World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
As the Biden administration winds down, it is determined to do as much damage as possible in its final days. During the first half of January, Biden approved $8 billion in aid for Israel and sent $500 million more for Zelensky. Yet, domestic issues appear to be of a lower priority: as devastating apocalyptic fires destroy communities and lives in California, Biden jokingly says to VP Harris during a press briefing on the California fires: “Fire away...no pun intended!”.
As if escalating wars weren’t enough, the outgoing administration decided to throw good money after bad and impose yet another round of sanctions on the Russian Federation. The economic damage caused to the European Union by the previous thousands of restrictions remains largely ignored as the United States doubles down on the policies that have already proven to be unsuccessful.
Economic and financial sanctions are a form of warfare that has become a staple in U.S. foreign policy. Sanctions are coercive measures designed to force an actor into doing what it would not otherwise do since the sender pursues its own interest at the expense of other parties. It has become clear that more than 20,000 sanctions already imposed on Russia failed to accomplish their intended objectives of weakening Russia’s economy and alienating it from the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the U.S. leaders continue to pursue policies that have proven to be a failure.
On January 10, 2025, the Biden administration imposed extremely tough sanctions on Russia, targeting its crude oil and gas industries. The latest move includes sanctions on two Russian oil giants, Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas, as well as more than 180 shadow fleet tankers, natural gas producers, energy traders, and oil field service providers.
“Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury took sweeping action to fulfill the G7 commitment to reduce Russian revenues from energy, including blocking two major Russian oil producers. The United States is imposing sanctions today on more than 200 entities and individuals involved in Russia’s energy sector and identifying more than 180 vessels as blocked property. This wide-ranging, robust action will further constrain revenues from Russia’ energy resources and degrades Putin’s ability to fund his illegal war against Ukraine.
Of these targets, the Department of State is sanctioning nearly 80 entities and individuals, including those engaged in the active production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia. Others include those attempting to expand Russia’s oil production capacity; those providing support to the U.S.-sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project; those involved in Russia’s metals and mining sector; and senior officials of State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom.”
The European Union, without access to alternative, cost-effective energy resources, is being defacto sanctioned by the United States. On the other hand, Russia has been reorienting its economy to continue shifting towards the Global South and any negative impact will likely be minimized in the long term.
China, the biggest global importer of crude oil, has become Russia’s top exporter, and it is likely to benefit from the newly presented opportunities to negotiate advantageous deals. Although trade restrictions may result in short-term losses, the long-term implications are unlikely to be significant as Russia continues to develop closer trade and investment ties with China and other partners.
Russia-China energy trade is expected to increase as the two countries build new oil and gas pipelines, including the proposed China-Russia Crude Oil Pipeline and the already operating Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Soon, Western sanctions will become obsolete as the world accelerates its transition to multipolarity.
The new sanctions will continue to harm Europeans. The IMF has downgraded the growth outlook for the euro area. The eurozone is now projected to grow by just 0.8% in 2024, a 0.1% decrease compared to July's outlook. Meanwhile, the IMF expects the economy of Russia to expand by 3.6% in 2024 and 1.3% in 2025.
Hungary's Foreign Minister, Peter Szijjártó, recorded a video in which he openly says that the sanctions imposed by the United States will, first and foremost, make life more difficult for people in Europe and further undermine the EU's economic performance.
As economic warfare continues, sanctioned countries accelerate the development of alternative economic systems and new partnerships, while its main ally’s actions exacerbate Europe’s economic decline.
Watch the full video on YouTube:
Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The BRICS+ economic alliance continues to expand. The new year began with Indonesia formally joining the bloc as its tenth full member despite the alliance announcing in October 2024 that all new memberships would be paused.
BRICS includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia. Saudi Arabia has not officially moved forward with its membership. The extended economic alliance makes up half the world population and 41.4 percent of global GDP (PPP).
Indonesia spent over a decade pursuing accession to the bloc. It expressed interest in joining as early as 2010, the same year South Africa became a member of the organization. According to the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, Indonesia's candidacy was initially endorsed by BRICS leaders in August 2023 but the country’s leadership chose to postpone its formal accession to the bloc until the formation of its newly-elected government. President Prabowo Subianto took office in October 2024 and the country’s representatives confirmed its readiness to join during the summit in Kazan, Russia.
President of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto
On Tuesday, January 7th, Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it views the BRICS+ membership as:
“a strategic step to improve the collaborations and cooperation with other developing nations, based on the principle of equality, mutual respect, and sustainable development. This achievement shows Indonesia’s increasingly active role in global issues and commitment to strengthening multilateral cooperation to create a global structure that is more inclusive and fair.”
Indonesia’s membership marks an important development for the Global South as it signals the bloc’s prospective further expansion into Southeast Asia (will Malaysia be next?) as well as its strengthening role among the global majority despite President-elect Donald Trump’s threats to impose 100 percent tariffs on any country that chooses to transact in a currency other than the United States dollar.
Besides being the world's fourth-most populous nation, it is home to the largest population and economy in Southeast Asia. Indonesia ranks 16th in GDP globally and boasts of having well-established commercial ties with the founding members of the bloc, primarily China. China is Indonesia's largest trading partner.
Besides the obvious benefits associated with the expansion of cross-border trade and investments, Indonesia’s membership brings a new twist to the geopolitical tensions in Southeast Asia as the United States increasingly views the region as its national interest.
In mid-2024, the Council on Foreign Relations wrote a revealing articleexplaining that the United States is interested in the Indo-Pacific region, using its terminology, because it views it as its national security interests:
For some, with war raging in Europe, NATO’s only concerns should be supporting Ukraine and deterring Russia from attacking alliance members. Others, however, believe that NATO has a role to play in bolstering deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and preventing Chinese adventurism in the region. The path the alliance chooses in the coming years could have significant geopolitical consequences.
From the perspective of Jakarta, what remains to be seen is if it can still maintain its friendship with the West while facilitating stronger ties with the global majority. This year is promising to be quite eventful as more than 30 countries have formally submitted applications to become full members. Among them are Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia. Although Turkiye’s and Azerbaijani memberships are likely not in the cards this year, it appears that Malaysia would be a logical next step towards the BRICS expansion in the region and beyond.
Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The war for energy resources is intensifying as Ukraine has refused to extend the bilateral 5-year natural gas transit agreement with the Russian Federation. On January 1st, 2025, a major contract governing the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine will end with quite serious implications for Ukraine as well as for the European Union - particularly for Hungary and Slovakia, and partially for Austria.
During the past five years, while the transit contract was in effect, Ukraine received substantial revenues for energy transport and storage services. In 2022, Ukraine collected $1.2 billion and received close to $800 million the following year.
Ukraine’s gas pipeline system connects Russia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova. After gas flows via Ukraine into Poland and Romania stopped, Slovakia remains the main entry point into the European Union. Along with Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, and Moldova have been the main gas flow recipients via Ukraine.
Moldova and Transnistria are severely impacted by Zelensky’s refusal to extend gas transit during the winter months. The authorities of Moldova and Transnistria even introduced a state of emergency last week. According to Moldova’s pro-EU President Maia Sandu, negotiations with Zelensky on continuing gas supplies for the country's needs have not yielded any results.
While Hungary could obtain gas via Turkstream, the Horgos entry point would need to operate continuously at a maximum capacity. If Italy could direct enough flows to Austria, Hungary could get additional gas through reverse flows from Austria. Slovakia would have fewer alternatives as it would find itself further down the gas flow chain. Additional supplies would depend on whether Austria, Czechia, and Hungary have enough gas to satisfy their demands.
The decision not to extend the contract is clearly against the best interest of Ukraine. At the same time, it serves the United States and its ambitions to sell more of its energy resources to the EU, therefore making Europeans even more dependent and ultimately subservient to its interests. Ukraine stands to lose fees equivalent to about 0.5 percent of its GDP from ending the transit contract and - perhaps even more importantly - the decision of Zelensky’s government undermines Ukraine’s strategic role as an energy partner for Europe.
For the United States, Zelensky’s move is a strategic win as it further supports the initiative to ensure that gas is bought exclusively from the United States. It is becoming crystal clear that the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which Biden promised would be made inoperable, and later on, it mysteriously exploded, was just a piece to the puzzle.
The biggest loser here is Ukraine as it easily gives up not only guaranteed transit and storage revenue as its economy keeps its head above the water thanks to Western loans and credit facilities but also loses a considerable amount of leverage with international players. Typically, countries seek to secure transit agreements; for example, take Türkiye when it comes to Qatari gas exports into the EU. Ukraine’s regime, however, serves external interests instead of the interests of its population.
In response to Zelensky stopping the supply of natural gas to Slovakia, the country’s Prime Minister Robert Fico said that Slovakia would readily cut its electricity supply to Ukraine:
"After Jan. 1, we will consider the situation and the possibility of reciprocal measures against Ukraine.If it is unavoidable, we will stop the supply of electricity, which Ukraine urgently needs in the event of grid failures," he said.
Zelensky, in yet another juvenile rant on X, blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for the fact that Slovakia, a sovereign European nation, considers reciprocating in kind and limiting electricity flows to Ukraine in an attempt to force Zelensky’s government to extend gas transport.
Even though the population of Ukraine will now face much higher energy costs as Ukraine is set to start purchasing LNG from the United States, Zelensky appears to have played an important role in helping the U.S. secure its control over gas sales to Europe. Not surprisingly, Ukraine just purchased its first 100 million cubic meters of LNG directly from the United States via Greece.
Watch the full video:
Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In recent weeks, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump made several comments indicating that he is ready to take the economic war not only on the Global South but also on his allies in the European Union, to a new level.
In late November, Donald Trump threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on the BRICS+ bloc if it dares to continue its efforts to support currency multipolarity. In reality, however, such rhetoric only proves that the BRICS+ is, indeed, moving in the right direction as it seeks to create a more just financial and economic system.
The following month, in December, Trump issued a warning to the European Union demanding the elimination of the negative trade balance with Europe through massive purchases of American oil and gas. Otherwise, he threatened to impose tariffs on European exports to the U.S. Additionally, Trump's team demanded that the Europeans increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. While through their actions, many European leaders indicate that sovereignty is not one of their top priorities, one has to wonder just how far they are willing to go to support the interests of a foreign nation.
Trump’s policies towards the European Union and the war in Ukraine remain unclear. During the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to “end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours”. Now, the President-elect is sending quite contradictory signals: he hints at continuing support for Ukraine while also not ruling out forcing Volodimir Zelensky to negotiate and forget about the territories under the control of the Russian Federation. Trump’s attitude towards Zelensky has been quite clear. For example, when asked whether he invited Zelensky, whose presidential term ended in May 2024, to his inauguration in January, Trump’s response was surprising yet quite telling:
There are many unknowns concerning Trump’s stance on the E.U. For instance, Elon Musk publicly supported Germany's AfD, a party that is against any aid to Kyiv.
Other members of the elected president's team have also voiced similar views. Without a doubt, there is a struggle within Trump’s circle over approaches to Ukraine. Therefore, statements from different factions within this team should not be taken as a final position.
Trump’s stance on adjusting relations between the U.S. and the E.U. will drive how much support is provided to Zelensky to continue refusing to negotiate with Russia. Trump appears unlikely to continue sending billions to Ukraine and the European Union is not in a position to foot the bill on its own.
The President-elect argues that the U.S. is not obliged to bear the lion's share of NATO’s defense costs and that NATO allies should carry a much larger portion of the expenses to relieve the burden on Americans. While it would be reasonable to assume that many Americans support this initiative, let us be honest - NATO cannot exist without the support from the United States. With a considerable political crisis in Europe, there are many unknowns: Germany is heading to early elections, and in France, the government has been dismissed. The situation in the U.K. is also tense concerning the budget.
At the same time, demanding that the EU countries shoulder 5 percent of their GDP on defense spending is an ambitious request. The U.S. spends less than 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense. Russia, a country engaged in a full-scale war against the collective West, allocated 6 percent of its GDP for military purposes this year and is set to increase it to 6.3 percent in 2025. Therefore, 5 percent is essentially the defense budget of a wartime country. The question then becomes - is NATO preparing for a full-scale war soon, say, within the next five years, if it agrees to hike its defense spending to 5 percent?
…continued in the recent video:
Thank you for reading! Please consider subscribing to support my work:
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
As the trade war intensifies, economic interests are increasingly subservient to political ambitions.
Several days after President-elect Donald Trump vowed to impose 100 percent tariffs on the BRICS+ bloc if the Global South dares to ditch the United States dollar in cross-border trade and foreign direct investments, the Biden Administration escalated trade tensions by announcing a new round of export restrictions on as many as 140 Chinese companies that manufacture advanced memory chips and other critical chipmaking components.
Under the new Biden restrictions, Chinese companies face new restrictions, including nearly two dozen semiconductor companies, two investment companies, and over 100 chipmaking tool makers.
In response to the escalation of trade tensions by the United States, on December 3, 2024, the Chinese Commerce Ministry announced that exporting duel-use critical minerals represents a national security concern. Therefore, effective immediately, China banned exports of gallium, germanium, antimony, and other key high-tech materials to the United States.
Germanium’s uses include fiber optics, night-vision goggles, and space exploration. Most satellites are powered with germanium-based solar cells.
China’s reciprocal move represents a considerable challenge for the United States and its ability to secure a continued flow of cost-effective resources for domestic production of chips, EVs, and advanced technological devices for U.S. military applications. For decades, the U.S. has been importing germanium and gallium for use in its strategic industries. Any supply disruptions could have a significant impact as the country does not have alternative routes to secure the same volumes of resources or the facilities to extract and process them domestically.
According to the European Union study, China is the top source of more than 30 critical minerals, including germanium and gallium, globally. Exports from China account for 94 percent of gallium supply and 83 percent of germanium.
China has been the top supplier of antimony to the United States for over a decade. The volumes exported from other states, such as Belgium and Bolivia, are negligible compared to total imports from China.
Antimony is used for a variety of civilian purposes as well as for key military processes and applications, including fuel, munitions, and the production of explosives. Additionally, antimony is essential for manufacturing semiconductors.
The newly implemented export control helps China re-establish its dominance in the rare earth minerals and commodities market as well as counter Western economic sanctions and trade barriers. On the other hand, the United States is increasingly desperate as its domestic manufacturing has been on its deathbed for years and its revival is a distant and unrealistic under the current circumstances, idea.
I discuss further details on the latest escalations in trade tensions between the United States and China in my latest video:
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From whitewashing Nazis in Ukraine to praising jihadists of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as “freedom fighters” and “Syrian rebels”, Western leaders have abandoned common sense and moral standing.
Syria, the backbone of the Resistance Axis, has effectively become a testing ground of Western brutality towards millions of Syrian civilians who have become victims of continued inhumane economic restrictions and Western-sponsored extreme violence via proxy terrorist organizations. For well over a decade, the world has remained silent and, for the most part, indifferent to the suffering of the Syrian population as the result of financial and economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union. While these restrictions, including the extraordinarily brutal Caesar Act, failed to result in regime change in Syria (the U.S.’ ultimate goal) they continue to kill thousands of innocent civilians as the result of continued deprivation of vital necessities such as life-saving medications and food.
As a ceasefire took effect in Lebanon, jihadists backed by the U.S. and Turkiye launched an offensive on the city of Aleppo to disrupt the supply lines of the Axis of Resistance as well as pursue the decade-long goal of toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham in the city of Aleppo on November 29, 2024
The following day, President Bashar al-Assad traveled to Moscow for a working meeting with President Vladimir Putin with whom he discussed Russia’s support for Syria in its fight against terrorist organizations. For the first time since 2016, Russian warplanes are now bombing terrorists in the city of Aleppo.
The so-called “rebels” or “opposition forces” (as Western media conveniently refers to them) are, in fact, an offshoot of al-Qaeda and are associated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Salafi-jihadist terrorist organization, led by Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, an affiliate of the founder of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Abu Mohammad al-Jolani is the founder of Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of HTS
HTS established a stronghold in northwestern Syria, with Idlib as its center.
Since 2011, the United States has been pursuing regime change in Syria via all means available, including hybrid warfare. Jake Sullivan infamously wrote in an email to Hillary Clinton in 2012: "Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria."
After implementing extraordinarily brutal and outright inhumane economic sanctions on Syria, Western allies have been continuously fueling the violence by funding and training terrorist organizations to destabilize Syria and other non-aligned regional actors.
In 2019, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad explained in an interview:
"When they [ the U.S.] sent their army into Iraq, they paid the price. It's much easier to send a proxy. Al Qaeda is a proxy. There is a war between the United States and the rest of the world. Syria is a microcosm of World War 3."
Col. Richard Black, Former Virginia State Senator,shared an excellent overview of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and its involvement in Syria since 2011:
The Syrian war began in 2011 when the United States landed Central Intelligence operatives to begin coordinating with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups;
We have been unwavering supporters of Al-Qaeda since before the war formally began;
We are supporters of Al-Qaeda today where they’re bottled up in Idlib Province;
The CIA supplied them under secret operation Timber Sycamore, providing the jihadists with anti-tank weapons and all of their anti-air missiles;
We facilitated the movement of Islamic terrorists from one hundred countries and they came and they joined ISIS, they joined Al-Qaeda, they joined the Free Syrian Army, all of these different ones;
When we fight these wars we have no limits on the cruelty and the inhumanity that we’re prepared to impose on the people, making them suffer, so that somehow that will translate into overthrowing the government and, perhaps, taking their oil, taking their resources;
The Caesar sanctions were the most brutal sanctions ever imposed on ever any nation; during the Second World War sanctions were not nearly as strict as they were on Syria
The involvement of the United States in Syria began in 2011 when Congress approved extreme economic sanctions to destabilize Syria and subsequently topple Bashar al-Assad. Regime change was, in fact, the ultimate goal. The civilian toll could not have been unknown, but was likely dismissed as unimportant. The brutality of sanctions imposed on Syria over the past decade has been unprecedented; yet, Western media and policymakers continue to ignore the human toll of their failed policies.
Refugee crisis in Syria has escalated as fighting intensifies
To gain a better understanding of the current state of affairs in Syria and the role played by the United States, it is equally important to understand the proxy military aspect of opening a new front in Syria, as well as the economic tools used against the Syrian population.
President Trump Signs the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, 2019
Economic Sanctions: Overview
Economic sanctions are coercive instruments that intend to change the behavior of a foreign actor by increasing the cost of non-compliance with the sender’s demands. Sanctions have become a form of economic warfare and are routinely used by the United States and the European Union against more than two dozen sovereign countries that are not politically aligned with the senders, including but not limited to China, Cuba, Belarus, Russia, Iran, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, and Libya [1].
The status of the United States dollar as a global reserve currency enables the United States to use economic forms of coercion. Sanctions are designed to impose financial and economic hardship, and their actual effects depend upon the targeted entity’s ability to find alternatives as well as the sender’s capacity to increase their severity to cause more damage. Examples of economic and financial sanctions include restrictions on imports/ exports, withholding of economic aid or debt relief, prohibition of investments in key economic sectors, asset seizure or freeze, and restrictions on access to financial assistance, such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank funding. In Syria, the U.S. has used all measures mentioned above.
As the result of Western economic sanctions and military conflict, more than 12 million people are displaced in Syria
Despite the intended political goals to influence key decision-makers, economic sanctions have profound and indiscriminate effects on the most vulnerable groups of civilians, primarily women and children. The Syrian refugee crisis has affected millions of displaced individuals who are in need of humanitarian assistance.
Do Sanctions Work?
Many academics share the view that economic sanctions are ineffective, immoral and fail to deliver desired results while causing substantial and unjustifiable damage, such as increased civilian suffering, hardship, and even deaths [2]. According to Dr. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, economic sanctions fail to achieve expected objectives especially if the goal is to coerce a foreign actor into changing a policy it deems vital [3].
Overview of Economic Sanctions Imposed by the United States on Syria
The United States maintained limited sanctions against Syria since 1979 due to allegations of supporting terrorism. Since 2011, the United States has been arming paramilitary groups to support anti-Assad terrorists. Additionally, it imposed a wide range of economic sanctions on state officials, commercial business activities, trade and investment transactions, and even third-party entities to degrade the Syrian economy and forcing regime change [2].
U.S. Congress voted in favor of the most severe sanctions following President Obama’s announcement that “Assad must go”[4]. In the early 2000s, the United States imposed primary and secondary sanctions on Syria, subsequently followed by a second wave of sanctions beginning in 2011 to the present.
Aleppo, Syria
In 2019, the United States Congress under the Trump Administration passed the extraordinarily brutal “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act”. The Caesar Act imposed unprecedented economic and financial restrictions on Syria and prohibited other foreign countries from conducting business with the sanctioned country’s government or any entity that may be affiliated to it [5]. The Caesar sanctions seek to address Iran and Russia, the two major allies of the Syrian government. The impact of the brutal Caesar Act on the Syrian population was quite obvious as it increased restrictions on trade, investments and even humanitarian support. Civilians could not access vital resources and many have been left to die due to lack of medical treatment.
The sanctions target Syria’s oil sector as well as its electricity and construction, rendering any attempts to reconstruct the destroyed infrastructure impossible and causing extreme hardship to the civilian population. The European Union moved to mirror restrictive economic policies on Syria, delivering a greater impact on its civilian population who became deprived of the most basic necessities - such as vital medications and health care items, food, clothing - as the result of such brutal limitations.
A wide range of sanctions imposed on Syria include a freeze of Syrian sovereign assets held in foreign banks, prohibition on imports of Syrian oil, and restrictions on trade and imports into Syria of a wide range of goods including basic medical necessities for civilian use. Items not designated as “dual use” ie for civilian and military use, are specifically targeted. Even international humanitarian aid organizations are prevented from assisting.
As a result, Syria lost 75 percent of its GDP between 2010 and 2016 which had a direct and devastating impact on the surge in poverty, vast unemployment, starvation, lack of access to healthcare or medical supplies among its civilian population, and the resurgence of radical jihadist factions that continue to destabilize the country and control parts of its territory to this day [7].
Furthermore, the economic sanctions prevent the Syrian government from accessing the nation’s oil fields that are occupied by the U.S. troops. As seen in a now-notorious report, included below, Syria’s oil fields are “guarded” by the U.S. military.
U.S. Economic Policy Outcomes
Nearly a decade after President Obama approved the first round of sanctions in 2011, they failed to achieve their political aim to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad. In fact, his regional position has improved following Syria’s re-admission into the Arab League in 2023, which served as an indication of the regional leaders’ pursuit of rapprochement and normalization of ties in spite of the war-torn country’s relations with the United States and the European Union.
Despite the failure to initiate regime change in Syria, severe and prolonged sanctions have caused a public health crisis and a humanitarian catastrophe as the result of the country’s steep economic collapse and years of vast restrictions that are designed to prevent the Syrian population from rebuilding their livelihoods in the war-torn state. This has been one of the main goals of U.S. foreign policy in Syria - ensuring the country lies in ruins as long as possible without an opportunity to reconstruct.
The humanitarian costs of economic and financial sanctions on Syria have been significant since they have directly contributed to the ongoing public health crisis and affected the most vulnerable groups. Syrian human rights organizations have been banned from importing medicine and supplying the most basic medical necessities for civilian use. Furthermore, updating healthcare medical software at hospitals and clinics has been a challenge for over a decade. As a result, key indicators of health and well-being across the civilian population in Syria collapsed [2]. The decline in vaccination rates among Syrian children from 95 percent in 2006 to 60 percent in 2016 resulted in a reemergence of such diseases as typhoid, measles, and rubella [2]. Due to restrictions on imports of agricultural machinery and equipment, Syrian wheat production decreased by 53 percent and lentils dropped by 70 percent between 2011 and 2016. These declines in agricultural production resulted in 38 percent of the country being unable to meet basic food requirements [2]. In 2024, the UN estimates that almost 7.5 million children in Syria need humanitarian assistance in 2024 because of the worsening economic crisis, mass displacement, and devastated public infrastructure. While the number of deaths from malnutrition, inaccessible healthcare, and lack of medical necessities is virtually impossible to estimate due to reporting limitations and ongoing military activities, the impact of the most severe and illegal economic restrictions on the civilian population has been profound and cannot be ignored.
The economic policies subjected millions of Syrians to extreme poverty, starvation, a health crisis, lack of medical care and medical necessities as well as a complete disintegration of the Syrian society that, due to the lack of financial resources and military capabilities, became the center for radical jihadist factions, such as HTS in northern Syria and other foreign elements, including al-Qaeda, over the past decade.
By continuing to turn a blind eye on the suffering of the Syrian population and preventing them from rebuilding their country, U.S. leaders are committing a crime against humanity while pursuing failing policies to grapple to the last remaining bits of U.S.’ waning hegemony.
[2] - Hanania, Richard. “Ineffective, Immoral, Politically Convenient: America’s Overreliance on Economic Sanctions and What to Do about It.” Cato Institute, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep23040.
[3] - Pape, Robert A. “Why Economic Sanctions Still Do Not Work.” International Security 23, no. 1 (1998): 66–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539263.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
As brutal videos of forced mobilization across Ukraine continue to spread online, Volodimir Zelensky and his Western masters are determined to continue fighting the unwinnable proxy war against Russia “to the last Ukrainian”: the United States has started to openly pressure Kyiv to, once again, lower the official conscription age. The West wants to send 18-year-old Ukrainians to the front lines as Russian forces advance and Senator Lindsay Graham is getting antsy that trillions of dollars worth of Ukrainian natural resources, primarily located in the Donbas and central Ukraine, will be under Russia’s control.
In a recent interview on Fox News, U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham shamelessly admitted that the prolonged proxy war in Ukraine is just as much about trying to weaken Russia via Ukraine as it is about natural resources and, ultimately, money.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Does the Federal Reserve want independence to serve the interests of the banker class? What role has the Federal Reserve played in US politics, and how does it enable the U.S. government's out-of-control spending? Why should the Fed be banned from purchasing assets?
I had a fascinating conversation with Ryan McMaken. Ryan is a U.S. economist and the executive editor at the Mises Institute. In his podcast, Loot & Lobby, Ryan focuses on the intersection of US politics and economics.
Ryan and I discussed whether the Trump administration would seek Jerome Powell's resignation, how the Fed has been enabling government spending on programs that do not benefit the American people, its role as a servant of the banker class, and, ultimately, whether the Federal Reserve should be abolished.
Ryan noted that we are living in a world where the “Fed is the economy” and we need to get away from that.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The development of Project mBRIDGE was initiated by China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and the UAE in 2021 through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub. The blockchain-based infrastructure has been crucial for the development of an alternative financial system that is expected to facilitate the BRICS+ bloc’s cross-border settlements in local currencies.
The Bank for International Settlements Headquarters in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is known as the “central bank for central banks”
Recently the BIS top executive, Augusten Carstens, announced that the BIS, “the central bank for all central banks”, can no longer work with sanctioned countries. Thus, the BIS is shutting down Project mBRIDGE.
What does the BIS move to shut down the blockchain-based project mean for the BRICS+ bloc? Will it become a major setback in its process to develop a just, alternative financial settlement platform? What role will China assume in the development of mBRIDGE and other systems designed to transact in local currencies?
I had a very interesting conversation with Dr. Warwick Powell, an Adjunct Professor at Queensland University in Australia who is working at the intersection of digital technologies, supply chains, and global political economy & governance. Warwick and I discussed the functionality of mBRIDGE and why it is a significant project for the Global South, how the BIS shutting it down will impact the BRICS’ capabilities and future plans, what Brazil’s chairmanship in 2025 will bring for the association’s future, Lula’s absence at the 2024 Annual Summit in Kazan and more!
Here are some recommendations for what you might have missed this week.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
🌏 Labor Market Meltdown: October Jobs Report Shows a -112,000 Revision to Prior Months as Hiring Halts
October added 12,000 jobs (absolutely insignificant and likely to be revised)
August was revised down by 81,000, from +159,000 to +78,000
September was revised down by 31,000, from +254,000 to +223,000
🌏 42% Surge in Layoffs Signals US Labor Market Is Tanking
The share of workers voluntarily quitting their jobs dropped to 1.9 percent in September, the lowest since the 2020 pandemic. Outside of the pandemic, this is the lowest level in 9 years and the largest decline since the 2008 Financial Crisis.
The hiring rate decreased from 4.6 percent to 3.5 percent, the lowest since April 2020.
There were 7.4 million job openings in the US in September, the lowest number of openings since January 2021
🌏 G7 vs. BRICS: EU's Disaster, Economic Decline & Political Crisis, Rise of Global South
I invited Prof. Steve Hanke for a conversation about the decline of the G7 and the rise of the Global South.
Dr. Hanke commented that the European Union’s collapse is largely driven by its biggest economy, Germany, sabotaging itself with the ban on imports of Russia’s natural resources that are vital for its industrial capacity as well as its short-sighted domestic and foreign policies. Dr. Hanke noted Germany is a “disaster” in the near term as its de-industrialization is just beginning. Further, we discussed the US uniparty system, political gain vs economic reason, and the role of natural resources in the rise of the global South. This is a must-watch interview for those interested in global economics.
🌏 Federal government continues to spend, spend, spend…
Government spending spiked 9.7 percent in Q3 2024 quarter over quarter.
I had an excellent and very insightful conversation with Dr. Steve Hanke, whom I invited back on the show to discuss the rise of the global South as economies of the G7 group are expected to continue their free fall.
The latest IMF forecast indicates that developing economies are expected to grow at a faster pace than those of the G7: the US forecasted economic growth is 2.7% compared to India’s 6.8%, Russia’s 3.2%, and China’s 4.6%.
When speaking about the global South, Dr. Hanke noted that many Latin American countries need a stable currency to achieve successful economic reforms and improve their standards of living. Outside of the BRICS+, Dr. Hanke said that the poorest countries in Latin America could benefit from introducing the dollar as a way to boost economic activity. However, he added that the US foreign policy is backfiring as the weaponization of the US dollar will continue to drive countries of the BRICS alliance away from the global reserve currency.
Thank you for being part of the community! Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work and to gain access to members-only content:
Dr. Hanke commented that the European Union’s collapse is largely driven by its biggest economy, Germany, sabotaging itself with the ban on imports of Russia’s natural resources that are vital for its industrial capacity as well as short-sighted domestic and foreign policies. Dr. Hanke noted Germany is a “disaster” in the near term as its de-industrialization is just beginning.
Further, we discussed the US uniparty system, political gain vs economic reason, and the role of natural resources in the rise of the global South. This is a must-watch interview for those who are interested in learning more about global economics.
Here are some recommendations for what you might have missed this week.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
🌏 Without a doubt, the biggest event of the week was the historic BRICS+ summit in Kazan, Russia.
I’ve covered the event extensively over the course of the week:
I spoke to one of the leading economic experts on the BRICS bloc, Yaroslav Lissovolik, who personally attended events held in Moscow as part of the BRICS+ initiatives.
Yaroslav discussed the BRICS+ blockchain-based payment platform and the role that the Bank for International Settlements plays in the process. In the interview, he highlighted the fact that it would be best for the bloc to use a basket of local currencies instead of a single currency due to associated risks. He noted that once the blockchain platform is launched, central banks of sovereign states would play an active role in managing the system and its capabilities within each state. I had a great time speaking with Yaroslav and learning more about the economic aspects of the alliance.
Watch the interview with Yaroslav Lissovolik on YouTube or Rumble.
The BRICS+ bloc issued a Declaration in Kazan. Read more about its key points here.
The bloc announced admission of 13 new partners, indicating its plans to expand in the near future as the full members conduct further consultations with these new partner-states to determine whether they are ready to become full-members. I recorded a very detailed video about the new partners and related future prospects. Watch the video on YouTube or Rumble.
One of the newly admitted members of the BRICS bloc, the United Arab Emirates, has become Russia’s biggest trade partner in the Middle East. The trade between the two states tripled since 2021. This is quite fascinating considering that just several years ago, similar examples of South-South cooperation were rare. Watch the video with more details on YouTube or Rumble.
🌏 Clearly, the BRICS summit and the recent developments that indicate a global shift towards multipolarity has the State Department concerned.
State Department spokesman Vedant Patel:
"Undermining the role of the dollar and developing alternatives to SWIFT is a direct threat to democracy in the world."
🌏 This week the International Monetary Fund (finally!) shared an opinion on the policymakers’ obsession with protectionist measures.
“It’s a policy that is harming basically everyone,” Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s top economist, said of the risk of higher trade barriers. “It’s harming the rest of the world. It’s harming the US.”
The IMF cautioned that if higher tariffs hit a “sizable portion” of world trade by mid-2025, it would wipe 0.8 percent from economic output next year and 1.3 percent in 2026.
Connexion
