Cтраница новостей USA


The US Has the World Setup for a Worse Financial Crisis than in 2008

Amid a possible financial crisis in the United States, GEOFOR turned to Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. We respectfully asked Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in written form and he kindly agreed to answer them also in written form.. GEOFOR: The fall of yet another US bank, the First Republic, seems to have been prevented thanks to a temporary assistance of $ 30 billion. The panic in the US and EU markets is also gradually subsiding. Nevertheless, the story of the Silicon Valley Bank and the Signature Bank has made a lot of noise. Tell us, what was it? What can the Administration really do politically and financially to overcome this crunch? What to expect next from the US banking system? Paul Craig Robert: These are excellent questions which I will answer all together in one answer. There are two main avenues to a potential US financial crisis. Such a crisis, because of US financial dominance and because of the interconnections of globalism, a huge mistake for humanity, would be international. One avenue to crisis is the Federal Reserve's current policy of raising interest rates. This policy follows many years of nearly zero interest rates in nominal terms, and negative interest rates in real terms. During these many years the financial assets banks accumulated on their balance sheets, such as bonds, pay a low rate of interest. When the central bank (Federal Reserve) raises interest rates, the values of the lower interest rate financial instruments fall, thus shrinking the asset side of banks' balance sheets but not the liabilities side. Thus the central bank's policy is pushing banks toward insolvency. When depositors realize that their deposits could be frozen for some time or lost if over $250,000 in size, as many corporation payrolls and some individual accounts are, they withdraw their deposits. The banks cannot meet the withdrawals because their assets have shrunk in value relative to deposits and because as they sell the depreciated assets to meet the withdrawals the prices of the troubled assets fall further. Silicon Valley Bank had assets heavily weighted with low interest rate US Treasury bonds, the value of which was driven down by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. The other two banks were victims of crypto-currency which is too volatile for a bank's balance sheet. To prevent the failure of the three US banks from causing a general panic, it was announced that the central bank would provide all banks with sufficient cash to meet withdrawals and that all deposits were insured even if they were higher than the insured amount. This should prevent panic. However, if the central bank continues to raise interest rates, the higher rates will push more banks into insolvency. Central banks make mistakes just like everyone else. In Europe Credit Suisse, a large international bank, is in trouble, yet the European Central Bank just announced a rise in interest rates. The second avenue to crisis is the trillions of dollars in derivatives held by the five large US banks, which are international in their transactions. According to published reports, the five largest banks have $188 trillion in derivative exposure. This sum is vastly greater than the banks' capital base. No one knows what the risk is in these derivatives. But the dollar amount is much higher than in 2008, so the potential for a worse crisis exists. A crisis only takes one mistake by one bond trader at a large institution to ignite a crisis. The derivative crisis that occurred in 2008 (slowly building during 2006 and 2007) resulted from the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented financial crisis for 66 years since its passage in 1933. Advocates of repeal claimed that "financial markets are self-regulating and do not need regulators setting rules." They were wrong as became clear 9 years later. The Glass-Steagall Act separated commercial from investment banking. Commercial banks that take in deposits and lend on that basis were not permitted to undertake more risky and speculative ventures as investment banks that at that time were capitalized by the personal fortunes of their partners. This prevented commercial banks from speculating with depositors' money. The repeal of Glass-Steagall let commercial banks use depositors' deposits, not the banks' own money, to behave like investment banks. This is how the large commercial "banks too big to fail" acquired massive derivative exposure. The derivative risks were not understood by the banks, the rating agencies, or the regulators and exploded into the 2008 crisis resulting in taxpayer bailouts of banks and a decade of low interest rate policy in order to rebuild the asset side of banks' balance sheets. The public was annoyed by the bailout. The result was the Dodd-Frank Act which was misrepresented by politicians, economists, and financial media as a fix of the problem caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. But it was not a fix. Dodd-Frank created a new problem. What the Dodd-Frank Act "fixed" was to prevent taxpayer bailouts. Instead, there would be "bail-ins." What this means is that banks in trouble would bail themselves out by being permitted to seize depositors' money. In other words, the Dodd-Frank Act created a powerful incentive for runs on troubled banks. A troubled bank doesn't necessarily mean, or result in, the bank's failure. But because of the Dodd-Frank Act the depositors cannot take the risk, so they withdraw their funds and cause the bank to fail. To summarize, the 2008 crisis and the potential for more crises rests entirely on the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the enactment of Frank-Dodd. We are looking at the total, complete failure of intelligence on the part of the US government and economists. Their handiwork has the capability of collapsing the existing financial system of the world. It was the work of total idiots. There are now 200 US banks in the same position as was Silicon Valley bank, the one that failed. There is, of course, the question: Is this real stupidity or is a plot unfolding to collapse the financial system as we have known it in order to "save" us with the introduction of central bank digital currency? Are we passing from the remnants of democracy and self-government into total tyranny? Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Biden vs. Trump

The 60th U.S. presidential election is scheduled for November 5, 2024, which will elect the 47th owner of the White House. Or Joe Biden, the 46th president, will remain so, if he runs for a second time and wins the election. Meanwhile, the nomination process for both parties is underway. The candidates are just announcing their plans to run. But it is already interesting to analyze the beginning of the election race 2024. Perry Johnson, a businessman who ran for governor of Michigan in 2022, but was withdrawn from the primary vote because of accusations of forging signatures, is going to run for the Republican presidential nomination. It's a funny situation when, in a country that teaches the world about democracy, a man who forged signatures is going to be president. From the Democrats, the nephew of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, the son of Senator Robert Kennedy, a fierce opponent of vaccination, aka environmental lawyer Robert Kennedy, Jr. is also running for president. "I'm thinking about it, and I have overcome the most serious obstacle: my wife has given the green light," he said. The Kennedy clan is loved in the United States, so he has a good chance, if not of winning the election race, then of garnering Democratic votes. In addition, several other candidates have officially announced their participation in the U.S. presidential election, representing a wide political spectrum, as they say - for all tastes. They are three Republicans: 45th President Donald Trump, entrepreneur and author Vivek Ramaswamy, and former South Carolina Governor and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who proudly declared: "I'm Nikki Haley, and I'm running for president." It is interesting that Ramaswamy is a businessman who was born in the U.S. to immigrant families from India. It looks like this right-wing Republican will try to gain the support of quite a few immigrant voters. He is a proponent of "family-patriotism-faith" and opposes leftist ideology. It's also curious when an Indian, a first-generation American who remembers how hard he had it in school because of his southern appearance and complicated last name, tries to run for election under completely right-wing slogans. Marianne Williamson, a writer, also announced her candidacy from the Democrats. This is the first official nomination from the Democratic Party for the upcoming election. "As of today, I am a candidate for president of the United States," she declared. She motivated her decision by the Democrats' move away from F. Roosevelt's party and the worsening economic injustice in America. By the way, Williamson was also planning to run in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, but withdrew her candidacy 10 months before the vote because of her low rating. It is easy to assume that in the upcoming elections the writer will get the least number of votes. Certainly the most attention is attracted by the candidacy of 80-year-old Joe Biden. His advanced age does not embarrass Joe, he hints that he intends to run in the primaries - and the Democratic Party supports him in this endeavor. But Biden's mainstay is his wife, who hopes Joe will run. It is interesting that Biden, like John F. Kennedy's nephew, is getting "permission" to run from his wife. Clearly, all these permissions from wives and their blessings are designed to appeal to the sympathy of voting Americans for the institution of family values. What better way to electoral campaign than a good old-fashioned demonstration of a strong family where the wife supports her husband in his political struggle? By the way, if Biden runs for election and wins, he will be 82 years old at the time of his inauguration. Whether he will be able to lead the country at that age is a big question, if he is already falling off the ramp, looking for absent interlocutors and speaking incoherently. The Washington Post names several other potential candidates: on the Republican side, they include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, and on the Democratic side, Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigich, and Senator Bernie Sanders. Special mention should be made of such a figure as Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who although has not yet officially announced his participation in the elections, but looks like he is also going to run and could be a serious competitor to John Biden. In the meantime, his supporters are getting more and more involved in his nomination efforts. And Trump, realizing that DeSantis could seriously compete with him, begins to bite him, calling him "Ron DeSanctus," and teasing him in every way possible. Very interesting is the struggle that may unfold between them in the future. According to Fox News, 43% of Republicans voting in the primaries are willing to name Donald Trump as their presidential candidate. Ron DeSantis has a 28% approval rating. Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley and former Vice President Mike Pence each have seven percent, despite the latter having already launched their campaigns. If DeSantis does not run for reelection - and he has nowhere to hurry, at 44 his political life is, by and large, just beginning - the main struggle will unfold between the two heavyweights, Trump and Biden. You have to consider the Americans' love of having a two-term president. They think it's better to have a politician as president whose rule they can judge by his works than to vote for a cat in a bag. Meanwhile, voters, of course, are embarrassed by the quirks of the elderly Biden. According to the same Fox News poll, 84% of Democrats approve of the work of current head of state Joe Biden. But only 37% want him to run for a second term. In other words, they like him at the moment, but would like someone younger for the next presidential term. In turn, pollsters from the Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll concluded that if the presidential election were held now, Trump would win it over Biden (46% vs. 41%). And in the inner-party primaries, he would have won. His approval rating is 37%, DeSantis' is 19%, and Haley's is seven. In a Conservative Political Action Conference poll, former White House leader Trump won 62% of the vote, his closest rival, Ron Desantis, only 20%. If the battle for the presidency heats up between Biden and Trump, it will be a contest between two pensioners: the first is 76 years old and the second is 80. By the way, a CNBC poll showed: 70% of Democratic Party supporters do not want him to run a second time because of his venerable age and generally two-thirds of Americans are against having two ageist politicians vying for the presidency in 2024. And Trump's re-election would make 66 percent of voters uncomfortable, while Biden's would make 67 percent uncomfortable. That is, both retirees are annoying. It is clear why Biden has not yet declared his intention to run: if he decides not to run, then, because it is his last term, he automatically becomes a lame duck. And if he is nominated, but cannot run for president for health reasons - a heavy workload for an 80-year-old man - he will let his Democratic Party down. Although the new U.S. election is still a year and a half away, we can already guess what will be most interesting: the battle between Trump and Desantis and the decision as to whether Biden will enter the race.

How do the U.S. and its European partners make money from Ukraine?

The United States and European countries benefit by supplying weapons, hosting NATO troops and, finally, by achieving personal political goals. On March 2, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in his speech in the Bundestag that it is impossible to achieve peace in Ukraine by stopping arms supplies. In fact, the chancellor did not say anything new; it was obvious that no one would refuse supplies: by supplying weapons to Ukraine, the countries of the collective West support both industry (mostly American) and their own political interests, which further inflames the situation. European states, however, believe that they are now "more protected." For example, Slovakia, which has deployed NATO units and is about to send its old fighter jets to Ukraine. The country sent its weapons to Ukraine temporarily (but as you know, nothing is more permanent), deployed Patriot missile air defense systems, and received German Leopard tanks and Mantis air defense systems. The skies are now patrolled by Western militaries, the country receives revenues from their deployment, and plans to replace the weapons sent to Ukraine with Western ones. The main conclusion is that Slovakia, in fact, is using someone else's, which at any moment can be asked back or sent to the conflict zone. This is an old trick, which is frequently resorted to by large Western European and international associations to get rid of competitors: we will take you in, but our standards are high, your weapons/industry/products (insert the necessary) are not suitable. The ultimate beneficiary of the arms story is undoubtedly the United States. Between March and November of last year, they transferred almost $30 billion worth of arms to Kiev. How much the rearmament of Europe will cost is anyone's guess. But the rearmament will definitely not be carried out by Bulgarian factories, where something is constantly exploding. On March 3, the U.S. Department of Defense announced a new $400 million military aid package for Ukraine. Thus, all supplies to Kiev since the start of the conflict have cost the U.S. $32.2 billion, and have exceeded $34.9 billion since 2014. The U.S. Defense Department reports that the new aid package for Ukraine includes GMLRS precision-guided missiles for HIMARS missile systems, 155 mm, 105 mm, and 25 mm rounds for BMD M2 Bradley, AVLB (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge), demolition and engineering equipment, and various spare parts for machinery. However, the quantity is not specified, which does not allow us to fully assess the scale of what is being supplied. At the same time, America requires concrete supplies from its European allies, mostly heavy weapons. Its "squeezing" out of Europe has already become the talk of the town. And here we are not even talking about constant requests from the "man in green" in Kiev, but about German supplies of Leopards. They simply took them away from Scholz, telling the tale that supplies of Abrams will also start. One can understand the Chancellor: after all, he still wants to be re-elected - however, over the ocean it seems to be of little concern to anyone. However, there are also countries in Europe that are more than happy to part with arms. For example, Euractiv conducted its own investigation and found out that since the beginning of this year Bulgaria, despite the protests of both the president of the country and some members of parliament, has supplied weapons worth at least 1 billion dollars to Ukraine. Poland is also proud of its efforts to fuel the conflict. Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said that since the beginning of the conflict, Poland has sent Ukraine more than 2.2 billion euros worth of weapons, including the cost of training Ukrainian soldiers, as well as the cost of re-equipping and equipping armored vehicles. In an interview with the Spanish newspaper La Razon, he hinted that he would be happy to supply aircraft as well, but such a decision must be coordinated with the allies. Information has also recently appeared in the media about arms supplies from Serbia: allegedly, at least 3.5 thousand 122-mm M-21 rockets for the Grad MLRS are to be sent to Ukraine through Bratislava. However, this information was strongly denied by President Vucic. He said that the country had not sold a single weapon to the parties of the conflict. Also, he noted that in case of supplies to Turkey (where the weapons allegedly came to Slovakia from), one of the conditions of this supply was a ban on the re-export of ammunition. Western politicians already understand that their voters are tired of the aid to Ukraine, which hurts their pockets. For example, Poland's defense minister says so veiledly: "We should not feel tired or relieved of supporting Ukraine, this nation is also fighting for our freedom, for the freedom and values of Europe." Nevertheless, it is obvious that very profitable supplies will continue to increase, because it is more beneficial and easier than making some kind of political effort, admitting global mistakes and trying to negotiate terms acceptable to all parties.

Scholz whispered to Biden about his concerns

The German chancellor paid a visit to Washington for the first time since the start of the special military operation. The conversation at the White House, without witnesses, touched upon a sensitive and failing subject: what to do about Ukraine? It was a strange visit. The head of the Berlin cabinet arrived in the U.S. on March 3 without informing the Bundestag deputies in detail about the purpose and content of the upcoming talks. This is something new in his policy, because Germany is a parliamentary republic, and previously it was customary here to consult with the people's deputies. Scholz was not accompanied by a journalist pool (20-25 people), which used to be considered a common practice. The talks in the Oval Office were held face-to-face, without assistants, advisors, or note-takers. A press conference was not scheduled. The only thing done was a joint photo and, afterwards, short statements to the media. Four minutes for everything. "I would like to note that in addition to the military assistance, the moral support that you provided to the Ukrainians was also of great importance," the American leader stressed. Scholz: "It is important to send the message that we will continue to support (Ukraine) for as long as it takes and for as long as necessary." Also, on the eve of the voyage, the chancellor posted a message on Twitter in German and English: "Thank you for your leadership and friendship, Joe! It's good to be back here in Washington. Transatlantic coordination is indispensable and has never been stronger. We are steadfast in our support for Ukraine. Freedom and peace for Ukraine is our common goal." The tête-à-tête conversation was brief, too - only a little over an hour. Should Scholz have had to fly to a far country for such a short contact with the sovereign? According to German experts, it was worth it, because the main sponsors of Kiev discussed the tactics and strategy of their joint actions on the Ukrainian track, which is now in a deadlock. And there was a lot to whisper about. We can assume that Scholz was speaking out about a burning issue. For example, how should Berlin behave in the story of the undermining of Nord Stream, which the U.S. claims was carried out by Americans? Germany, as we know, released its Leopards only after Biden gave in to the chancellor's insistence and agreed to supply Ukraine with Abrams tanks. But where is this formidable machine? The States first promised that 31 vehicles (which is a drop in the ocean!) would be shipped at the end of this year. Then that it will most likely happen next spring. So what to expect? Biden with all his recent actions unambiguously demonstrates that now he sees not Berlin and Paris, but Warsaw as the main military and political ally in Europe. The Germans traditionally do not have the best relations with the Poles, so Scholz is worried and disappointed… And how should we understand the unfriendly actions of the United States, which has set out to lure German firms to its territory with tax breaks and energy incentives? Another pain point is the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. Germany and the EU are worried that it will severely damage European exports. Why would the U.S. "sink" its allies, whose economy has already "gone into a tailspin" due to the special military operation? It appears that the Ukrainian crisis has significantly exacerbated the contradictions between Berlin and Washington. Although in public the leaders of these countries demonstrate mutual understanding, unwavering determination, and a deep alliance. It should be understood that the negotiations were closely watched in Kiev. The general uneasy mood was expressed by the former ambassador - boor (the one who called the chancellor an "offended liverwurst") and now Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Melnik: "Of course, from the Ukrainian perspective, it is important that the United States and Germany - as our key allies - coordinate their military assistance as closely as possible. The fact that things are not going well in this process worries us." It is unclear what Scholz and Biden talked about and in what details. According to scant official information, the U.S. president emphasized that the United States was acting in unison with the FRG to provide critical military assistance to Ukraine. He confirmed that he was referring to the full range of arms supplies to Kyiv, from ammunition and artillery to tanks and air defense systems. Biden also joked that politicians had "solved all the world's problems." We will learn more about specific agreements, if they have been reached, of course. We would like to believe that a confidential conversation would at least put an end to the chaos that currently reigns in bilateral relations. Before Scholz's visit, for example, there were voices in the FRG about the advisability of transferring a number of German defense enterprises (in particular, manufacture of 155 mm NATO standard shells, which the AFU is desperately short of) to the US. But there is another trend: the German concern Rheinmetall began negotiations with Ukraine on the construction of a plant on its territory to produce modern tanks (up to 300 pieces per year!). This seems to be a bad situation. If the German shells will really be produced overseas, how much time and effort will it take to deliver this "consumable material" to the theater of combat operations? If German tanks will be made in Ukraine, how is it planned to protect the plant from missile attacks by the Russian Armed Forces? That's not good. Think, Scholz. "Old Joe" is not your best adviser here.

There is such a profession - selling democracy

On February 21, U.S. President Joe Biden spoke in Warsaw. All canons were observed: a beautiful stage, lighting, children... He started with democracy, then moved on to Ukraine: tough, but nothing new or concrete. This is, in fact, almost the signature style of American leader. Statements are made and work is carried out, but the result, in the best case, is not obvious. But more interesting here is the democracy that Biden has been talking about for almost 53 years (the Newcastle County Councilman began his political career in 1970). During his more than 30 years as a senator from the state of Delaware, considered the cradle of American democracy, the current president has learned both to masterfully avoid scandals related to his son and to abandon his political positions. And if one could still understand the situation with his son in a human way if Biden Sr, being a de-facto informal curator of the Ukrainian direction from the USA, did not promote Hunter into Ukrainian business, then the situation with political positions is quite unambiguous. The senator was unable to ignore the Iraqi disgrace. During the 2019 presidential campaign, in an interview with National Public Radio, he blamed everything on President Bush Jr. who supposedly looked into the senator's eyes in the Oval Office and said that he needed a vote on the deployment of troops, while Biden himself had nothing to do with it, he was always for diplomacy, and generally was against it. But in 2003, the current president said the following: "One thing is clear: these weapons must be taken away from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be removed from power." Considering this and a number of other similar examples from Biden's rich political biography, a reasonable question arises: where is the guarantee that 20 years later (let's wish the US president good health), using the same convoluted formulations, he will not comment on arms supplies to Kiev in the same manner? If in the case of Iraq the blame was put on George Bush, who the senator seemed to trust too much, then here everything can be blamed on his advisors, or on Vice President Kamala Harris, and maybe even use it as an argument against her in the election race. Today, politics in America is a long game, especially when you consider that a couple of years ago there were rumors about the return of such a mastodon as Dick Cheney. The information was not confirmed then, but as they say, it's not over yet. Let's leave jokes and futurology aside, and summarize. And it will be somewhat cynical, banal, and obvious. American politicians do not disdain to use democracy and loud informational occasions to achieve their (and not only) political goals. The lack of a planning horizon, unfortunately, is also obvious. Iraq ended ingloriously, Afghanistan is even worse, Libya is still in conflict, Syria was defended only through the efforts of Russia. But sometimes it seems that there's no need for victories in this game. Elections have been won, positions have been won, arms contracts have been signed, and history can be rewritten in interviews with journalists.  

The Kremlin’s indecisiveness in Ukraine is dooming the world to nuclear war

On the anniversary of the start of Russia's Special Military Operation in Ukraine, GEOFOR turned to Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, to find out how the United States assesses the future of the conflict. GEOFOR: Sir, how is the Russo-Ukraine conflict viewed from Washington? Paul Craig Roberts: The Kremlin’s demonstrated inability to take proactive and decisive action has convinced Washington there is nothing to fear from Putin and that Russia can be defeated in Ukraine.  Indeed, the UK media takes for granted that Ukraine will defeat Russia. Here is the latest headline: “The West Needs a Plan for when Ukraine wins.”  Biden’s recent trip was to shore up the Eastern flank of NATO in anticipation of renewed action against Russia. If the Biden regime favored a peaceful settlement, Biden would not have bothered to meet in Warsaw with the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Bulgaria.  There would be no need for Biden to go to Kiev to show American support for Zelensky.   I am often interviewed by Russian journalists – never by American ones whose task it is to protect the official narratives.  The Russian journalists are ever hopeful for signs that the US favors a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.  I was just interviewed about Biden’s trip.  Did he go to Kiev to work out a peace plan with Zelensky? How can anyone possibly think Washington favors a peace plan other than Russia’s withdrawal from Donbass and Crimea and payment of reparations to Ukraine? Washington would favor this plan because it would be likely to bring down Putin, which is Washington’s intent. GEOFOR: In your opinion, what are the Kremlin's choices? Paul Craig Roberts: Such a withdrawal from Donbass and Crimea is one of the Kremlin’s two choices. As such a withdrawal would likely mean the fall of the Putin government, the Kremlin only has one choice:  to use the force necessary to quickly bring the conflict to an end before it spirals out of control. It is astounding that after a year of experience the Kremlin has not figured out that by letting the war drag on and on the Kremlin has given Washington and NATO every opportunity to widen it further with provocation after provocation:  sanctions, financial aid, military aid, intelligence, training, targeting information, attack on Crimea bridge, blown up Nord Stream pipelines, tanks, long-range missiles, sooner or later jet fighters. Now Putin is faced with a possible Ukrainian attack on Transnistria where a few thousand Russian troops, with no reinforcements in sight, are standing guard over a stockpile of Soviet-era weapons and ammunition suitable for Ukrainian use.  Will the Russian forces be caught between Ukrainians on their east and Moldavians and Romanians on their West and suffer a defeat that further emboldens the West?  GEOFOR: How do you think the situation could develop? Paul Craig Roberts: If the Kremlin can’t find the intelligence to get this conflict over with quickly, the Kremlin will be backed into a corner where nuclear weapons are the only option.  Not only do some neoconservatives believe Washington can win a nuclear war, but also the West is getting bogus information that Russia’s nuclear weapons don’t work and that there is no danger in attacking Russia. See:   Even if Russia’s nukes do work, Russia won’t use them the Dutch prime minister says: LINK   This kind of disinformation becomes believable because Putin’s unwillingness to use sufficient force to quickly achieve his aims has created the impression that the Russian military is incapable and after one year has failed to prevail over a third world army.  What appears to some as Russian military incompetence and to others as Putin’s lack of resolution encourages more provocative actions by the West.  In the West the belief is that Russia’s defeat is only matter of providing the weapons to Ukraine.   It is an unreal feeling to experience Russian journalists looking for a peaceful settlement when Biden’s Undersecretary of State and many military officers are saying that Crimea is a legitimate target for Ukrainian missile attacks.  Several days ago Secretary of State Blinken said a Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea would be a “red line” for Putin and could result in more forceful Russian action, but that the decision is up to Kiev.  Of course, the decision is not up to Kiev.  Zelensky would not dare make such a decision unless Washington gave the go-ahead.  Blinken’s statement indicates that Washington has given the go ahead, which suggests that longer range missiles are on the way to Ukraine. To put it frankly, Putin, the Kremlin, and the Russian military are being discredited by Putin’s failure to commit sufficient resources to quickly win the conflict.  Indeed, in the eyes of the West the Russian military is being humiliated by Putin’s policy, and this must have bad effects on Russian military morale. Today, February 24, 2023, is the anniversary of Russia’s entry into Donbass, which was intended only to free Donbass of Ukraine military and neo-Nazi militias.  It was not an invasion of Ukraine.  But by under-committing military resources and imposing crippling rules of war, Putin guaranteed that Washington would use the generous time Putin provided to greatly widen the war.  Now Putin is faced with the likelihood of missile attacks on the Russian naval base in Crimea. Why is this unimaginable when Washington had no hesitancy in blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines?  What will be the next target for attack?  Moscow? When the expected Russian winter offensive did not materialize, those who reported a large buildup of Russian troops and weapons on Ukraine’s border said that Russians were a symbolic people and were delaying the attack for the anniversary date.  The date has arrived.  If the attack does not occur, the neoconservatives will become even more confident.  Provocations will worsen as they accelerate.  Putin will find Russia backed into a corner where nuclear weapons are his only option. Putin doesn’t realize it, but his inability to act decisively in Ukraine is dooming the world to nuclear war. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Paul Craig Roberts: Russian victory will become unacceptable to the West

The conflict in Ukraine is expanding, and in 2023 the West intends to supply Kiev with tanks, as well as long-range weapons. Increasingly, the issue of the possible dispatch of fighters pops up on the agenda. GEOFOR turned to Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, to find out what the world can expect from 2023. GEOFOR: Dear sir! The year 2022 turned out to be a serious test of the world's strength. 2023 begins with a new escalation of the conflict and the start of the supply of tanks to the Ukraine. And delivery of F-16 fighters is increasingly being discussed. Will Europe slide into a big military conflict? Paul Craig Roberts: The problem in the Ukraine conflict is not tanks and F-16s. The problem is the unwillingness of the Kremlin to use sufficient force to bring the conflict to a quick Russians victory before the West adds provocation upon proocation and widens the war into a general war between the West and Russia. It is the inability after one year of the Kremlin to act decisively that is turning the conflict into a world war. The longer the conflict continues, the more involved the West will become. At some point a Russian victory will become unacceptable to the West, and then a general war will unfold. The inability of the Kremlin to understand this is leading to nuclear war. GEOFOR: Europe has relied on Russia for its energy, but now it is increasingly dependent on the supply of energy resources from the United States. Has Washington planned this? What will such a policy of Brussels lead to? Paul Craig Roberts: It is not mainly money but control that is Washington's motivation. Washington's worry is that its hold on its European Empire would be weakened by Europe's dependency on Russian energy. GEOFOR: If we turn to the American issues. Biden is still the president, but the Republicans showed good results in the midterm elections. What can we expect in the new year from the confrontation of «donkeys» and «elephants», as there are only two years left before the presidential elections? Paul Craig Roberts: The Senate Democrats can block whatever the House Republicans do and vice versa. Should any Republican measure get through, Biden can veto it. The House will do a number of investigations of the Russiagate hoax, the January 6 insurrection hoax, etc., and show that these were politically-driven propaganda shows devoid of a shred of real evidence. The media will either not report the findings or accuse the Republicans of «misinformation».   Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, US economist and ex-Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, a member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger. Serge Duhanov is a journalist, specializing in international relations and national security issues. Не worked as the NOVOSTI Press Agency's own correspondent in Canada (Ottawa, 1990-1992) and the US Bureau Chief (Washington, 1996-2001) of the newspapers Business MN, Delovoy Mir and Interfax-AiF.

Is the end of the dollar near?

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text Saudi Arabia is opening a new front against the hegemony of the American currency, in the time when more and more countries are switching to national currencies in international settlements. Last December, at the summit of the leaders of the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf and China in Riyadh, the dollar was dealt a powerful blow when Chinese President Xi Jinping announced work "on the use of the yuan in oil and gas trade from the Gulf countries." And this means that Saudi Arabia is going to sell oil, and Qatar is going to sell gas to China for yuan instead of dollars. What is behind this and why did Saudi Arabia – the "creator" of the petrodollar and an ally of the United States – decide to take such a step? The Saudis have accumulated a lot of complaints against Washington: here is the US refusal to support Saudi Arabia's position on the civil war in Yemen, and attempts to conclude a deal with Iran on the nuclear program, and the panic flight of Americans from Afghanistan, which undermined faith in the power of the States. They have not forgotten the harsh pressure exerted on them by the White House, accusing journalist Jamal Khoshoggi of the murder. And at the same time, China was doing everything possible to establish ties with Saudi Arabia: it helped in the creation of ballistic missiles, advised on the nuclear program, invested in the city of the future Neom. Thus, these countries send an unambiguous signal to Washington, showing that in the modern world it is very easy to reorient to another ally. But they are the largest exporters of oil and petroleum products: Saudi Arabia alone produces about 7.5 million barrels per day. At the same time, the second economy of the world – the PRC – quite eloquently shows the States, with which it has a conflict of interests over Taiwan and a number of economic issues, that it is going to work to weaken the dollar and bring its national currency, the yuan, to the level of a transnational currency. In addition, it contributes to even greater integration of the economies of China and the Persian Gulf countries. China, the world's largest importer of oil and gas, is carefully but systematically displacing the United States from a region in which their positions have traditionally been strong. In addition, the rapprochement between Beijing and Riyadh is also facilitated by the fact that when the Saudi oil plants were shelled by the Houthis, supported by Iran, Washington refused to sell its drones to Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, China declared that it was ready to help with ensuring security in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The accumulated claims against the White House led to the fact that the Saudis, after the start of the special operation in Ukraine, did not support sanctions against Russia, and even doubled the import of Russian fuel oil in the second quarter of 2022, the price of which the Americans imposed restrictions. It's no secret that the American economy is losing confidence in the world faster and faster. Here are just a few figures that eloquently indicate the big problems facing America, and, therefore, the entire global economy: the US budget deficit is $ 1.3 trillion, the gigantic external debt is $31 trillion or 121 percent of GDP. In addition, after seeing that the United States is using its currency against Russia as a weapon, many countries have thought about the need to reset or at least weaken the dollar stranglehold. For years, the United States has been increasing its national debt by simply printing green papers. And all this was on the rise. Any fire in the economy, the White House was flooded with a flood of dollars: so, in order to save its banks from the financial crisis in 2008 and then cope with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, America did not hesitate to increase its public debt. It turned out to be a vicious circle: in order to at least partially repay the debt and interest on it, we had to print more and more dollars, which became more and more clearly reminiscent of a financial pyramid. The situation with the dollar increasingly worried the Chinese, who invested more than a trillion dollars in US Treasury bonds, and they began to rapidly increase their gold reserves, which, according to analysts, is now the largest in the world. But other countries, concerned about the situation with the growing US national debt, the precarious situation with the dollar and the international financial system tied to it, also began to increase their gold reserves. The world has come to the de-dollarization of the interstate trade system. In 2022, the share of dollars in world reserves accounted for 58.8 percent, despite the fact that in 1970 this figure was 80 percent. A strong blow to the dollar was inflicted by the Americans themselves, having entered into a tough conflict with Russia in connection with the situation in Ukraine. Numerous severe sanctions against the Russian economy led to the fact that our country began to replace dollars in its international trade, and the actual seizure of its assets by the United States and the European Union forced other countries to think about it: won't the same thing happen to them if they fall under the sanctions of the "free world"? There are reasons to ask this question from China, which, because of the US position on Taiwan, naturally thinks: won't the Americans do the same to it, isolating it from the dollar financial system and also forcing other countries in the orbit of US interests to reduce their assets in yuan? What will replace the dollar? Could yuan replace him? But so far, the yuan, even with China's powerful economy, accounts for only 3 percent in international trade, and it is not a fully convertible currency. A number of countries have started testing new cross-border payment systems. And, for example, Brazil and Argentina have generally stated that they are in the process of creating their own interstate currency. The EAEU countries are also working on a monetary unit of account for trade with Iran and other countries. And BRICS creates a pool of foreign exchange reserves. Moscow-Beijing-Delhi have converted their mutual settlements into national currencies. Moscow receives for its goods in yuan and rupees. And this was a new blow to the dollar. The world community has thought about the new reserve currency. It is clear that this will not happen in one day, but the movement towards this goal is inevitable, and in many ways the United States itself is pushing the world towards such a goal. It is possible that this will be a digital currency, which the central banks of different countries are working on issuing. The struggle of the two blocs, which include the United States and China, and their obvious competition for leadership may lead to the emergence of a multipolar financial system.

The US is trying to tear Venezuela away from Russia

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text It is known that oil is the blood of war. And this is not only fuel for military equipment – tanks, airplanes and other engines. In modern conditions, it is also a struggle for the exsanguination of the economy of the enemy country, which receives money from the sale of petroleum products, and this profit is necessary for its development. That is why the United States, which has de facto declared war on Russia, systematically, on all fronts, is fighting the sale of oil and petroleum products by our country. Their task is simple – to force the whole world to abandon the purchase of Russian oil and petroleum products and thereby bring down our budget. They openly say that the less money Russia receives from the sale, the less opportunities it will have to conduct a special military operation in Ukraine. This is why the introduction of a price ceiling on our oil, the ban on insurance of tankers that transport petroleum products, and other restrictive measures. And besides, the United States is trying to establish ties with Russia's Latin American allies Venezuela, which has been under American sanctions for a long time. Then the White House said that Venezuelan oil is banned, how can you buy oil from the dictatorial Maduro regime, which is also a friend of the Kremlin? But, as they say, all means are good in war. And the United States quickly "forgot" about its statements that it is impossible to buy a drop of oil from the "illegitimate regime". How did the Bolivarian Republic's rapprochement with the United States take place against the background of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine? First, Maduro announced a fruitful meeting with US representatives in his office, where the flags of both countries stood side by side. Then, after this meeting, he made a broad gesture, releasing two American citizens who were in custody in Venezuela. And already in November last year, the US Treasury issued Chevron a license for six months, allowing it to extract and process oil together with the Venezuelan company Petroleos de Venezuela (PdVSA). And on December 30, according to Reuters, Chevron sent the first tanker in four years of sanctions to Venezuela to pick up a batch of crude oil for the United States. Interestingly, American business was banned from working with the Venezuelan oil company PdVSA after Maduro's victory in the 2018 presidential election, which the White House did not recognize. And now Maduro is still the president, whom the Americans do not recognize, and the Venezuelan oil, it turns out, was recognized? Why has there suddenly been such a sharp turn in American politics? The answer is simple. This is one of the levers of pressure on Russia. What preceded the tanker's departure? The Venezuelan oil minister said in an interview that his government had signed an agreement with Chevron to continue oil production. And before that, the US Treasury lifted sanctions on the supply of oil from this country. At the same time, the White House, in a blue eye, says that the easing of sanctions against Venezuela should not affect world prices. And in general, Washington did this for the sake of "restoring democracy" in this country and "for the sake of the Venezuelans themselves." That's how, by saving the "poor Venezuelans", the United States gets their cheap oil. And not at all because, as the Americans say, energy prices have increased. Although they have increased precisely because the United States and its allies have set a ceiling on energy resources from Russia, practically unleashing an oil war against our country. What is shocking about US foreign policy is cynicism, which is invariably wrapped in a beautiful wrapper of democracy and concern for ordinary people. And this time, the White House hypocritically justifies the lifting of the embargo on Venezuelan oil: they say that the Maduro government went to negotiations with the opposition and get a cookie for it, Maduro. And in general, lifting the embargo on the Venezuelan oil industry is only for six months, and then we'll see how the current Caracas regime will behave. "This measure reflects the long–term policy of the United States – to mitigate sanctions point-by-point, depending on specific steps that ease the suffering of the Venezuelan people and support the restoration of democracy," the US Treasury Department said in a press release. That is, the garrote will just be slightly weakened. And, interestingly, the temporary lifting of the embargo will not allow Venezuela to earn money, but will only help the Venezuelan oil company DVSA to repay debts to foreign counterparties. In addition, Iran is now supplying heavy oil to Venezuela, and this also scares the United States – as a possibility of contracts between sub-station countries. Thus, the White House, as always, solves its tasks: to entice Venezuela with the hypothetical prospect of lifting the embargo on its oil, to weaken its ties with Iran, to be able to control the oil market by squeezing Russia out of it. Intending to impose an embargo on Russian fuel oil, which served as a substitute for heavy Venezuelan oil for American refineries, the White House wants to receive oil from the Bolivarian Republic again. Now, as they say, President Maduro has the floor. Will the President of the Bolivarian Republic remember that when the United States banned the purchase of oil in this country, hoping to change the Maduro regime, it was Russia that saved this country with loans, the ability to conduct oil production and political support? Will he remain loyal to his ally Russia? The time has not come to condemn your allies. Venezuela has been living in a blockade for a long time. And then there was an opportunity to at least temporarily revive the business, solve some pressing national problems. And there – the future will show what choice the country will make. Believe in deeds, not words. Words are carried away by the wind. There is a Spanish saying. We'll wait.

Tank attack on the red lines of Russia

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text On January 20, a meeting of the contact group on assistance to Ukraine will be held at the American base in Ramstein, where more than 40 countries will discuss military assistance to Kiev. The issue of further supply of modern weapons to Ukraine should be considered not only from a military point of view, but as a big political game led by the Americans. Here are just the facts. On January 5, 2023, France announced that it would transfer its lightly armored AMX-10R wheeled vehicles to Ukraine. After that, the Americans announced that they would hand over M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to the APU. Then there were reports – the United States is going to supply Ukraine with Stryker armored personnel carriers as well. The NATO members decided not to stop there. Germany announced that it will supply Kiev with 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles. Based on these data, it is not difficult to conclude that the NATO members, who first talked about limiting the supply of heavy equipment, decided to forget about their "restrictions". Just like the joke about Khoja Nasreddin: "I am the master of my word: I wanted to give, I wanted to take back." By the way, this is not the first time the West has deftly "forgotten" about the restrictions on the supply of military equipment, which it first announced. And if earlier they were afraid to provoke Russia, fearing to cross the red lines marked by our country, now they are constantly checking for strength. Gradually, the offensive strategy is being pushed through increasingly powerful supplies of modern weapons. After it was announced that the supply of lightly armored vehicles would increase, tanks were used. So, Poland announced that it would hand over to Kiev German Leopard 2 tanks, which it has in service. However, their number is insignificant. But after them, England also informed that it was ready to give its tanks to the APU. However, it is also a small amount. What is behind all these statements? A clear attempt to push Germany, the country that produces these powerful tanks, to transfer significant batches of its combat vehicles. The Minister of Defense of Ukraine generally stated that Kiev needs 300 Western tanks and 600 armored vehicles. There is a clear attempt to create, I will call it so, a "tank coalition". According to the principle: we will give a dozen tanks, you – a couple, other NATO allies will chip in and also give a certain number of armored vehicles – and it turns out that everyone will share collective responsibility. Just like in the mafia movies, when everyone is "tied up" with blood. What is it for? Everything is simple. Germany has the most Leopard tanks, but it behaves more cautiously, after all, the Germans are trying, unlike Poland and the Baltic states, to maintain special relations with Russia. And the supply of German tanks can finally destroy their hopes for maintaining normal relations with Russia. And the Germans themselves would like to avoid historical parallels – German tanks fighting with Russia. And the creation of a "tank coalition", when each NATO country gives tanks a little bit, should calm the Germans, convince them that responsibility is being eroded. But the large-scale appearance of German tanks on the battlefield changes the picture of what is happening. Secondly, the presence of such powerful equipment in the Armed Forces of Ukraine may give rise to the illusion among Ukrainians that it is time to launch an offensive and move to the Crimea. And this will be a direct clash between NATO and Russia. It is interesting to recall how the transfer of Western weapons to Kiev began in general. At first, he was given old Soviet equipment, which was collected all over Europe and not only. But it was all destroyed in the end. Then the Americans gave the Ukrainians portable Javelin anti-tank complexes, but at the same time they stated that the HIMARS MLRS would not enter service with the AFU, and nevertheless they were transferred. Then they promised that Patriot air defense systems would not be supplied either, and now Ukrainian soldiers are already being trained to use them. It is possible that, carefully observing the course of hostilities, having persuaded the Germans to supply Leopard 2, the Americans themselves will supply their M1 Abrams tanks. It is obvious that under the talk of the Americans and NATO members that "we are transferring weapons to Ukraine only for protection," it is also being pumped with offensive weapons. Why did the West, which at first so carefully, with reservations, supplied old military equipment from the former USSR, now began to supply more and more provocative types of modern weapons to Ukraine? There are, in my opinion, two reasons. First, the Americans saw that the armed forces of Ukraine can stubbornly resist, and second, they are afraid of a powerful Russian offensive. And if the armed forces of Ukraine break out, then the opposition in the NATO member countries will ask a simple question: why did we pour billions into military aid? We have been hearing Washington's statements all the time that it will not supply weapons with which to strike long-range targets on Russian territory, that American and NATO troops will not directly participate in the military conflict in Ukraine. But we have already seen: the price of such statements is zero. Pumping Ukraine with more and more modern weapons continues. And deliveries of fighter jets and longer-range missiles that can strike the Crimea and deep into the territory of Russia are not excluded at all. Therefore, the meeting in Ramstein on January 20 will show how far the West is ready to go in the confrontation with Russia. What other new types of modern weapons are ready to supply. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the decision will not be made by NATO members, but by the United States itself. The American elites benefit from the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine: their military-industrial complex receives fantastic profits on military orders, and assistance to Ukraine has become an important element of domestic policy, which is used to their advantage by different parties. But such provocative actions by the United States and its allies lead to the fact that Moscow's patience is coming to the finish line, the red lines outlined by Putin are getting thinner. And the West's verification of Russia "weakly" can lead to a serious conflict that will rapidly escalate into a Third World War. But it seems that after looking at the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the West decided that it doesn't care, it still needs to throw modern weapons to Ukraine – and Russia will be defeated. But it would be nice for the collective West, and first of all, the Germans, to remember the lessons of history. In 1941, it also seemed to many that the USSR would be easily defeated, and the Germans were preparing for a parade on Red Square. And it ended with the red Banner of Victory over the Reichstag.

The American Dream: defeat Russia without going to war

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text How Americans are going to fight with Russia is clearly seen from a recent report by the RAND Corporation, an analytical center serving the US military. Under the talk about the need for peace, because even during Zelensky's last visit to the United States, as reported by the American media, President Biden asked him if Ukraine was ready for negotiations, RANDOM presented his vision of a war with Russia. Interesting: these strategists do not admit that it will be on the territory of the United States itself and do not fear that Russia will strike at America itself. And at the same time they are going to "punish" our country. Obviously, in this case, on the surface is the idea of provoking us constantly, but not bringing us to a full–scale war with NATO using Russian nuclear deterrence forces. A priori, there is an installation in their military doctrine that our country is starting an escalation. And the US and NATO are simply defending themselves from the "Russian bear". A scenario is being considered in which Russia is the first to launch a non-nuclear strike on NATO and US military facilities on the territory of European countries. Although why our country is immediately listed as a potential aggressor is unclear. Or rather, it is actually clear: to prepare Europe for a new war. There are three parts to the script. In the first – Russia's strike against the US allies in NATO, in the second – America's own reaction, and in the third – Russia's response to this. And here the authors of the report are concerned that America should respond to Russia in such a way as not to push Russia to harsh retaliatory measures. That is, it is necessary to severely punish the potential offender – Russia –, but so that it does not respond with all its might. An interesting task. Next, several scenarios of war are considered. The first is that Russia strikes military targets on the territory of a NATO ally, for example, airfields or military warehouses, from where supplies to Ukraine come. It is obvious that America's allies will demand a retaliatory strike on the territory of Russia, and this will lead to an even greater scale of military operations. Therefore, RANDOM believes that Americans should limit themselves to economic and political pressure in this case. But analysts understand that this will cause dissatisfaction with NATO countries, which may begin to doubt the ability of the United States to protect them. And a limited missile strike against Russia is being considered as a response. That is, there is a dangerous misconception in the minds of American strategists that if they strike Russia with limited missiles, we will be silent and this will not lead to a full-scale war. Although if they had carefully studied Russia's nuclear doctrine, they would not have been so optimistic, because it clearly states that in the event of a military conflict, Russia's policy in the field of nuclear deterrence will be aimed at ending the war on acceptable terms for our country. And it is unlikely that missile strikes on our territory can be considered acceptable conditions. The second option considered in the report: Russia destroys an American space satellite, and the US retaliatory strike at the place from where Russia struck leads to human casualties in our country. Will this cause a powerful escalation of the conflict? Undoubtedly. And this makes it possible for the United States to act more actively. But even here, they believe, a whole range of measures can be used: economic sanctions, international condemnation. Although what other sanctions can be applied when the entire arsenal of restrictions has already been used since February? Among the scenarios considered in the report, there is also a Russian strike on air bases in Romania and Poland, from where weapons are being supplied to Ukraine, which caused human casualties. In this case, military strikes on the territory of Russia are envisaged, and with reservations. American strategists believe that it is necessary to explain to Moscow that this is not the beginning of a full–scale war against it by the Americans and NATO. Proof? In order for Moscow to believe, "the United States should avoid targeting command and control nodes, bomber bases or early warning radars." The feeling that the authors of the report are trying to mislead us: and then what targets are they going to strike at? Cowsheds and greenhouses? It is obvious that missile strikes will be carried out on military facilities and important infrastructure. And, undoubtedly, with human victims. So who are they trying to deceive? Yourself? Us? Finally, the last option. A large-scale Russian attack on American military bases in Europe with casualties among the military and civilians. The retaliatory step then, according to experts from RANDOM, will be a blow to the new territories of Russia. Using casuistry, they consider them the territory of Ukraine. But it is unlikely that Russia will let it go. The leadership of our country has repeatedly stated: The new territories are Russia forever and we will regard a blow to them as an attack on Russia. All the ideas of American strategists discussed in the report are aimed at a deliberately unsolvable task, namely: how to find a reason to strike at Russia, but at the same time she did not consider it the beginning of a war and would not use her nuclear weapons? But there are no miracles.

Biden talked about peace in Ukraine

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text And I had dinner with Macron with lobsters worth half a million dollars. It feels like the American president lives in some kind of looking glass. For example, the other day Biden made a statement that he was ready to negotiate with Putin about the completion of a special operation in Ukraine. It seems to be good news: finally, instead of pumping Ukraine with weapons and fighting to the last drop of Ukrainian blood, America came to its senses and began to understand Russia's position. But it wasn't there. Biden seems to be sending a signal: we Americans are for world peace and democracy. Only this dove of the world does not have an olive branch in its beak at all, but another SAM. At the same joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Biden said that he did not rule out negotiations with Vladimir Putin if he showed interest in ending the conflict peacefully. Wait a minute! So Russia has been trying to resolve the situation peacefully since 2014. How many times have Ukraine and its patrons disrupted the Minsk agreements without "showing interest in ending the conflict." And how can the conflict be ended peacefully if Ukraine has adopted a law at the legislative level that peace negotiations with Russia are impossible? So Biden's words that he should see Russia's desire to complete its own and then peace will come are just a bluff. Since the US president says that he does not plan contacts with President Putin in the near future. Negotiations with Moscow will take place only in consultation with NATO, he said, and not on an independent basis. Although it is quite obvious that America is the backstabber, and NATO will do what the States order it to do. Then what kind of peace talks can we talk about? In general, the statements of the national leader of America cannot be perceived and even more so analyzed because of their absurdity. What is this statement worth: Biden is ready to conduct peace talks with Putin, but he is not going to meet. Excuse me, how is that? On-line has not yet risen to such heights, so rather it is explained not by Biden's advancement, but by the empty-mouthed speaker. The statement of the American leader Joseph Biden about his readiness to talk with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin does not mean that the US position on the Ukrainian issue has changed, the "Biden translator" — the coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council John Kirby joined the process. Biden announced that he has no plans to talk to Putin right now, and clarified that the Russian president does not show interest in dialogue, explained the words of the head of the White House Kirby. The American leader did not mean that now is the time for negotiations on a settlement in Ukraine, he added. The United States believes that the decision on the possibility of negotiations should be made in Kiev, Kirby said. And what kind of desire for peace on the part of the United States can we talk about if the Pentagon, according to the Washington Post, is now considering expanding the training program of the armed forces of Ukraine. According to this plan, the United States is going to train thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in Germany, where the Americans have been training AFU officers for the war with Russia for years. But the "peaceful aspirations" of the United States, of course, do not end with one enhanced training of Ukrainian soldiers. At the same time, Ukraine is being actively pumped with modern weapons, which are being collected all over the world. Now the Americans and other NATO members are persuading some countries in the Middle East to transfer NASAMS surface-to-air missile systems to Ukraine, as Greg Hayes, the head of Raytheon, which produces these SAMS, said in an interview with Politico. Why did the intention to transfer these SAMs from the Middle East over the ocean in the next six months? The minimum period required for the production of these complexes for Ukraine is up to two years. And the United States needs to escalate the conflict nonstop all the time. The more words about the desire to end the conflict in Ukraine, the more weapons America supplies there. The current American administration does not spare money for this. At the same time, the Biden administration is in a hurry to pass through Congress, where Democrats are still in the majority, a draft budget for next year, which also includes a request for additional assistance to Ukraine for $ 38 billion. They are in a hurry, because in the new Congress, the majority in the House of Representatives will go to the Republicans. Taking into account this amount, the amount of financial assistance to Ukraine from the United States will reach about $ 100 billion. However, it is not necessary to count on the fact that the Republicans will resist pumping money for military assistance to Ukraine. And this means that thousands more people in Ukraine will die from American aid. By the way, after that wonderful meeting with Macron, where Biden said that he seemed ready for peace talks and at the same time was not ready, a gala dinner of the two presidents took place, 200 lobsters from Maine were served at it. This dinner cost the American taxpayers half a million dollars. So what? A pittance compared to the $100 billion in financial aid to Ukraine that the Americans are going to spend.