calculus for what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what not. And I think I’d leave it there.”
Just to drive the point home, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, told the Security Council last Friday that NATO would “be a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power,” if it allowed Ukraine to use longer range weapons against Russia. “You shouldn’t forget about this and think about the consequences,” he declared.
‘Don’t Play With Fire’
Nebenzia in June. (UN Photo/Manuel Elías)
The finishing touches on driving home the seriousness of Putin’s warning was left to the Russian ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov. Speaking to the Russian media also last Friday Antonov said he was surprised that many American officials believed that
“if there is a conflict, it will not spread to the territory of the United States of America. I am constantly trying to convey to them one thesis that the Americans will not be able to sit it out behind the waters of this ocean. This war will affect everyone, so we constantly say – do not play with this rhetoric.”
Putin’s words had caught the attention of several former U.S. government officials, who had called Antonov for clarification.
“Yesterday’s statements from Vladimir Putin were weighed very carefully here. Several ex-officials called me asking to explain what actually stands behind those statements. I simply replied: ‘Don’t play with fire.’”
Antonov at Arlington National Cemetery in 2018, during a commemoration of the cooperation of U.S., Soviet and Allied armed forces during World War II. (U.S Army/ Elizabeth Fraser, Public domain)
Antonov’s sentiments were likely echoed through existing back-channel communications used by the Department of Defense and the C.I.A.
In the end, the message got through — Biden pulled back from giving Ukraine the permissions it sought.
Most Americans are unaware about how close they came to waking up Saturday morning, only to find that it was their last.
Ukraine Was Ready to Launch
Had Biden yielded to Starmer’s pressure (the British, together with Ukraine and several NATO nations, believed that Putin was bluffing), and signed off on the permission, Ukraine was prepared to launch strikes on Russia that night.
(British soldiers deployed in Ukraine would be needed to operate the Storm Shadows and they are already there, according to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has refused to send similar weapons to Ukraine.)
Russia would likely have responded with conventional attacks on Kiev using new weapons, such as the Avangard hypersonic warhead, which would each deliver a blow equivalent to 26-28 tons of explosives.
Russia would also most likely have struck NATO targets in Poland and Romania where Ukrainian fighters are based. And, lastly, Russia would have struck British military targets, possibly including those on the British Isles.
This would prompt a NATO retaliation under Article 5, using a large number of NATO long-range strike weapons targeting Russian command and control, airfields, and ammunition storage facilities.
The Russian response would most likely involve the launching of more Avangard conventional warheads against NATO targets, including Ramstein airbase and NATO headquarters, as well as airbases from which strikes against Russia were launched.
NATO headquarters in Brussels. (NATO)
At this juncture the United States, using nuclear employment plans derived from a nuclear posture which emphasizes the pre-emptive use of low yield nuclear weapons to “escalate to deescalate”— i.e., force Russia to back down through a demonstration of capability — would authorize the use of one or more low-yield nuclear warheads against Russian targets on Russian soil.
But Russian doctrine has no capacity for engaging in a limited nuclear war. Instead, Russia would respond with a general nuclear retaliation targeting all of Europe and the United States.
Whatever U.S. strategic forces that survived this onslaught would be fired at Russia.
And then we all die.
72 minutes.
And the world ends.
We were one stroke of the pen away from this outcome on Friday, Sept. 13, 2024.
This isn’t a drill.
This isn’t an academic exercise.
This is the real world.
This is life or death.
This is your future held hostage by a madman in Kiev, backed by lunatics in Europe.
The question is — what are we going to do about it?
There is an election on Nov. 5 where the next commander-in-chief of the United States will be selected by “we, the people.”
This person will be the one holding the pen in any future scenario where life or death decisions that could manifest into a general nuclear war will be made.
It is incumbent upon we, the people, to make sure that Americans demand the candidates for this office articulate their policy vision regarding the war in Ukraine, the prospects of peace with Russia, and what they will do to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war.
But they won’t do that if we, the people, remain silent about the issue.
Stand up.
Speak out.
Demand to be heard.
72 minutes is all it takes to end life as we know it.
We almost all died over the weekend of Sept. 14-15, 2024.
What are we going to do to make sure that doesn’t happen again?
Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Die BRICS haben ihre Mitgliederzahl Anfang 2024 verdoppelt und stehen vor gewaltigen Aufgaben: die Integration der neuen Mitglieder, die Entwicklung künftiger Aufnahmekriterien, die Vertiefung der Grundlagen der Institution und vor allem die Einführung von Mechanismen zur Umgehung des US-Dollars im internationalen Finanzwesen.
MOSKAU – Überall im globalen Süden stehen die Länder Schlange, um der multipolaren BRICS-Gruppe und der hegemoniefreien Zukunft, die sie verspricht, beizutreten. Der Ansturm ist zu einem unumgänglichen Diskussionsthema im entscheidenden Jahr der russischen BRICS-10-Präsidentschaft geworden.
Indonesien und Nigeria gehören zu den Spitzenkandidaten für einen Beitritt. Dasselbe gilt für Pakistan und Vietnam. Mexiko befindet sich in einem komplexen Dilemma: Wie kann es beitreten, ohne den Zorn des Hegemons auf sich zu ziehen?
Und dann ist da noch der neue Beitrittskandidat Jemen, der von Russland, China und dem Iran stark unterstützt wird.
Es war an Russlands oberstem BRICS-Sherpa, dem fähigen stellvertretenden Außenminister Sergej Rjabkow, zu erklären, was auf uns zukommt. Er sagte TASS:
Wir müssen den Ländern, die an einer Annäherung an die BRICS interessiert sind, eine Plattform bieten, auf der sie praktisch arbeiten können, ohne sich zurückgelassen zu fühlen, und sich diesem Kooperationsrhythmus anschließen. Und die Entscheidung, wie es weitergeht, sollte zumindest bis zum Treffen der Staats- und Regierungschefs in Kasan vertagt werden, um darüber zu entscheiden.
Die wichtige Entscheidung über die Erweiterung von BRICS+ wird erst beim Gipfeltreffen in Kazan im kommenden Oktober fallen. Rjabkow betonte, dass es zunächst darum gehe, “diejenigen zu integrieren, die neu hinzugekommen sind”. Das bedeute, dass “wir als ‘Zehn’ mindestens so effizient oder besser noch effizienter arbeiten, als wir es in den ursprünglichen ‘Fünf’ getan haben”.
Erst dann werden die BRICS-10 “die Kategorie der Partnerstaaten entwickeln”, was in der Praxis bedeutet, dass eine Konsensliste aus den Dutzenden von Nationen erstellt werden muss, die es buchstäblich in den Fingern juckt, dem Club beizutreten.
Rjabkow betont öffentlich und privat immer wieder, dass die Verdoppelung der BRICS-Mitglieder ab dem 1. Januar 2024 “ein beispielloses Ereignis für jede internationale Struktur” sei.
Es sei keine leichte Aufgabe, sagt Ryabkov:
Vergangenes Jahr haben wir ein ganzes Jahr gebraucht, um die Aufnahme- und Erweiterungskriterien auf höchster Beamtenebene zu entwickeln. Da ist viel Vernünftiges erarbeitet worden. Und vieles von dem, was damals formuliert wurde, hat sich in der Liste der beigetretenen Länder widergespiegelt. Aber es wäre wahrscheinlich unangemessen, die Anforderungen zu formalisieren. Letztlich ist die Aufnahme in die Vereinigung eine politische Entscheidung. Wie geht es nach den russischen Präsidentschaftswahlen weiter?
Bei einem privaten Treffen mit einigen ausgewählten Personen am Rande der jüngsten Multipolaren Konferenz in Moskau sprach Außenminister Sergei Lawrow überschwänglich von den BRICS, wobei er seine Amtskollegen Wang Yi aus China und S. Jaishankar aus Indien besonders hervorhob.
Lawrow setzt große Erwartungen in das diesjährige BRICS-10-Treffen, erinnert aber gleichzeitig daran, dass es sich noch um einen Club handelt, der sich institutionell weiterentwickeln muss, z.B. durch die Ernennung eines Generalsekretariats, wie es bei der verwandten Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) der Fall ist.
Der russische Vorsitz wird in den kommenden Monaten alle Hände voll zu tun haben, um nicht nur das geopolitische Spektrum der aktuellen Krisen zu bewältigen, sondern vor allem auch die Geowirtschaft. Bei einem entscheidenden Ministertreffen im Juni, also in nur drei Monaten, muss ein detaillierter Fahrplan bis zum Gipfel in Kazan vier Monate später festgelegt werden.
Die Ereignisse nach den russischen Präsidentschaftswahlen in dieser Woche werden auch die Politik der BRICS beeinflussen. Eine neue russische Regierung wird erst Anfang Mai vereidigt. Es wird allgemein erwartet, dass es im russischen Finanzministerium, in der Zentralbank, im Außenministerium und unter den Spitzenberatern des Kremls keine wesentlichen Veränderungen geben wird.
Kontinuität wird die Norm sein.
Und damit kommen wir zum wichtigsten geoökonomischen Dossier: Die BRICS sind Vorreiter bei der Umgehung des US-Dollars im internationalen Finanzwesen.
Vergangene Woche kündigte der oberste Kreml-Berater Juri Uschakow an, dass die BRICS an der Schaffung eines unabhängigen Zahlungssystems auf Basis von digitalen Währungen und Blockchain arbeiten werden.
Uschakow betonte insbesondere, dass “die modernsten Instrumente wie digitale Technologien und Blockchain zum Einsatz kommen werden. Das Wichtigste ist, dass es für Regierungen, Bürger und Unternehmen bequem, kosteneffizient und frei von Politik ist.”
Uschakow erwähnte es nicht explizit, aber ein neues alternatives System existiert bereits. Derzeit handelt es sich um ein streng gehütetes Projekt in Form eines detaillierten Weißbuchs, das bereits wissenschaftlich validiert wurde und auch Antworten auf mögliche häufig gestellte Fragen enthält.
The Cradle wurde seit letztem Jahr in mehreren Treffen mit einer kleinen Gruppe von Fintech-Experten von Weltrang über das System informiert. Ushakov selbst wurde das System bereits vorgestellt. Derzeit steht es kurz davor, grünes Licht von der russischen Regierung zu erhalten. Nach einer Reihe von Tests könnte das System noch vor dem Gipfeltreffen in Kazan allen BRICS-10-Mitgliedern vorgestellt werden.
All dies steht im Zusammenhang mit Uschakows öffentlicher Erklärung, dass eine besondere Aufgabe für 2024 darin bestehe, die Rolle der BRICS im internationalen Währungs- und Finanzsystem zu stärken.
Ushakov erinnerte daran, dass sich die BRICS-Staatschefs in der Erklärung von Johannesburg 2023 auf die Steigerung des Zahlungsverkehrs in Landeswährung und die Stärkung der Korrespondenzbankennetze konzentriert hätten. Ziel sei es, “das Contingent Reserve Arrangement weiterzuentwickeln, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Verwendung anderer Währungen als den US-Dollar”. Auf absehbare Zeit keine gemeinsame Währung
All dies umrahmt die absolute Schlüsselfrage, die derzeit in Moskau, im Rahmen der Partnerschaft zwischen Russland und China und bald auch unter den BRICS-10 diskutiert wird: alternative Zahlungsmittel zum US-Dollar, verstärkter Handel zwischen “befreundeten Nationen” und Kontrolle der Kapitalflucht.
Ryabkov fügte der Debatte weitere entscheidende Elemente hinzu, als er diese Woche erklärte, dass die BRICS nicht über die Einführung einer gemeinsamen Währung diskutierten:
Eine einheitliche Währung, wie sie die Europäische Union geschaffen hat, ist auf absehbare Zeit kaum möglich. Wenn wir in einem frühen Entwicklungsstadium der Europäischen Union über Verrechnungsformen wie die ECU [European Currency Unit] sprechen, in Ermangelung eines echten Zahlungsmittels, aber mit der Möglichkeit, die verfügbaren Ressourcen der Länder durch gegenseitige Verrechnung effektiver zu nutzen, um Verluste durch Wechselkursdifferenzen usw. zu vermeiden, dann ist das meiner Meinung nach genau der Weg, den die BRICS einschlagen sollten. Dies wird derzeit geprüft.
Laut Rjabkow sollten die BRICS keine Finanz- und Währungsallianz gründen, sondern Zahlungs- und Abwicklungssysteme schaffen, die nicht von der unsicheren “regelbasierten internationalen Ordnung” abhängen.
Genau darauf zielen die Ideen und Experimente ab, die der Minister für Integration und Makroökonomie der Eurasischen Wirtschaftsunion (EAWU), Sergej Glasjew, bereits entwickelt hat, wie er in einem Exklusivinterview erläuterte, sowie das neue bahnbrechende Projekt, das kurz davor steht, grünes Licht von der russischen Regierung zu erhalten.
Ryabkov bestätigte, dass “eine Expertengruppe unter der Leitung der Finanzministerien und Vertretern der Zentralbanken der jeweiligen [BRICS-]Länder” kontinuierlich an dem Dossier arbeite. Darüber hinaus gebe es “Konsultationen in anderen Formaten, auch unter Beteiligung von Vertretern des ‘historischen Westens’”.
Rjabkows eigene Schlussfolgerung spiegelt das wider, was die BRICS insgesamt anstreben:
Wir müssen gemeinsam ein Produkt entwickeln, das einerseits sehr ehrgeizig ist (denn es ist unmöglich, in diesem Bereich weiterhin das Diktat des Westens zu tolerieren), das andererseits aber auch realistisch und nicht bodenlos ist. Mit anderen Worten, ein Produkt, das effizient ist. Und all dies sollte in Kasan den politischen Entscheidungsträgern zur Prüfung vorgelegt werden.
Kurzum: Der große Durchbruch könnte buchstäblich an die Tür der BRICS klopfen. Alles, was es dazu benötigt, ist grünes Licht von der russischen Regierung.
Vergleichen Sie nun die BRICS, die die Umrisse eines neuen geoökonomischen Paradigmas entwerfen, mit dem kollektiven Westen, der über den faktischen Diebstahl der von Russland beschlagnahmten Vermögenswerte zugunsten des schwarzen Lochs Ukraine nachdenkt.
Abgesehen davon, dass dies eine De-facto-Erklärung der USA und der EU gegen Russland darstellt, hat dies das Potenzial, das derzeitige globale Finanzsystem vollständig zu zerstören.
Sollte es jemals zu einem Diebstahl russischer Vermögenswerte kommen, würden zumindest zwei wichtige BRICS-Mitglieder, China und Saudi-Arabien, die über ein beträchtliches wirtschaftliches Gewicht verfügen, in helle Aufregung geraten, um es milde auszudrücken. Ein solcher Schritt des Westens würde das Konzept der Rechtsstaatlichkeit, das theoretisch das Fundament des globalen Finanzsystems bildet, vollständig zerstören.
Die Reaktion Russlands wäre heftig. Die russische Zentralbank könnte blitzschnell die belgische Euroclear, eines der größten Abwicklungs- und Clearingsysteme der Welt, dessen Konten mit russischen Reserven eingefroren wurden, verklagen und ihre Vermögenswerte beschlagnahmen.
Und das zusätzlich zur Beschlagnahmung von Euroclear-Vermögen in Russland, das sich auf rund 33 Milliarden Euro beläuft. Da Euroclear das Kapital ausgeht, müsste die belgische Zentralbank die Lizenz entziehen, was zu einer massiven Finanzkrise führen würde.
Ein Paradigmenwechsel: Westlicher Raubzug gegen ein faires Handels- und Finanzabwicklungssystem des globalen Südens.
BRICS ist ein Zusammenschluss von Ländern mit wachsenden Volkswirtschaften (Brasilien, Russland, China, Indien, Südafrika), der mit dem Ziel gegründet wurde, die wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit auszubauen. Die Organisation verfügt über keine gesetzliche Registrierung, sondern basiert auf der Zustimmung der Parteien. Auf regelmäßigen BRICS-Gipfeltreffen werden gemeinsame Erklärungen verabschiedet, in denen gemeinsame Absichten dargelegt werden.
Die Mitgliedschaft in BRICS bietet Ländern die Möglichkeit, in verschiedenen Bereichen wie Handel, Investitionen, Wissenschaft und Technologie, Bildung und Kultur zusammenzuarbeiten. Darüber hinaus veranstalten sie regelmäßig Gipfeltreffen, um wichtige Themen zu besprechen und gemeinsame Entscheidungen zu treffen. BRICS hat einen erheblichen Einfluss auf die Weltwirtschaft. Zusammen machen diese Länder einen erheblichen Anteil des weltweiten BIP und der Weltbevölkerung aus.
France’s intelligence agencies briefed the country’s MPs on the National Defence Committee on 18 September on what steps they should take in terms of foreign spies and manipulation, yet the guidance left many politicians in a quandary. […]
Published on 20/09/2024 at 04:00 GMT Reading time 3 minutes
Across the globe, spies gather in inconspicuous places for discreet conversations. This week, Intelligence Online reveals how, since 2024, the Peninsula hotel on Avenue Kléber has established itself as the essential Parisian stop-off point for parallel diplomacy and arms deals involving today’s biggest world crises, Gaza and Ukraine.
Published on 20/09/2024 at 04:00 GMT Reading time 3 minutes Pierre Gastineau
When the new head of France’s foreign intelligence agency DGSE (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure), Nicolas Lerner, dived into the deep end of global intelligence intrigue, his surroundings could not have been more luxurious: barely a month after his appointment, he found himself on 28 January at the entrance of The Peninsula Paris on Avenue Kléber in the French capital’s chic 16th arrondissement. Once past the kitsch oriental statues, he made his way to the luxury hotel’s suites that have been reserved for the world’s finest intelligence officers, ever hard at work.
CIA chief William Burns and his team have their own suite, requiring ever increasing security measures and countermeasures — everyone here has only a relative degree of trust for each other — as does his Mossad counterpart, David Barnea. Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani is playing at home as the hotel has belonged to his country since 2007.
They are all there to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. The French intelligence chief’s presence had not been revealed until now, but, representing the talks’ host power, he had to come and greet his counterparts. Nine months on, they have yet to yield a result. Lerner did not, however, spend the night, which would cost at least €1,500.
Acceptable owners
The former mansion that housed the Société de Géographie is practical in many ways: its location on Avenue Kléber in western Paris means that it can be reached quickly by car from the ring road, and therefore from the airports. It also means not having to drive into the very centre of Paris, where competitors such as the Ritz Paris, Hôtel de Crillon, etc. are located, but where you have to be patient if you want to get anywhere by car, even if you have diplomatic plates, thanks to the various roadworks undertaken by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.
On top of that, the hotel’s owners are reassuring for all parties. The hotel was bought from France in 2007 by the Qatari state fund Katara Hospitality, during Doha’s buying frenzy in Paris, helped by an array of consultants (IO, 27/03/13). But Doha shares ownership with the Hong Kong fund Hongkong and Shanghai Hotels (HSH), which is controlled by the large but discreet Hong Kong Jewish Kadoorie family. The current chairman of the conglomerate, Michael Kadoorie, is a recipient of the French Légion d’honneur and, through various foundations, is involved in numerous charitable projects in Israel.
But Israeli, US and Qatari spymasters aren’t the only ones enjoying the lobby and terraces — particularly on the roof — of the imposing U-shaped building. According to our sources, the Peninsula has also become a base for Ukrainian officials visiting Paris since the start of the war with Russia. It is the favourite place to stay for members of government, and of the country’s armed forces and intelligence services. And all under the close protection — or surveillance — of French security, as Moscow’s spies remain active in the French capital.
It is in the hotel’s discreet lounges, with their overly-new chesterfield armchairs, that contracts to deliver arms to Ukraine are negotiated. At Paris’ last Eurosatory arms fair in June, for example, the Ukrainian and French military staffs and representatives from key defence manufacturers (Nexter, Thales, etc.) gathered for a less than sober meeting. It remains unclear who picked up the tab.
History of parallel diplomacy
During the Second World War, when it was known as the Hotel Majestic, the establishment became the headquarters of the German military high command in France during the occupation. The building then served as UNESCO‘s headquarters when it was founded in 1946, and thanks to the crises in Gaza and Ukraine the location is regaining its prestigious history of paradiplomacy.
Meanwhile, during the Cold War, it was here that the first, secret, negotiations took place in 1973 between the emissary of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Le Duc Tho, and US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, with a view to signing the Paris agreements that put an end to the Vietnam War. A successful diplomatic outcome that none of the discreet meetings held at the Peninsula in recent months have yet managed to replicate.
Trascorsa meno di una settimana dal “bisticcio” tra il nazigolpista-capo ucraino Vladimir Zelenskij e il marrano liberal-europeista (nel senso della scellerata risoluzione del 19.9.2019 su nazismo e comunismo) Ministro degli esteri polacco Radoslaw Sikorski, ecco che il secondo, non ancora soddisfatto del primo tenzone, torna alla carica.
Se la baruffa del 13 settembre verteva principalmente su temi “storico-territoriali”, l’uscita polacca del 19 settembre ha un carattere “attual-territoriale”. Senza entrare nei dettagli delle fantasie enunciate dal degno consorte della famigerata “storica” yankee Anne Applebaum, basti dire che Sikorski propone di porre la Crimea «sotto mandato ONU, con la missione di organizzare un referendum, dopo aver verificato quali siano i residenti legittimi, ecc.»: referendum, si presume, per decidere se la penisola debba andare all’Ucraina o alla Russia, come era stata fino al 1954 e come lo è di nuovo dal 2014. Chiaro che il solo parlare di referendum e mandato ONU fa quantomeno sorridere a Mosca, dove si ricorda come nel 2014 quasi il 96% dei votanti avesse optato per l’unione alla Russia. Fa molto meno ridere i golpisti di Kiev che, all’ennesimo circo della “Strategia europea di Jalta”, contavano certo anche sulla voce polacca per ribadire l’omelia della “integrità territoriale ucraina”, con la Crimea inclusa. E invece, niente: mandato ONU per una ventina d’anni e poi… vedremo.
L’osservatore di RIA Novosti commenta che se anche un “alleato fidato” di Kiev, quale la Polonia, che rifornisce l’Ucraina di armi e uomini per il fronte (il secondo più largo fornitore, dopo gli USA), prende le distanze dalle pretese della junta majdanista, significa che, con molta probabilità, per il tramite di Sikorski parla una determinata parte di Washington che è ormai stanca dell’Ucraina e della possibilità di ritrovarsi in guerra diretta con la Russia.
Ricordiamo però che nei rapporti polacco-ucraini non manca mai di tornare in superficie, ora più ora meno, la questione dei territori di confine, che ognuno rivendica come propri e, soprattutto da parte polacca, il ricordo dei massacri di Volynia perpetrati nel 1942-’43 dai collaborazionisti filonazisti ucraini di OUN-UPA, oggi sbandierati come eroi dalla Kiev majdanista.
Ed è principalmente su tali questioni che era scoppiata la schermaglia Sikorski-Zelenskij del 13 settembre scorso, presente anche il Ministro degli esteri lituano Gabrielius Landsbergis
Ne ha parlato sulla rivista Onet.pl, organo semi-governativo polacco, l’ex diplomatico Witold Jurasz, elencando i diversi rimproveri mossi dall’ex (il mandato è scaduto lo scorso 20 maggio) presidente golpista al liberal-russofobo polacco, che non farebbe abbastanza per accelerare l’ingresso di Kiev nella UE, non abbatte abbastanza ciò che di russo vola nei cieli polacchi e, soprattutto, attenta alla “sacralità” degli “eroi” ucraini, istruendo la commemorazione delle vittime dei massacri della Volynia e chiedendo addirittura la riesumazione delle vittime per dar loro degna sepoltura. Si dice anche che quella che fino a un anno fa sembrava una “coppia” perfettamente affiatata di presidenti, Vladimir Zelenskij e Andrzej Duda, si stia ora parlando solo “tramite avvocati”.
Ma la zuffa Kiev-Varsavia aveva avuto dei precedenti. Il 6 settembre Sikorski aveva incontrato il nuovo Ministro degli esteri ucraino Andrej Sibiga, disquisendo su chi avesse massacrato di più: gli ucraini i polacchi, o viceversa. In quell’occasione, chi considerava il predecessore di Sibiga, Dmitrij Kuleba, “inadeguato” per il ruolo, non poteva immaginare il grado di inadeguatezza dei “diplomatici” ucraini, evidenziato ora da Sibiga. E, a proposito di Kuleba, scrive Vasilij Stojakin su Ukraina.ru, molti osservatori avevano ipotizzato che le sue dimissioni fossero legate allo scandalo inscenato il 28 agosto, non solo rifiutando le scuse per il genocidio della Volynia, ma avanzando anche rivendicazioni territoriali nei confronti della Polonia. Di fatto, in quell’occasione Kuleba non aveva fatto altro che riportare le posizioni della presidenza majdanista.
A ogni modo, la questione cruciale che rimane in sospeso tra Kiev e Varsavia rimane quella dei massacri banderisti in Volynia. Scuse reciproche, ricorda Stojakin, erano già state portate nel 2003; la condanna però, da parte ucraina di OUN-UPA, responsabile del crimine, è un passo inimmaginabile nella Kiev post-2014, in cui la glorificazione di quei banditi filonazisti è alla base della moderna ideologia majdanista. Inoltre, insieme alla condanna dei massacri, Varsavia agita non da ora anche la questione del risarcimento dei beni che sarebbero stati sottratti ai polacchi.
Nel battibecco del 13 settembre, aggiunge Oleg Khavic, sempre su Ukraina.ru, sulla base della cronaca vergata da Witold Jurasz, Zelenskij ha affermato, nel suo solito tono da golpista, che la Polonia attribuisce importanza ai massacri del 1943 solo per motivi di politica interna e invece non dovrebbe più tornare sulla questione. Al che, Sikorski ha risposto in modo brusco che Kiev dovrebbe vedere le esumazioni e le sepolture delle vittime polacche come un gesto cristiano; ma Zelenskij ha fatto orecchie da mercante.
Insomma, i golpisti di Kiev si muovono da par loro e non guardano in faccia ad alcuno, nemmeno ai “cugini di ideologia” polacchi; anche perché, oggi, appare mutato lo “status” delle parti. Se ancora nel 2022 la Polonia rivestiva il ruolo di “fratello maggiore”, che assisteva l’Ucraina a “respingere l’aggressione” e a integrarsi nelle strutture europee ed euroatlantiche, nel 2024 la situazione è cambiata: l’Ucraina ha ottenuto lo status di “attore globale”, l’unico Paese che combatte la Russia per conto dell’Occidente. Al contrario, la Polonia è ora solo una base logistica NATO nel conflitto ucraino, ed è anche piuttosto logora, osserva Khavic, essendo praticamente rimasta senza carri armati (a detta di Witold Jurasz, Varsavia avrebbe fornito a Kiev più carri di USA, Gran Bretagna, Germania, Olanda, Norvegia, Svezia, Spagna, Cechia, Slovacchia e Bulgaria messe insieme), oltre che dipender in gran parte dalla forza lavoro a basso costo fuggita dall’Ucraina. Chiaro che Zelenskij e i suoi capomanipoli si sentano in diritto di mostrare la propria inadeguatezza, non solo a livello “diplomatico”.
I partecipanti polacchi all’incontro del 13 settembre sono rimasti quantomeno sorpresi, ricorda Jurasz, dallo “stile” di Zelenskij: «Semplicemente, a Kiev sono fermamente convinti che la Polonia sia talmente minacciata dalla Russia che, aiutando l’Ucraina, aiuti essenzialmente solo se stessa. Ne consegue che l’Ucraina, secondo la convinzione delle sue élite, non ha motivo di essere grata alla Polonia».
Ora, è chiaro che non è il caso di ingigantire le schermaglie tra Kiev majdanista e Varsavia eurosanfedista: il livello della comune russofobia è tale che i bisticci sulle “restituzioni” — proprietà mobiliari e immobiliari, territori, ecc. — passano sempre in secondo piano non appena viene agitato il “pericolo russo”.
Non a caso, commentando la zuffa Zelenskij-Sikorski, l’analista polacco Lukasz Adamski ha scritto sui social media: «L’interesse polacco di base è che l’Ucraina vinca la guerra, o almeno non la perda, in modo tale, però, che la Polonia stessa non entri in guerra con la Russia», aggiungendo comunque che l’argomento secondo cui l’Ucraina sta difendendo la Polonia ha smesso di funzionare più di un anno fa. Adamski ha anche sottolineato che il ricatto morale non funziona coi polacchi e che i vari “mercanteggiamenti”, del tipo “voi ci date carri armati, soldi, appoggio, e noi vi concediamo le esumazioni”, possono far uscire dai gangheri anche i politici polacchi più compiacenti con Kiev.
Ma, in fin dei conti, come detto, simili bisticci tra “cugini di ideologia” vanno e vengono, perché, come direbbe Giovenale, «l’intera loro razza è di commedianti», ancorché pericolosi per il mondo, ci permettiamo di aggiungere.
Der Friedensstifter 
