Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Multipolar world order, leading role of emerging economies, and Western debt: Key takeaways from Putin’s BRICS address

 

at 10/23/24 10:57am

The Russian president’s speech in Kazan focused on the group’s financial integration and new development prospects Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed a meeting of leaders at the BRICS Summit in Kazan on Wednesday. In his speech, he focused on the growing role and prospects of the economic group, and warned about the risks to the global economy due to Western sanctions and protectionist policies, among other things.Putin also announced Russia’s initiatives within the BRICS framework, including the formation of a grain exchange and a new investment platform. Here are the key takeaways from the president’s address. Multipolar world order being formedIn his opening remarks to the extended-format BRICS meeting, the Russian president said world trade and the global economy as a whole are undergoing significant changes. The center of business activity is gradually shifting towards developing markets, he added. “A multipolar model is being formed, which is launching a new wave of growth, primarily due to the countries of the Global South and East – and, naturally, the BRICS countries.”Leading role of BRICS Read more BRICS to make ‘important decisions’ in Kazan – Putin The economies of BRICS countries have been demonstrating “sufficient stability” due to the responsible macroeconomic and fiscal policies of their governments, the Russian leader said, noting that in most BRICS countries, accelerated growth rates are expected in the medium term. Putin cited preliminary estimates that the BRICS’ average growth in 2024-2025 will be 3.8%, compared to global growth of 3.2-3.3%.He also said that the BRICS countries’ share of global GDP in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) will amount to 36.7% by the end of 2024 and will continue to expand. Meanwhile, the share of the Group of Seven (G7) leading Western economies is projected to account for slightly above 30%.“The trend for the BRICS’ leading role in the global economy will only strengthen,” Putin said, citing population growth, capital accumulation, urbanization, and increased labor productivity, accompanied by technological innovations as key factors.West’s unilateral sanctions and debt burdenThe Russian president warned of a potential new global crisis, citing the growing debt burden in developed countries, unilateral sanctions, and protectionist policies as key threats. “These factors are fragmenting international trade and foreign investment, particularly in developing nations,” Putin said.He also pointed to high commodity price volatility and rising inflation, which are eroding incomes and corporate profits in many countries. Putin’s remarks also highlighted concerns over escalating geopolitical tensions and their impact on global economic stability.New BRICS investment platform as a powerful tool Read more Putin proposes new economic strategy for BRICS The Russian leader said that to fully realize the potential of the BRICS countries’ growing economies, the member states should intensify cooperation in areas such as technology, education, efficient development of resources, trade and logistics, finance, and insurance, as well as increasing the volume of capital investment many times over.“In this regard, we propose creating a new BRICS investment platform, which would become a powerful tool for supporting our national economies and would also provide financial resources to the countries of the Global South and East,” Putin said.BRICS-based grain exchange The Russian leader also proposed the creation of a common BRICS grain exchange to protect trade between members of the group from excessive price volatility. He noted that a number of BRICS countries are “among the world’s largest producers of grain, vegetables, and oilseeds.” It could later be expanded to trade in other major commodities such as oil, gas and precious metals, Putin said.The initiative is aimed at helping to protect national markets from negative external interference, speculation and attempts to cause an artificial shortage of food products, according to Putin.AI alliance of BRICSRussia is also proposing a BRICS alliance in the field of artificial intelligence. The goal is to regulate AI technologies in order to prevent their illegal use. “In Russia, the business community has adopted a code of ethics in this area, which our BRICS partners and other countries could join,” Putin said.Other proposals Read more Xi and Modi hold talks at BRICS Summit in Russia The president also spoke about increasing transport connectivity between BRICS countries, saying this could provide additional opportunities for growth and diversification of mutual trade.“Such promising projects as the formation of a permanent BRICS logistics platform, preparation of a review of transport routes, opening of an electronic communications platform for transport, and establishment of a reinsurance pool are being discussed,” Putin said.The issues related to the transition of the global economy to low-emission development models are very important, according to the Russian president. The BRICS contact group on climate and sustainable development is closely involved in this work and will continue to counteract attempts by some countries to use the climate agenda to eliminate competitors from the market, he said. “We consider the initiatives on the BRICS partnership on carbon markets and the climate research platform to be promising,” Putin concluded.

[Link to media]

— BRICS summit: Marching towards a new world order

 

at 10/23/24 10:31am

The West cannot control this bloc, and that is hard for Western leaders to accept International politics seems to be losing its ability to develop in a linear fashion. From a layman’s point of view, this is of course extremely sad. But if we look at what’s happening in the broader context, it can even inspire a certain optimism. This is mainly because, given the current balance of power, any unswerving development is guaranteed to lead us to a much greater, possibly global, tragedy. In other words, the extraordinarily tragic events that fill today’s news agenda are likely to conceal a gradual movement towards a more stable world, for which the constant revision of what we call the international order will be a matter of routine. But at the same time, the likelihood of a revolutionary scenario, to which the near monopoly of a small group of states would inevitably lead us, will be minimized. In this context, the international community, and in particular its leading states, is constantly faced with the challenge of choosing between two forms of engagement with the outgoing world order: destruction and creation. Both are in dialectical interaction, and it would be strange to think that there is a clear and simple path to a new, more just world order. All the more so because the opponents of the international community, represented by a small group of countries led by the United States, are not only conducting vigorous defensive operations, but are themselves trying to create the conditions for preserving their current privileges in the future. And they have very solid resources and influence to mobilize – which are not limited to punitive instruments against dissidents. Therefore, the path of revision of the international order that most of the world’s countries are now embarking on is certainly much more difficult than any attempt at revolutionary revision. Although – and this is encouraging – it leaves more opportunities for what is happening now to be studied in the future. Of all the efforts and initiatives that are rightly seen as driving the new world order, BRICS, the now nine-nation bloc – originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China – is arguably the most important. From the outset, it included states that had the potential to embody, in theory and in practice, fundamental changes in the balance of power. Therefore, the BRICS were not inherently inapplicable to the criteria of effectiveness developed by Western political science to assess the success of international organizations. The creation of such an association was in itself a major achievement.  Read more Putin in English: Listen to the Russian president’s words like never before (VIDEO) Firstly, because it included countries with very different foreign policy interests. That is, their desire to act together was underpinned by sufficiently reliable objective circumstances to make cooperation between such different powers meaningful. Secondly, because the emergence of BRICS signaled from the outset the West’s inability to control the evolution of international governance. The last major achievement of the US and Europe in this area was the creation of the G20 in 2009, a group of countries chosen by the West to share responsibility with Washington for the damage caused to the global economy by the US financial crisis of 2008. But as none of the other G20 countries wanted to do so, the impact of the group’s activities was rather insignificant. At the same time, even though the G20 has almost completely lost its relevance, it is still used by large developing countries as a way to increase their international presence.  In the case of BRICS, for the first time, Western countries did not initiate or lead the process. The achievement is actually quite fantastic, given that the entire international architecture, starting with the UN, is now a product of the foreign policy choices of the United States and Western Europe. As it has developed, the BRICS group has become the literal embodiment of a revisionist approach to the transformation of the international order. In fact, it is the antithesis of both the revolutionary aspirations that took place earlier in history and the conservatism of the West, which is more and more stubbornly trying to defend the previous order, which suited it. In other words, BRICS is rightly perceived as an instrument of civilized restructuring of the entire system of global political and economic regulation, as well as its specificities, expressed in concrete instruments of international cooperation, where the West still has a monopoly position. This seems to be the reason for the growing popularity of BRICS. The demand of different countries to join the bloc is so vividly expressed that it poses a serious choice for the countries that have already signed up. The fact is that BRICS, as well as the interest in it from a growing number of participants in the international community, is the first real experience of interaction between states outside the order established by Western Europe and the US at the dawn of the modern international system. All pre-existing initiatives or alliances were more or less part of this order and subject to its rules. This was the reason for the isolation of the USSR even at the moments of its greatest strategic power. After the Second World War, Western countries were able to create institutions that allowed them to keep the energy of their main adversary under control and, in the end, to condemn it to inevitable defeat. Now the situation seems to have changed. More and more of the world’s countries believe that the West’s current military and economic dominance does not guarantee its total dominance in the future. And most importantly, it cannot be seen by others as the only instrument for solving their own development problems. The fact that BRICS was initially driven by the development agenda of its members, rather than the destruction of an unjust world order, has been its great advantage. The BRICS countries are now trying to maintain this ideology and platform as the basis of their activities. But it is increasingly difficult to do so against the backdrop of the West seeking to destroy what it can no longer fully manage. It is forcing the rest of us to take more drastic measures, or to contemplate their inevitability. This, in particular, explains some of the divergent approaches to the BRICS agenda between its main members, China and India. While China does not seek direct confrontation with the West, it does see the need to more consistently break the monopoly of the US and Western Europe. To this end, Beijing has very considerable resources and the diplomatic ability to impose its will without engaging in direct armed confrontation, as Russia does. India, for its part, sees BRICS as an essential tool for achieving its own development goals. They contrast much less than China with the way the West would like to see the world. Moreover, Indian policymakers see the US and Western Europe as an important source of technology and investment. The country now needs them much more than China, which has taken almost everything it needs from the West in recent decades. Read more A new world order in the making: Here’s why this BRICS summit will be special At the same time, both powers are acting within the dialectic of destruction and creation that characterizes the behavior of all those who, because of their size, can no longer tolerate the Western monopoly. And we can assume that the predominance of one or the other of these two forms of interaction with the outgoing international order is due to the ability of countries to defend their interests independently. China’s ability to stand up for its interests is now much greater simply because of its developed economy and the growing prosperity of its population. The others do not have such advantages and therefore their positions differ. But another question is how inevitable the shift is to more offensive behavior as domestic strength and resources accumulate?  In a world of uncertainty  The fantastic success of the BRICS as the first alternative project to the Western order is also giving rise to curiosities, which at the same time characterize the state of contemporary international politics quite well. Recently, Türkiye, a NATO member and the territorial base of US nuclear forces in Eurasia, announced its desire to join BRICS. Unlike all other BRICS countries, even those traditionally closest to the US, such as the United Arab Emirates, Ankara is a formal ally of Washington, whose military planning is carried out under American control within the military bloc of the West. As recent events around Israel show, Türkiye gives the US no real reason to question its commitment to securing the most basic American interests in the Middle East. In any case, we have yet to see any examples of the Turkish president’s rhetoric on Israel having a significant impact on his actual policy. However, it would be superficial to attribute Turkey’s sudden desire to join BRICS solely to the peculiar style of its president, or even less likely, to his desire to become a “Trojan horse” for the West within a grouping that opposes its fundamental aspirations. Most likely, the Turkish authorities sincerely see BRICS as a potentially important tool for solving their own issues. Firstly, to gain prestige in the world and sources of development funds, which the West seems not to provide sufficiently to the Turks. Secondly, to free the country from the political dependency it has fallen into as a result of the choices that led it to relative economic prosperity and stability in the second half of the last century. We should therefore not regard Turkey’s statements on BRICS as mere rhetoric.  Another interesting example is Malaysia, which is also very persistent in knocking on the BRICS door and proposing very specific parameters for its contribution to the organization. Malaysia is a solid country with no history of foreign policy adventurism, a full member of ASEAN that has proven its ability to solve development problems without relying on external patronage. Indeed, the current state of ASEAN is probably one of the reasons why the Malaysian government is looking for new sources of growth and to raise its profile on the world stage. ASEAN is one of the most successful examples of a significant group of nations working together to address their pressing domestic development challenges. Over the past few decades, its members have achieved significant results. In recent years, however, it has encountered certain difficulties. Now, it’s literally being torn apart from within by the US desire to use it against China. Meanwhile, the main goals have been achieved and the transition to the political level is impossible, as the example of ASEAN’s post-coup policy in Myanmar has shown. The question of what more ASEAN can offer its members is a legitimate one. At the same time, as in the case of Turkey, Kuala Lumpur is well aware that the West cannot and does not want to provide sources of development. An important reason why countries in the Global South are increasingly looking to BRICS is that their relationship with traditional leaders in the West is changing on both sides. The emerging powers themselves need resources to achieve a new breakthrough in their economic standing and importance in regional and global politics. This goes hand in hand with a desire for greater autonomy in key decision-making, as this is demanded by society and can yield greater foreign policy dividends. However, reaching new heights of development puts them on a par with the weakening West, especially its most vulnerable and declining part – Europe. No one in the West is prepared to help emerging economies become competitors in the global market and in consumption. Read more Here’s why Russia’s BRICS presidency is at a critical crossroads So the US and Western Europe want to give less and demand more from the rest of the world. In some cases this works – when they are dealing with rather weak powers. But more and more countries in the world are not happy with this situation, because it creates risks to their own internal stability and international threats, and does not offer such serious benefits. In the end, the US can only really rely on those states whose political systems it fully controls. Although even in those, as the example of Germany shows, control remains a rather cumbersome affair. But it persists at all levels. The dialectic of creation and destruction here is obviously tilted in favour of the latter, which makes US policy destructive for the development of the world as a whole, in contrast to the Cold War era when the confrontation between the US and the USSR could bring real benefits to developing countries. The rapid growth of China in the 1970s and 1980s is a direct confirmation of this. The aspirations of Malaysia and a number of other large developing countries to join BRICS do not reflect the effectiveness of the organization in the traditional sense of the word, but rather irreversible changes of a global nature. At the same time, it should be born in mind that the current criteria for the effectiveness of various types of associations were also created under conditions of total Western dominance. In fact, the effectiveness of an organization in this sense is its ability to perform tasks aimed at preserving the monopoly position of the US and the EU in world affairs, as well as the irremovability of the elites in these countries at the domestic level. It is possible that BRICS, like any other organization in the emerging world order, will need a new system for assessing effectiveness, based on specific tasks that reflect the interests of the member states. However, the realization of these interests will inevitably be influenced by the battle between creation and destruction that determines the nature of the main processes in the modern world. It will be the second most important factor in the development of the international order in the coming decades, after the interaction between the great nuclear powers. The presence of this polemic, as we can see in the example of the development of BRICS, will contribute to the persistence of strong uncertainty in international politics and the world economy, which will not allow for a clear formulation of strategic objectives at both the national and international levels. And any attempts at such clarity will turn out to be just signs of some countries’ attempts to lead others down the wrong path and gain unilateral advantages at their expense. For Moscow, maintaining uncertainty is not a problem: after all, we are now dealing with that permanent freedom of choice for which Russian foreign policy and diplomacy, judging by historical experience, is best equipped.This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.

[Link to media]

— BRICS before the Kazan summit: Dialectics of creation and destruction against the background of a new world order

 

at 10/23/24 10:31am

The West cannot control this bloc, and that is hard for Western leaders to accept International politics seems to be losing its ability to develop in a linear fashion. From a layman’s point of view, this is of course extremely sad. But if we look at what’s happening in the broader context, it can even inspire a certain optimism. This is mainly because, given the current balance of power, any unswerving development is guaranteed to lead us to a much greater, possibly global, tragedy. In other words, the extraordinarily tragic events that fill today’s news agenda are likely to conceal a gradual movement towards a more stable world, for which the constant revision of what we call the international order will be a matter of routine. But at the same time, the likelihood of a revolutionary scenario, to which the near monopoly of a small group of states would inevitably lead us, will be minimized. In this context, the international community, and in particular its leading states, is constantly faced with the challenge of choosing between two forms of engagement with the outgoing world order: destruction and creation. Both are in dialectical interaction, and it would be strange to think that there is a clear and simple path to a new, more just world order. All the more so because the opponents of the international community, represented by a small group of countries led by the United States, are not only conducting vigorous defensive operations, but are themselves trying to create the conditions for preserving their current privileges in the future. And they have very solid resources and influence to mobilize – which are not limited to punitive instruments against dissidents. Therefore, the path of revision of the international order that most of the world’s countries are now embarking on is certainly much more difficult than any attempt at revolutionary revision. Although – and this is encouraging – it leaves more opportunities for what is happening now to be studied in the future. Of all the efforts and initiatives that are rightly seen as driving the new world order, BRICS, the now nine-nation bloc – originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China – is arguably the most important. From the outset, it included states that had the potential to embody, in theory and in practice, fundamental changes in the balance of power. Therefore, the BRICS were not inherently inapplicable to the criteria of effectiveness developed by Western political science to assess the success of international organizations. The creation of such an association was in itself a major achievement.  Read more Putin in English: Listen to the Russian president’s words like never before (VIDEO) Firstly, because it included countries with very different foreign policy interests. That is, their desire to act together was underpinned by sufficiently reliable objective circumstances to make cooperation between such different powers meaningful. Secondly, because the emergence of BRICS signaled from the outset the West’s inability to control the evolution of international governance. The last major achievement of the US and Europe in this area was the creation of the G20 in 2009, a group of countries chosen by the West to share responsibility with Washington for the damage caused to the global economy by the US financial crisis of 2008. But as none of the other G20 countries wanted to do so, the impact of the group’s activities was rather insignificant. At the same time, even though the G20 has almost completely lost its relevance, it is still used by large developing countries as a way to increase their international presence.  In the case of BRICS, for the first time, Western countries did not initiate or lead the process. The achievement is actually quite fantastic, given that the entire international architecture, starting with the UN, is now a product of the foreign policy choices of the United States and Western Europe. As it has developed, the BRICS group has become the literal embodiment of a revisionist approach to the transformation of the international order. In fact, it is the antithesis of both the revolutionary aspirations that took place earlier in history and the conservatism of the West, which is more and more stubbornly trying to defend the previous order, which suited it. In other words, BRICS is rightly perceived as an instrument of civilized restructuring of the entire system of global political and economic regulation, as well as its specificities, expressed in concrete instruments of international cooperation, where the West still has a monopoly position. This seems to be the reason for the growing popularity of BRICS. The demand of different countries to join the bloc is so vividly expressed that it poses a serious choice for the countries that have already signed up. The fact is that BRICS, as well as the interest in it from a growing number of participants in the international community, is the first real experience of interaction between states outside the order established by Western Europe and the US at the dawn of the modern international system. All pre-existing initiatives or alliances were more or less part of this order and subject to its rules. This was the reason for the isolation of the USSR even at the moments of its greatest strategic power. After the Second World War, Western countries were able to create institutions that allowed them to keep the energy of their main adversary under control and, in the end, to condemn it to inevitable defeat. Now the situation seems to have changed. More and more of the world’s countries believe that the West’s current military and economic dominance does not guarantee its total dominance in the future. And most importantly, it cannot be seen by others as the only instrument for solving their own development problems. The fact that BRICS was initially driven by the development agenda of its members, rather than the destruction of an unjust world order, has been its great advantage. The BRICS countries are now trying to maintain this ideology and platform as the basis of their activities. But it is increasingly difficult to do so against the backdrop of the West seeking to destroy what it can no longer fully manage. It is forcing the rest of us to take more drastic measures, or to contemplate their inevitability. This, in particular, explains some of the divergent approaches to the BRICS agenda between its main members, China and India. While China does not seek direct confrontation with the West, it does see the need to more consistently break the monopoly of the US and Western Europe. To this end, Beijing has very considerable resources and the diplomatic ability to impose its will without engaging in direct armed confrontation, as Russia does. India, for its part, sees BRICS as an essential tool for achieving its own development goals. They contrast much less than China with the way the West would like to see the world. Moreover, Indian policymakers see the US and Western Europe as an important source of technology and investment. The country now needs them much more than China, which has taken almost everything it needs from the West in recent decades. Read more A new world order in the making: Here’s why this BRICS summit will be special At the same time, both powers are acting within the dialectic of destruction and creation that characterizes the behavior of all those who, because of their size, can no longer tolerate the Western monopoly. And we can assume that the predominance of one or the other of these two forms of interaction with the outgoing international order is due to the ability of countries to defend their interests independently. China’s ability to stand up for its interests is now much greater simply because of its developed economy and the growing prosperity of its population. The others do not have such advantages and therefore their positions differ. But another question is how inevitable the shift is to more offensive behavior as domestic strength and resources accumulate?  In a world of uncertainty  The fantastic success of the BRICS as the first alternative project to the Western order is also giving rise to curiosities, which at the same time characterize the state of contemporary international politics quite well. Recently, Türkiye, a NATO member and the territorial base of US nuclear forces in Eurasia, announced its desire to join BRICS. Unlike all other BRICS countries, even those traditionally closest to the US, such as the United Arab Emirates, Ankara is a formal ally of Washington, whose military planning is carried out under American control within the military bloc of the West. As recent events around Israel show, Türkiye gives the US no real reason to question its commitment to securing the most basic American interests in the Middle East. In any case, we have yet to see any examples of the Turkish president’s rhetoric on Israel having a significant impact on his actual policy. However, it would be superficial to attribute Turkey’s sudden desire to join BRICS solely to the peculiar style of its president, or even less likely, to his desire to become a “Trojan horse” for the West within a grouping that opposes its fundamental aspirations. Most likely, the Turkish authorities sincerely see BRICS as a potentially important tool for solving their own issues. Firstly, to gain prestige in the world and sources of development funds, which the West seems not to provide sufficiently to the Turks. Secondly, to free the country from the political dependency it has fallen into as a result of the choices that led it to relative economic prosperity and stability in the second half of the last century. We should therefore not regard Turkey’s statements on BRICS as mere rhetoric.  Another interesting example is Malaysia, which is also very persistent in knocking on the BRICS door and proposing very specific parameters for its contribution to the organization. Malaysia is a solid country with no history of foreign policy adventurism, a full member of ASEAN that has proven its ability to solve development problems without relying on external patronage. Indeed, the current state of ASEAN is probably one of the reasons why the Malaysian government is looking for new sources of growth and to raise its profile on the world stage. ASEAN is one of the most successful examples of a significant group of nations working together to address their pressing domestic development challenges. Over the past few decades, its members have achieved significant results. In recent years, however, it has encountered certain difficulties. Now, it’s literally being torn apart from within by the US desire to use it against China. Meanwhile, the main goals have been achieved and the transition to the political level is impossible, as the example of ASEAN’s post-coup policy in Myanmar has shown. The question of what more ASEAN can offer its members is a legitimate one. At the same time, as in the case of Turkey, Kuala Lumpur is well aware that the West cannot and does not want to provide sources of development. An important reason why countries in the Global South are increasingly looking to BRICS is that their relationship with traditional leaders in the West is changing on both sides. The emerging powers themselves need resources to achieve a new breakthrough in their economic standing and importance in regional and global politics. This goes hand in hand with a desire for greater autonomy in key decision-making, as this is demanded by society and can yield greater foreign policy dividends. However, reaching new heights of development puts them on a par with the weakening West, especially its most vulnerable and declining part – Europe. No one in the West is prepared to help emerging economies become competitors in the global market and in consumption. Read more Here’s why Russia’s BRICS presidency is at a critical crossroads So the US and Western Europe want to give less and demand more from the rest of the world. In some cases this works – when they are dealing with rather weak powers. But more and more countries in the world are not happy with this situation, because it creates risks to their own internal stability and international threats, and does not offer such serious benefits. In the end, the US can only really rely on those states whose political systems it fully controls. Although even in those, as the example of Germany shows, control remains a rather cumbersome affair. But it persists at all levels. The dialectic of creation and destruction here is obviously tilted in favour of the latter, which makes US policy destructive for the development of the world as a whole, in contrast to the Cold War era when the confrontation between the US and the USSR could bring real benefits to developing countries. The rapid growth of China in the 1970s and 1980s is a direct confirmation of this. The aspirations of Malaysia and a number of other large developing countries to join BRICS do not reflect the effectiveness of the organization in the traditional sense of the word, but rather irreversible changes of a global nature. At the same time, it should be born in mind that the current criteria for the effectiveness of various types of associations were also created under conditions of total Western dominance. In fact, the effectiveness of an organization in this sense is its ability to perform tasks aimed at preserving the monopoly position of the US and the EU in world affairs, as well as the irremovability of the elites in these countries at the domestic level. It is possible that BRICS, like any other organization in the emerging world order, will need a new system for assessing effectiveness, based on specific tasks that reflect the interests of the member states. However, the realization of these interests will inevitably be influenced by the battle between creation and destruction that determines the nature of the main processes in the modern world. It will be the second most important factor in the development of the international order in the coming decades, after the interaction between the great nuclear powers. The presence of this polemic, as we can see in the example of the development of BRICS, will contribute to the persistence of strong uncertainty in international politics and the world economy, which will not allow for a clear formulation of strategic objectives at both the national and international levels. And any attempts at such clarity will turn out to be just signs of some countries’ attempts to lead others down the wrong path and gain unilateral advantages at their expense. For Moscow, maintaining uncertainty is not a problem: after all, we are now dealing with that permanent freedom of choice for which Russian foreign policy and diplomacy, judging by historical experience, is best equipped.This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.

[Link to media]

— Two Turkish terror attackers dead

 

at 10/23/24 10:10am

The suspects killed four people and injured more than a dozen during an assault on a defense company’s headquarters near Ankara Two of the “terrorists” who attacked a defense company near Ankara on Wednesday have been “neutralized,” and security forces are searching for a third gunman, Turkish Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya has said Three assailants stormed the Turkish Aerospace Industries (TUSAS) headquarters in a suburb of Ankara, killing four people and injuring 14 others, according to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. While the Turkish government has banned reporting from the scene of the incident, unverified videos posted on social media purportedly showed heavily armed special forces personnel storming the TUSAS facility less than an hour after the attack began. Shortly afterwards, Yerlikaya announced that “two terrorists were neutralized,” and that “our struggle will continue with determination and resolve until the last terrorist is neutralized.” Read more Several dead in ‘terrorist attack’ in Türkiye (VIDEOS) One of the attackers was a woman, Yerlikaya told reporters, adding that she and a male accomplice had been killed. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the third attacker may have blown himself up. “As soon as their identities are determined, we will share with you which terrorist organization it is,” the minister said. Terror attacks in Türkiye are often the work of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a Kurdish militant group that has been involved in a low-intensity conflict with the Turkish state since the 1980s. It is also unclear whether the assailants took any hostages. Turkish media outlets reported that some TUSAS employees had been taken captive, and an unconfirmed photo posted on social media showed around a dozen people purportedly detained inside the facility. However, neither Erdogan nor Yerlikaya has confirmed this.

[Link to media]

— Xi and Modi hold talks at BRICS Summit in Russia

 

at 10/23/24 9:56am

The first bilateral meeting in five years between the Chinese and Indian leaders comes as they seek to resolve a border standoff Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have held their first bilateral meeting in almost five years on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in the Russian city of Kazan. The meeting comes days after the two nuclear-armed neighbors announced an agreement on patrolling disputed border areas, which has been a point of contention since Indian and Chinese troops clashed in June 2020.   During the meeting with Xi, Modi welcomed the “agreement for complete disengagement and resolution of issues” stemming from 2020, New Delhi said in a statement. The Indian leader also underscored the importance of “properly handling differences and disputes and not allowing them to disturb peace and tranquility.”   Xi stated that the two sides should strengthen communication and cooperation, and properly manage differences and disagreements, the Xinhua news agency reported. “It is in the fundamental interests of the two countries and peoples of China and India to correctly grasp the trend of history and the direction of development of their relations,” Xi said, according to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV.  Prime Minister @narendramodi met with Mr. Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, on the sidelines of the 16th BRICS Summit at Kazan, Russia today Read here: https://t.co/O9095WbqWO#BRICSSummit pic.twitter.com/It6THfBFXt— PIB India (@PIB_India) October 23, 2024 Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, who briefed the media on the meeting on Wednesday, said the two leaders agreed that special representatives on the India-China border question would meet shortly to “oversee” the implementation of the latest agreements “and to explore a fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary question.” New Delhi emphasized that the agreements reached by the two neighbors would “create space to return to the normalization of relationships.”  Read more India and China reach border dispute deal India’s readout also noted that “stable, predictable, and amicable bilateral relations” between the two neighbors, which are also the two most populous nations in the world, “will have a positive impact on regional and global peace and prosperity” and contribute to “a multi-polar Asia and a multi-polar world.”  The relationship between New Delhi and Beijing has been tense since the 2020 incident at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) – the 3,500-kilometer (around 2,100-mile) disputed frontier – which resulted in casualties on both sides. Over the past four years, the two countries held more than 30 rounds of talks, including at both diplomatic and military levels. In September, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar revealed that there had been “some progress” on the border dispute, with around 75% of the “disengagement issues” having been resolved. However, he and army officials clarified later that no agreement had yet been reached on the deployment of troops and weapons and patrolling the zone.   New Delhi announced a breakthrough on the latter issue on Monday, on the eve of Modi's departure to Russia for the BRICS Summit. Beijing confirmed the development on Tuesday.   READ MORE: Here’s why India needs BRICS and Russia Despite Xi and Modi holding brief encounters on the sidelines of international events in 2022 and 2023, their meeting in Kazan was the first bilateral engagement that also included their delegations, diplomats emphasized. Responding to a question from RT on whether choosing the Russia-hosted BRICS Summit for such a meeting carried any symbolism, Misri said, “We can thank Russia for providing the venue.”

[Link to media]

— Iran’s strikes on Israel show its commitment to international law – official

 

at 10/23/24 9:21am

Tehran has an inherent right to self-defense and will continue to exercise it, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei has said Tehran has the right to self-defense, and its recent strikes on Israel have demonstrated its “commitment to international law,” Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, a senior adviser to Iran’s foreign minister, has said. Kadkhodaei slammed Israel’s aggression in the Palestinian territories, citing UN resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which have repeatedly condemned the enduring occupation.  “The forcible seizure of Palestinian territories by Israel does not grant sovereignty to the occupying power... States must not recognize or maintain this illegal situation and must take positive action to end the occupation,” Kadkhodaei said, urging the international community to press Israel into ending the fighting in Gaza and southern Lebanon. “Given the numerous war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers, the international community should exert pressure on the regime to end the war. This can be achieved by cutting off military and financial aid to Israel and demanding a ceasefire.” The October 1  missile barrage fired by Tehran into Israel was conducted in full compliance with international law and constituted Iran’s “inherent right to self-defense” exercised in the wake of “repeated Israeli attacks and the UN Security Council’s failure to act,” the senior adviser said. Read more Iran warns US over threatened Israeli strike The strikes “demonstrated Iran’s “commitment to international law and its determination to protect its sovereignty. Any attempt to impede Iran’s right to self-defense would be a violation of international law and would have serious consequences,” Kadkhodaei warned. Iran fired around 200 ballistic missiles into Israel in response to the killings of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders and an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) general. Israel has vowed to respond to the strikes, with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant promising to deliver a “deadly, pinpoint accurate, and surprising” retaliation. The targets reportedly being considered by Israel include Iran’s energy and nuclear facilities and infrastructure.

[Link to media]

— NATO reacts to Türkiye’s desire to join BRICS

 

at 10/23/24 9:20am

Ankara’s cooperation with the economic group does not contradict its membership in the US-led military bloc, Mark Rutte has said Türkiye has the right to cooperate with the BRICS economic group without undermining its status as a NATO member, the secretary-general of the US-led military bloc, Mark Rutte, has said.   The NATO chief made the remarks at a press conference in Estonia on Tuesday. Asked by the Estonian Public Broadcaster whether Ankara’s desire to become a member of BRICS, which the outlet described as a “Russia-dominated organization,” should be a cause for concern, Rutte stressed that Türkiye remains “a very important ally in the alliance” as it is “one of the best equipped military forces in NATO.” The country plays a “vital role in its part of the NATO geography,” he added.   “Obviously within the alliance, being a democracy, 32 countries, there will always be debates on this and that,” the secretary-general admitted. However, he insisted that Ankara has “the sovereign right” to work towards a BRICS membership and cooperate with its members.   “That might lead to debates now and then, bilaterally or within NATO. But that doesn’t mean that Türkiye is not [popular],” Rutte said. “NATO is very popular in Türkiye, and Türkiye is very popular in NATO,” he added, noting that he is convinced that this will remain the case.    Read more NATO state’s president arrives at BRICS Summit Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is currently taking part in the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, where he is expected to meet with President Vladimir Putin to discuss bilateral ties, the Ukraine crisis, and the situation in the Middle East.   Last month, Ankara also announced that it had formally submitted an application to become a full-fledged BRICS member, making it the first NATO state to seek membership in the group.   However, Türkiye’s application has sparked concerns in Brussels. EU spokesman Peter Stano has stressed that Ankara, which has been an EU candidate country since 1999, must respect EU values and foreign policy preferences despite having the right to choose which international organizations to join.   Previously, Turkish officials told the Middle East Eye that while BRICS was not seen by Ankara as an alternative to NATO or the EU, “the stalled accession process to the European Union” had encouraged it to explore “other economic platforms.”

[Link to media]

— LA Times owner blocks endorsement of Harris – Semafor

 

at 10/23/24 9:14am

The California newspaper has backed every Democratic presidential candidate since Barack Obama, until now The owner of the Los Angeles Times has forbidden the paper’s editorial board from backing Kamala Harris in this year’s US presidential election, bucking two decades of Democratic endorsements, Semafor has reported. The editorial board was preparing to endorse Harris for the presidency, until Executive Editor Terry Tang intervened earlier this month and ordered no endorsement be published, Semafor reported on Tuesday, citing two anonymous sources. According to the sources, the order came directly from the paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong. A South African-born medical doctor and billionaire entrepreneur, Soon-Shiong bought the ailing LA Times in 2018. While he managed to reverse decades of losses and headcount reductions, the newspaper’s advertising revenue plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic, and more than 100 employees were sacked earlier this year. Read more Obama ‘ready to drop bombs’ in support of Harris (VIDEO) Soon-Shiong’s decision to block the endorsement of Harris will be seen as a major blow to the vice president, as the LA Times is the most prominent newspaper in her home state of California. The newspaper endorsed Republican candidates in every election from the 1880s until 1972, when it backed Richard Nixon against South Dakota Senator George McGovern. The decision, which came months after the Watergate scandal emerged, angered some of the newspaper’s reporters, and the LA Times avoided endorsing a US presidential candidate again until it sided with Barack Obama in 2008. It has endorsed Democrats in every subsequent election. The editorial board noted last week that “this may be the most consequential election in a generation.” However, it made no further mention of the presidential race, instead endorsing more than two dozen mostly Democratic candidates for positions ranging from school boards to the US Senate.

[Link to media]

— LA Times owner blocks Harris endorsement – Semafor

 

at 10/23/24 9:14am

Until now, the California newspaper has backed every Democratic presidential candidate since Barack Obama The owner of the Los Angeles Times has forbidden the paper’s editorial board from backing Kamala Harris in this year’s US presidential election, bucking two decades of Democratic endorsements, Semafor has reported. The editorial board was preparing to endorse Harris for the presidency, until Executive Editor Terry Tang intervened earlier this month and ordered them not to endorse anyone, Semafor reported on Tuesday, citing two anonymous sources. According to these sources, the order came directly from the paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong. A South African-born medical doctor and billionaire entrepreneur, Soon-Shiong bought the ailing LA Times in 2018. While he managed to reverse decades of losses and headcount reductions, the newspaper’s advertising revenue plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic, and more than 100 employees were sacked earlier this year. Read more Obama ‘ready to drop bombs’ in support of Harris (VIDEO) Soon-Shiong’s decision to block the endorsement of Harris will be seen as a major blow to the vice president, as the LA Times is the most prominent newspaper in her home state of California. The LA Times endorsed Republican candidates in every election from the 1880s until 1972, when it backed Richard Nixon against South Dakota Senator George McGovern. This decision, which came months after the Watergate scandal emerged, angered some of the newspaper’s reporters, and the LA Times did not endorse a presidential candidate again until it sided with Barack Obama in 2008. The LA Times has endorsed Democrats in every subsequent election. In a list of endorsements published last week, the editorial board noted that “this may be the most consequential election in a generation.” However, it made no further mention of the presidential race, instead endorsing more than two dozen mostly Democratic candidates for positions ranging from school boards to the US Senate.

[Link to media]

— Xi outlines vision for China-Russia relations 

 

at 10/23/24 9:10am

The Chinese president says Beijing and Moscow should further deepen economic ties while defending the UN-centered global system Beijing and Moscow should further deepen their already strong economic cooperation while defending global stability, Chinese President Xi Jinping said at talks with counterpart Vladimir Putin at the BRICS summit in Kazan on Tuesday. He also stressed that Sino-Russian ties have been steadily developing in recent years despite the turbulent geopolitical situation.     The leaders of the countries making up the group were joined by those from aspiring member states for the 16th annual BRICS summit in the capital of Russia’s Tatarstan Republic. Russia holds the rotating chairmanship of the group this year.    Commenting on relations with Moscow, Xi stated that “despite the chaotic and confused external situation, trade and cooperation in other spheres between the two countries are actively developing,” as evidenced by a number of large-scale joint projects.   Chinese TV quoted the president as stressing the importance of further enhancing the bilateral economic partnership as part of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the Eurasian Economic Union.   According to the Chinese leader, having weathered the storms of the “fickle international situation,” ties between Beijing and Moscow are currently at an “unprecedented level.” He attributed this success to the fact that both countries adhere to “non-confrontational principles.”   Read more Russia-China relations a model for the world – Putin Xi went on to stress that as great powers, “Russia and China should firmly defend the international system, which has the United Nations as its cornerstone, [and] together support global strategic stability.”  Following the meeting, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian media that the conversation between the two leaders had been “very candid, business-like [and] constructive.”   “Once again, a considerable convergence of stances and approaches with respect to what is going on in the world has been stated,” he added.   Bilateral trade volume amounted to $82 billion over the first nine months of this year, with the figure on track to beat the record set in 2023, according to Russian outlets, citing Chinese customs data. In August, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin estimated that over 95% of mutual settlements between Russia and China are now conducted using the ruble or yuan.

[Link to media]

— Pentagon explains refusal to change missile rules for Ukraine

 

at 10/23/24 8:36am

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has defended the decision not to allow Kiev to make long-range strikes on Russia using US weapons The US should stick to its long-standing policy of not allowing Ukraine to launch long-range strikes deep into Russia as there are no longer any valid military targets within range, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has said. In an interview with Fox News released on Tuesday, Austin was asked why the administration of US President Joe Biden consistently rejects Vladimir Zelensky’s requests to lift the restrictions on firing ATACMS missiles, which have a range of about 300km, at targets on Russian soil. Austin explained that “the Russians have already moved their aircraft beyond the range of ATACMS.” He added that Ukraine is now capable of producing its own drones, which can strike targets at a range of 400km or more. Lifting Western restrictions on the use of foreign-made long-range weapons along with an invitation to immediately join NATO are two of the key demands of Zelensky’s ‘victory plan.’ Moscow has dismissed Kiev’s proposal as a “set of incoherent slogans” intended to push “NATO members towards a direct conflict” with Russia. Read more ‘No consensus’ on Ukraine missiles – Biden Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned Western countries against allowing Ukraine to use their long-range weapons to strike Russia, noting that this could lead to a direct confrontation and possible nuclear war. He argued that Kiev would be unable to carry out such attacks on its own because such strikes rely on targeting data provided by NATO. He has also ordered the country’s nuclear doctrine to be updated to treat “aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state” as a “joint attack.” Such an act of aggression would now be considered grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. The New York Times also reported in September that US spies believed that if Washington were to reverse its policy on long-range strikes, Moscow could unleash harsh retaliation, including “sabotage targeting facilities in Europe” and “potentially lethal attacks on US and European military bases.”

[Link to media]

— Pentagon explains refusal to change missiles rules for Ukraine

 

at 10/23/24 8:36am

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has defended the decision not to allow Kiev to make long-range strikes on Russia using US weapons The US should stick to its long-standing policy of not allowing Ukraine to launch long-range strikes deep into Russia as there are no longer any valid military targets within range, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has said. In an interview with Fox News released on Tuesday, Austin was asked why the administration of US President Joe Biden consistently rejects Vladimir Zelensky’s requests to lift the restrictions on firing ATACMS missiles, which have a range of about 300km, at targets on Russian soil. Austin explained that “the Russians have already moved their aircraft beyond the range of ATACMS.” He added that Ukraine is now capable of producing its own drones, which can strike targets at a range of 400km or more. Lifting Western restrictions on the use of foreign-made long-range weapons along with an invitation to immediately join NATO are two of the key demands of Zelensky’s ‘victory plan.’ Moscow has dismissed Kiev’s proposal as a “set of incoherent slogans” intended to push “NATO members towards a direct conflict” with Russia. Read more ‘No consensus’ on Ukraine missiles – Biden Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned Western countries against allowing Ukraine to use their long-range weapons to strike Russia, noting that this could lead to a direct confrontation and possible nuclear war. He argued that Kiev would be unable to carry out such attacks on its own because such strikes rely on targeting data provided by NATO. He has also ordered the country’s nuclear doctrine to be updated to treat “aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state” as a “joint attack.” Such an act of aggression would now be considered grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. The New York Times also reported in September that US spies believed that if Washington were to reverse its policy on long-range strikes, Moscow could unleash harsh retaliation, including “sabotage targeting facilities in Europe” and “potentially lethal attacks on US and European military bases.”

[Link to media]

— Several dead in ‘terrorist attack’ in Türkiye (VIDEOS)

 

at 10/23/24 8:30am

The assailants targeted a key defense firm near Ankara, Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya has said Several people have been killed and wounded in an attack on the headquarters of a defense and aerospace company near Ankara, Turkish Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said on Wednesday. “A terrorist attack was carried out against the Turkish Aerospace Industries Inc. (TUSAS) Ankara Kahramankazan facilities,” Yerlikaya wrote in a post on X. “Unfortunately, we have martyrs and injured people after the attack.” The minister provided no further information, promising to release more details in due course. Video footage shared on social media shows an explosion at the facility, while gunfire could be heard in some clips. Multiple gunmen could be seen in several videos and photos, holding rifles equipped with suppressors. A terrorist attack occurred in the capital of Turkey. Explosions and gunfire were heard in the city.The information from Turkish media about the terrorist attack in front of the building of an aerospace company was confirmed by the countrys Minister of Interior, Ali Yerlikaya.… pic.twitter.com/LixrOmDar4— Ulfh3dnar (@Ulfh3dnar_) October 23, 2024 TUSAŞ’a yapılan saldırıya dair görüntüler. pic.twitter.com/1fqFzsXOgB— Tuna Öztunç (@tunaoztunc) October 23, 2024 Türkiye’s NTV broadcaster said that a group of assailants arrived at the facility in a taxi during a changeover of security personnel. At least one of them detonated a bomb while the others entered the building, the network claimed. The attackers took several hostages, according to NTV. Unconfirmed photos circulating on social media show around a dozen people held captive in a room, purportedly inside the building. TUSAS manufactures F-16 fighter jets under license from General Dynamics, as well as a wide range of avionics devices and aircraft components for civilian and military use. The company also builds jets, attack helicopters, and drones for the Turkish military. Its largest shareholder is the Turkish Armed Forces Foundation, a state-run military research and procurement organization.

[Link to media]

— Putin proposes BRICS-based grain exchange

 

at 10/23/24 8:17am

The bourse would protect members of the group from outside interference and excessive market volatility, the Russian leader has said Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed setting up a BRICS-based grain exchange, during a speech at the annual BRICS summit on Wednesday. Addressing the BRICS country leaders in Kazan, Putin said that such an exchange would help protect trade between members of the group from excessive price volatility. ”A number of BRICS countries are among the world’s largest producers of grain, vegetables, and oilseeds. We propose opening a BRICS grain exchange, which would facilitate the formation of fair and predictable price indicators for products and raw materials, taking into account their special role in ensuring food security,” the Russian leader stated. Putin said that the project would help protect national markets from “negative outside interference, speculation, and attempts to сause an artificial deficit” of goods. A grain exchange would boost economic relations between BRICS nations and in time, the platform could be transformed into a full-fledged commodity market, the president said. Read more BRICS to make ‘important decisions’ in Kazan – Putin The idea was first floated by the head of Russia’s Union of Grain Exporters, Eduard Zernin, at a meeting with the Russian president earlier this year. Putin supported the initiative and expressed confidence that many countries in the group would be interested in a BRICS-based grain exchange. The platform would also allow member countries to trade grain directly and reduce reliance on Western-dominated pricing systems that currently set benchmark prices at bourses such as Chicago and Paris. Russia is the world’s top wheat exporter and has substantially boosted exports in recent years with bumper harvests and attractive pricing, despite Western sanctions that have attempted to thwart the country’s cross-border trade. Moscow has also been supplying free grain to a number of African countries facing food insecurity. Current BRICS members include Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. More than 30 countries have applied for membership in the group, which represents approximately 46% of the world’s population and over 36% of global GDP.

[Link to media]

— Putin proposes creating BRICS-based grain exchange

 

at 10/23/24 8:17am

The bourse would protect members of the group from outside interference and excessive volatility in the market, the Russian leader has said Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed setting up a BRICS-based grain exchange, speaking at the annual BRICS summit on Wednesday. Addressing the leaders of BRICS countries attending the meeting in Kazan, Putin said that such an exchange would help protect trade between members of the group from excessive price volatility. ”A number of BRICS countries are among the world’s largest producers of grain, vegetables, and oilseeds. We propose opening a BRICS grain exchange, which would facilitate the formation of fair and predictable price indicators for products and raw materials, taking into account their special role in ensuring food security,” the Russian leader stated. Putin said that the project would help protect national markets from “negative outside interference, speculation, and attempts to сause an artificial deficit” of goods. The grain exchange would boost economic relations between BRICS nations and in time, the platform could be transformed into a full-fledged commodity market, the president said. Read more BRICS to make ‘important decisions’ in Kazan – Putin The idea was first floated by the head of Russia’s Union of Grain Exporters, Eduard Zernin, at a meeting with Vladimir Putin earlier this year. The Russian leader supported the initiative and expressed confidence that many countries in the group would be interested in a BRICS-based grain exchange. The platform would allow member countries to trade grain directly and reduce reliance on the Western-dominated pricing systems that currently set benchmark prices at bourses such as Chicago and Paris. Russia is the world’s top wheat exporter and has substantially boosted exports in recent years with bumper harvests and attractive pricing, despite Western sanctions that have attempted to thwart the country’s cross-border trade. Moscow has also been supplying free grain to a number of African countries facing food insecurity. Current BRICS members include Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. More than 30 countries have applied for membership in the group, which represents approximately 46% of the world’s population and over 36% of global GDP.

[Link to media]

— Nobel laureate NGO head backs eradication of Russian culture in Ukraine

 

at 10/23/24 8:08am

“Destructive” language, literature, music, and cinema must be rooted out, a new manifesto declares A Ukrainian manifesto calling for the total eradication of Russian culture in the country has collected over 60 signatures in two weeks, the organizers of the initiative have announced. High-profile figures who support the ultranationalist text include Aleksandra Matviychuk, whose human rights group was a co-recipient of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize. MP Vladimir Vyatrovich, former director of the influential Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, is also among the signatories. The text was first revealed on October 9 during a forum of ‘Kulturnastup’ (short for ‘cultural offensive’), an advocacy group that calls the armed conflict with Russia a war for Ukrainian national identity. Matviychuk and Vyatrovich both took part in the event. “The cultural-informational space is the most important battlefield, and an aggressive cultural policy is needed for our victory,” the document states. Russian language, literature, music, and cinema “have strong destructive impact on the entire world,” including Ukraine, it claims, and failure to oppose them “is dangerous and unacceptable.” The ultimate goal of the policy it requires from the government is “irreversible ouster of Russian culture from Ukraine.” Read more EU state fires embassy employee for questioning Ukraine’s nationalism – media Kiev can push private businesses and society in general towards a “new reality,” in which Ukrainian books, films, music, and online content dominate at home and successfully compete with Russian counterparts in third nations, the group believes. The government in Kiev has adopted a number of laws aimed at pushing Russian language and culture out of the public sphere, including school education and the media. These include mandatory quotas for Ukrainian-language content and direct bans on the use of other languages. The Russian language has been historically spoken throughout the territory currently controlled by Kiev and was dominant in the eastern and southern parts. The society in independent Ukraine was closely integrated into wider Russian culture. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky was a popular comedian in both his home country and Russia, before being elected president in 2019 and making a sharp turn towards nationalism. His sketches and movies were produced in the Russian language. On the campaign trail, Zelensky criticized people who sought to impose the Ukrainian language on the entire country. READ MORE: Neo-Nazi group claims it murdered outspoken ex-Ukrainian MP Moscow has accused Kiev of yielding to radical nationalists, who played a key role in the 2014 armed coup in Ukraine, by adopting the discriminatory laws. Respect for the rights of all minorities is a key Russian demand in the Ukraine conflict.

[Link to media]

— Head of Nobel Prize-winning rights group joins petition to eradicate Russian culture in Ukraine

 

at 10/23/24 8:08am

“Destructive” Russian language, literature, music, and cinema need to be rooted out, the manifesto declares A Ukrainian manifesto calling for the total eradication of Russian culture in the country has collected over 60 signatures in two weeks, the organizers of the initiative have announced. High-profile figures who support the ultranationalist text include Aleksandra Matviychuk, whose human rights group was a co-recipient of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize. MP Vladimir Vyatrovich, former director of the influential Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, is also among the signatories. The text was first revealed on October 9 during a forum of ‘Kulturnastup’ (short for ‘cultural offensive’), an advocacy group that calls the armed conflict with Russia a war for Ukrainian national identity. Matviychuk and Vyatrovich both took part in the event. “The cultural-informational space is the most important battlefield, and an aggressive cultural policy is needed for our victory,” the document states. Russian language, literature, music, and cinema “have strong destructive impact on the entire world,” including Ukraine, it claims, and failure to oppose them “is dangerous and unacceptable.” The ultimate goal of the policy it requires from the government is “irreversible ouster of Russian culture from Ukraine.” Read more EU state fires embassy employee for questioning Ukraine’s nationalism – media Kiev can push private businesses and society in general towards a “new reality,” in which Ukrainian books, films, music, and online content dominate at home and successfully compete with Russian counterparts in third nations, the group believes. The government in Kiev has adopted a number of laws aimed at pushing Russian language and culture out of the public sphere, including school education and the media. These include mandatory quotas for Ukrainian-language content and direct bans on the use of other languages. The Russian language has been historically spoken throughout the territory currently controlled by Kiev and was dominant in the eastern and southern parts. The society in independent Ukraine was closely integrated into wider Russian culture. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky was a popular comedian in both his home country and Russia, before being elected president in 2019 and making a sharp turn towards nationalism. His sketches and movies were produced in the Russian language. On the campaign trail, Zelensky criticized people who sought to impose the Ukrainian language on the entire country. READ MORE: Neo-Nazi group claims it murdered outspoken ex-Ukrainian MP Moscow has accused Kiev of yielding to radical nationalists, who played a key role in the 2014 armed coup in Ukraine, by adopting the discriminatory laws. Respect for the rights of all minorities is a key Russian demand in the Ukraine conflict.

[Link to media]

— Poland ends demand for WW2 reparations from Germany

 

at 10/23/24 7:43am

FM Radoslaw Sikorski says Berlin should instead come up with a “creative” gesture to convince Warsaw it is sorry for the Nazis’ crimes Poland will not demand that Germany pay reparations for crimes committed by the Nazis during World War II, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has stated. Warsaw and Berlin are now allies, especially when it comes to deterring the threat they see posed by Russia, the diplomat said. Under the previous right-wing government led by the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, Poland repeatedly brought up the issue of war reparations with Germany. In 2022, Warsaw estimated that Berlin would need to shell out PLN 6.2 trillion (around $1.5 trillion) in compensation for damages inflicted by the Nazi occupation. Appearing on Poland’s TVP Info channel on Tuesday, Sikorski said that “we’re not talking about reparations, but rather a gesture showing that the Germans feel that they are morally responsible for what they did to us.” According to the minister, “the ball is now in Germany’s court,” with the onus on them to “offer a creative decision.” He suggested that the neighboring country could take care of the remaining survivors of the Nazi occupation of Poland and erect a memorial in Berlin to commemorate the tragic events. Sikorski pointed out that both NATO member states should focus on the future, since “we and Germany are allies and, for example, we need each other to fend off Russian missiles [deployed in Russia’s Kaliningrad Region] or Russian submarines in the Baltic Sea.” Read more Polish PM tells people not to panic over German soldiers Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly rejected the idea that Moscow has any plans to attack NATO, calling such speculation “nonsense.” The Kremlin also says it has been forced to beef up its defenses along its Western border as more countries in Eastern Europe have joined the bloc. Back in February, Sikorski acknowledged that “unfortunately, reparations [from Germany] cannot be obtained.” Around the same time, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk made it clear that “in the formal, legal and international sense, the issue of reparations was closed many years ago.” Berlin maintains that the matter was resolved when Warsaw waived its right to restitution in 1953 under a deal with East Germany, and that the issue was definitively settled under a 1990 treaty on German reunification. In February, the Polish foreign minister further argued that following World War II, it was agreed that Poland would receive 15% of reimbursements to which the USSR was entitled. The diplomat accused Moscow of “taking it away.” Commenting on Warsaw’s claim, Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov described it as more evidence of Poland’s “frenzied Russophobia.”

[Link to media]

— North African leader sworn in amid election controversy

 

at 10/23/24 7:41am

Tunisia’s Kais Saied won 90.7% in elections held earlier this month despite accusations of political oppression Tunisian President Kais Saied has begun his second term after a landslide victory in the North African country’s October 6 elections, where he faced only two opponents. Several other hopefuls were disqualified amid a crackdown, including arrests in the lead-up to the polls. Saied’s inauguration event took place on Monday, with many reporters barred from attending. The local association, the National Syndicate of Tunisian Journalists, denounced the move as “discrimination” and a “restriction on the freedom of journalism.”  During the ceremony, the 66-year-old leader pledged to “build a country where everyone can live in dignity” while also calling for a “cultural revolution” to combat corruption, terrorism, and unemployment. The country’s unemployment rate reached 16.2% in the first quarter of 2023, according to the World Bank. “Challenges are numerous and must be overcome swiftly,” the president said. The swearing-in came more than a week after the Tunisian Independent High Authority for Elections (ISIE) declared Kais Saied winner with 90.69% of the total votes. Businessman Ayachi Zammel, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison five days prior to the elections, emerged as the president’s closest challenger, receiving 7.35%. Zammel’s lawyer told AFP on Tuesday that the politician had received additional prison time, bringing his total sentence for falsifying ballot endorsements to more than 30 years. Read more Exit polls show landslide win for North African leader The third candidate, Zouhair Maghzaoui, won 1.97% of the vote. Only 28.8% of the more than nine million registered voters cast their ballots, according to ISIE. On Tuesday, opposition figure Maghzaoui accused Saied of using “all the tools of power to narrow down the competitors and opponents” in order to win an election held in “exceptionally undemocratic circumstances.”  He, however, extended his well wishes to the president, whom he claims has failed to outline any “tangible [and] realistic program” for the country during both his campaign and swearing-in ceremony. Read more The colonial legacy of this vital river threatens peace in Africa and beyond “I urge him to finally resolve the dispute regarding the case of candidacy in the next elections and respect the constitutional democratic standards by supervising the reins of the presidency of the state for only two consecutive terms, and cutting the way early on appeals and manipulation of the constitutions, and to focus on improving the reality of the Tunisian people, economically and socially,” Maghzaoui said. Saied, a former law professor, came to power in 2019, promising prosperity in a country that has been grappling with economic difficulties dating back to the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. In July 2021, the politician suspended parliamentary activities, stripped MPs of their immunity, and fired then-Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi. His opponents accused him of staging a coup and reversing the nation’s achievements since the longtime ruler Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s forced resignation during the Arab Spring. The president has denied allegations of politically oppressing opponents and has repeatedly denounced foreign interference. He has vowed to use his second term to target “thieves and traitors on the payroll of foreigners,” blaming “counterrevolutionary forces” for thwarting his efforts to improve Tunisia’s struggling economy during his first term. “There is no place in our country for those who do not seek to fulfil the hopes of our people,” he said.

[Link to media]

— NATO state’s president arrives at BRICS Summit

 

at 10/23/24 7:38am

Recep Tayyip Erdogan has landed in Kazan, accompanied by a large delegation of Turkish officials, including several ministers Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived in the Russian city of Kazan on Wednesday to attend the 16th annual BRICS Summit. The president was accompanied by a large delegation, including Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, as well as the ministers of Trade and Energy.  The Turkish president’s plane was reported to have landed at the Kazan airport at about 14:45 Moscow time as he was greeted by the head of the Republic of Tatarstan, Rustam Minnikhanov. Erdogan was also seen accompanied by his wife, Emine Erdogan.   On his first day, Erdogan is expected to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss bilateral cooperation, the Ukraine crisis, as well as the situation in the Middle East. The Turkish leader is also set to hold talks with the presidents of Uzbekistan and Vietnam on Wednesday and has already reportedly engaged in discussions with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.   READ MORE: Putin proposes new economic strategy for BRICS While Türkiye is not yet a member of BRICS, last month Ankara officially announced that it had submitted a formal application to join the group. The press service of Tatarstan noted that the decision on Türkiye’s membership to join BRICS will eventually be made by the entire organization.

[Link to media]

— Putin proposes new economic strategy for BRICS

 

at 10/23/24 7:23am

Creating an investment platform would boost the growth of member countries, the Russian president has said Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a BRICS investment platform to assist the economic growth of member countries and the development of the Global South and East. He put forward the idea on Wednesday at the 16th annual BRICS Summit in Kazan. According to Putin, partner countries would benefit from a significant increase of investment in areas such as technology, education, trade, and logistics, to help their economies fully realize their growth potential. The platform “would become a powerful tool to support our national economies, as well as providing financial resources to the countries of the Global South and East,” the Russian president said. The Global South refers to countries mainly located in the Southern Hemisphere, mostly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which are regarded as having a relatively low level of economic and industrial development. Read more BRICS to make ‘important decisions’ in Kazan – Putin BRICS was founded in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining the group in 2010. This year, four more countries officially joined the bloc – Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, which was also invited to become a member, also takes part in BRICS events but has not finalized the ratification process. Current BRICS member countries account for around 46% of the world’s population and over 36% of global GDP, according to estimates by global financial institutions. READ MORE: UN chief arrives in Russia for BRICS summit Among the issues discussed by the attendees of the summit are the creation of the category of BRICS ‘partner countries’ and alternative payment platforms for settlements between member states. Russia holds the rotating chairmanship of BRICS this year.

[Link to media]

— India warns against spreading misleading image of BRICS

 

at 10/23/24 6:53am

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said the group is not aiming to replace global institutions Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday highlighted the progress achieved by the BRICS group over the past two decades, which now represents 40% of the world’s population and around 30% of the global economy. He added that he believes BRICS “will emerge as a more effective medium to face global challenges.” Modi stressed that BRICS should move forward “in a timely manner” in pushing for reforms in global institutions such as the UN Security Council, IMF, and other multilateral development organizations, including the World Trade Organization. “As we advance the efforts of BRICS, we must ensure that the image of this organization is not one of wanting to replace global institutions but rather to reform them,” he said at the BRICS leaders’ summit. His remarks come amid Western media reports claiming that BRICS is struggling to “resolve its identity crisis.” Earlier this year, reports emerged suggesting that India and Brazil oppose BRICS expansion. READ MORE: UN ‘an old company’ – India Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri addressed the media in Kazan on Tuesday, calling these reports “completely misplaced and erroneous.” Read more India wants to help bring peace to Ukraine – Modi “Last year, when BRICS was expanded, we were very much involved in that process,” he said, adding that new members appreciated the role New Delhi played, which “testifies to our stance on BRICS expansion.” Modi called BRICS a “diverse and inclusive platform” capable of playing a positive role on issues facing the world, from wars and conflicts to economic uncertainties, climate change, and cybersecurity risks. “We support dialogue and diplomacy, not war. Just as we overcame challenges like Covid together, we can certainly create new opportunities for a secure, strong, and prosperous future for generations to come,” the Indian leader stated. During the plenary session of the ongoing 16th BRICS Summit, leaders of member states discussed strategic and economic cooperation within the group to achieve a more equitable and inclusive global system.

[Link to media]

— EU state fires embassy employee for questioning Ukraine’s nationalism – media

 

at 10/23/24 6:51am

An Estonian woman has been accused of supporting Russia in a research paper that is critical of Ukrainian society The Estonian Foreign Ministry has sacked an employee from its embassy in Türkiye for publishing an academic paper highly critical of Ukrainian nationalism, the newspaper Postimees reported on Tuesday. Maria Sarantseva worked as a clerk in the visa department of the mission, according to the outlet. Her bosses took issue with an academic work she published in the Turkish Journal of Crises and Political Research. The Estonian newspaper claimed it was based on “mostly Russian” sources and reproduced “Kremlin rhetoric.” Sarantseva’s 18-page analysis is based on the works of German-born American social psychologist Erich Fromm, a jew who fled the Nazis and remained a vocal critic of the darker aspects of nationalism. According to Fromm’s theory, nationalism is a coping mechanism for modern societies, which leads to a sense of national superiority in extreme cases. As a person with a narcissistic disorder rejects things that contradict his or her delusion of self-importance, radical nationalists tend to ignore reality, the researcher suggested. Read more NATO country bordering Russia wants more US long-range missiles The paper by Sarantseva argued that the framework proposed by Fromm can explain society in modern Ukraine, which she described as particularly paranoid and aggressive. She said Ukrainians were strongly traumatized by the drop in living standards and chaos following the collapse of the USSR and sought refuge in nationalism. In one recent example, veteran Ukrainian nationalist Dmitry Korchinsky supported the military mobilization of 14-year-olds, if necessary for the survival of the country. Teens can fight too, he argued in an interview this week, citing the use of child soldiers in conflicts in Africa. In modern Ukraine, historical figures who sought independence from Russia are considered heroes regardless of their actions. That includes those who collaborated with the Nazis and committed atrocities against supporters of the USSR, as well as against ethnic Jews and Poles during World War II. READ MORE: Ukrainian politician calls for ban on kids leaving country The rise of nationalist extremists in Ukraine since a Western-backed coup in 2014, is one of the primary causes of the ongoing hostilities with Kiev, the Kremlin has said. Moscow has blamed the Ukrainian government’s adoption of laws discriminating against ethnic Russians on the influence of radicals, and has made their repeal one of its key demands in the conflict.

[Link to media]

— ECHR orders Russia to compensate ‘foreign agents’

 

at 10/23/24 6:19am

Moscow says the designation is meant to protect the country from outside interference The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ordered Russia to pay out hundreds of thousands of euros in compensation to 107 organizations and individuals it has designated as ‘foreign agents’. Russia rejected the court’s jurisdiction after leaving the Council of Europe in 2022. Russia’s foreign agent law, similar to the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, was first adopted in 2012 and expanded in 2022. It requires anyone who receives support from abroad or is under the influence of entities from outside the country to register and be labeled as such. The designation does not ban persons or entities from operating in Russia, but introduces a range of restrictions. Those in violation of the law face fines of up to 5 million rubles and up to six years in prison. Russian State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin has explained that the law is necessary in order to protect the country’s sovereignty and “prevent outside interference in internal affairs.” A number of the individuals and organizations have since filed a joint complaint with the ECHR, including US state-funded network Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, the International Memorial and the Memorial Human Rights Center, journalist Yuri Dud, opposition activist Lyubov Sobol, who is also designated as an extremist by Moscow, and political scientist Ekaterina Shulman. Read more Russia sentences French ‘foreign agent’ In a ruling published on Tuesday, the ECHR claimed that the law violates the rights of NGOs, media organizations, and individuals by introducing “restrictions on their freedom of expression and association” and infringing on the individual applicants’ “right to respect for private life.” The court also claimed that those who received the designation have been “discriminated against and subjected to restrictions” that are not in line with the ECHR’s conventions. “The Court held that Russia was to pay the applicants amounts ranging from 5,500 euros (EUR) to EUR 10,000 [$5,900-$10,700] in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and various other amounts in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, indicated in the appendix to the judgment,” the ECHR said in a press release outlining the ruling. Russia has yet to comment on the ECHR’s decision, having ceased to be party to the court in September 2022. The move came after Russia left the Council of Europe (COE), accusing the body of taking a blatantly anti-Russian stance and turning into an “obedient instrument” of the West, while becoming immersed in “double standards.” Last year, in light of the ECHR accepting complaints from individuals and entities declared ‘foreign agents’ by Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin described the court as a “mad printer rubber-stamping politically charged complaints against Russia,” while “censoring” any cases considered to be linked to Russian interests.

[Link to media]

As of 10/23/24 12:14pm. Last new 10/23/24 12:14pm.