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 a media landscape dominated by sensationalism and culture wars, the headlines often miss what truly matters. A structural power shift is underway across the Global South, and most visibly among the BRICS+ nations. While the West is entangled in narratives of its exceptionalism, the rest of the world is recalibrating. China offloaded $150 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds during the first quarter of 2024. Across the BRICS alliance—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and now newer members like Iran, Egypt, and the UAE—there is a coordinated, deliberate reduction of exposure to U.S. assets.
This trend isn’t new, but the pace and intent have accelerated. What was once a slow rebalancing is now a purposeful flight. The reasons are clear - ballooning U.S. debt, increasing weaponization of the dollar, and geopolitical adventurism have all made the American financial system less attractive. The same policies that once reinforced U.S. dominance are now unraveling it.
A reordering of the post-World War II financial architecture that kept the U.S. dollar at the center of the global economy has begun.
The $7.5 Trillion Warning
Over $7.5 trillion in U.S. assets, primarily Treasury bonds, is at risk of being pulled by foreign holders. For decades, the American government enjoyed a privilege no other country had: the ability to borrow at scale, cheaply, and in its own currency, thanks to the dollar’s position as the world’s primary reserve currency. But today, confidence in that arrangement is declining. What started as isolated divestments—first by Russia, then China—has matured into a coordinated policy direction by much of the Global South.
U.S. Treasury
The implications are truly profound. If the holders of these U.S. assets begin to accelerate their divestment—which, again, we’re already seeing—the U.S. could face a trifecta of consequences: higher interest rates, a weaker dollar, and an increasingly unstable debt market. The mere signal that foreign buyers are retreating forces domestic investors to demand higher yields for the risk they’re now shouldering alone. That translates into a rising cost of borrowing across every level of American life—from the federal budget to mortgages to student loans.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I had a fascinating conversation on the mechanics of the U.S. war propaganda with a prominent American journalist and writer, Norman Solomon. His recent book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its War Machine, made a long-lasting impression on me. Right now, we are re-living the pre-Iraq invasion days when the mainstream narrative is focused on dividing the world into “us” (the US, Israel) vs. “them” (Iran). After visiting Iraq several months prior to the invasion and researching America’s war engagements, Norman explains the similarities in Iran vs Iraq war propaganda and the techniques used by the U.S. government to package and sell war.
Echoes of Empire: War, Media, and Manufactured Consent
The current drumbeat toward conflict with Iran strongly echoes the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003. Then, as now, the U.S. media amplifies official narratives, portraying American aggression as moral duty while omitting vital context—chiefly, oil and geopolitical control. Israel’s unprovoked strike on Iran on June 13th went largely unchallenged in mainstream U.S. coverage, reflecting the double standard that justifies violence by allies and demonizes adversaries. President Trump's vague threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities mirror Bush-era rhetoric, relying on fear and uncertainty to rally support. The same pattern persists: silence on civilian casualties, focus on U.S. interests, and an Orwellian framing of war as peace. This isn’t foreign policy—it’s imperial theater. Just as the incubator baby hoax fueled Iraq’s invasion, new narratives are being spun to justify future violence. Americans must confront these myths before history repeats with even more catastrophic consequences.
Dehumanization, Double Standards, and the Machinery of War: A 21st Century Propaganda Playbook
In the name of democracy and security, the United States continues to escalate its militaristic foreign policy, often cloaked in Orwellian doublespeak. The rhetoric used to justify aggression toward Iran mirrors the same techniques that were deployed before the Iraq invasion: fear-mongering, fabricated threats, and dehumanization of the "enemy." Congressman Randy Fine's grotesque phrase—“mostly peaceful bombing”—reflects this toxic logic. It sanitizes war crimes and makes mass violence sound virtuous.
This propaganda relies on repetition, omission, and moral hierarchy. U.S. media endlessly repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions while ignoring or downplaying Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal. Iran, still under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and heavily inspected, is demonized. Israel, with 200 undeclared nuclear weapons and no international oversight, is portrayed as the righteous actor.
Dehumanization is central. Victims of U.S.-backed violence in Gaza, Iran, or Lebanon are rendered invisible. Their suffering is minimized or ignored, while Israeli and American pain is spotlighted. The media teaches viewers that some lives matter—and others simply don’t. This moral sorting fosters compliance and dulls public empathy.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Dr. Pascal Lottaz of Neutrality Studies and I discussed the escalating Israel-Iran war.
Western Double Standards and Normative Collapse
Israel’s June 13, 2025, strike on Iran, framed as a “preemptive” action, raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Under international law, particularly the UN Charter, only acts of self-defense in response to an actual or imminent attack are lawful. Preemptive strikes are narrowly defined and require a truly immediate threat, while preventive strikes, based on future hypothetical risks, are explicitly illegal. Israel's justification—citing Iran’s potential to develop nuclear weapons in one to two years—clearly falls into the preventive category.
The Western response, particularly the G7’s endorsement of Israel’s actions, exemplifies a dangerous double standard. Similar actions by other nations, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are condemned, yet Israel receives consistent political and moral cover. This selective application of international law erodes global norms and credibility.
Moreover, Israel’s ongoing use of “self-defense” to justify offensive actions mirrors historical Western colonial practices, framed today through a modern, Orwellian distortion of language. The result is the weakening of legal definitions and moral standards, pushing the world closer to a lawless, power-driven order.
To preserve a rules-based international system, violations must be condemned consistently, regardless of the actor. Anything less undermines justice, accountability, and the principles of global peace and security.
Manufacturing Consent for War: The Iran Narrative and Western Strategy
For decades, Western powers have maintained a narrative that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat. From Netanyahu’s repeated warnings since the 1990s to Cold War-era fears dating back to 1984, this rhetoric echoes the false justification for the 2003 Iraq War. Despite repeated claims, no credible intelligence supports the assertion that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Recent testimony from U.S. intelligence, including from Tulsi Gabbard, confirms there is zero evidence of such intentions.
This persistent narrative is not just misinformation—it’s strategic. The goal, critics argue, is to create the conditions necessary for war. Once military actions begin, facts on the ground take over, and any debate is sidelined. The real objective, some suggest, is not peace or democracy, but destabilization—a “scorched earth” policy that fragments adversaries, ensuring Israel's dominance in a chaotic region.
The West's ability to control the public narrative is crucial. By presenting military aggression as "humanitarian intervention," they exploit good intentions to sell destructive wars. As history shows in Iraq and Libya, the result is failed states, mass suffering, and long-term occupation. The current campaign against Iran risks repeating these tragedies on a much larger scale.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Dr. Yaroslav Lissovolik is an economist and the leading expert on the BRICS. Yaroslav is the founder of a highly valuable resource - BRICS+ Analytics.
Brazil’s BRICS Chairmanship Marks Pivotal Moment for South American Engagement
As Brazil hosts the BRICS Summit this July, its chairmanship comes at a critical time amid global trade tensions and conflicts. Brazil is utilizing this leadership role to enhance the bloc's global presence and deepen Latin American engagement. With a focus on sustainability, multilateralism, and financial cooperation—including promoting national currency payments and expanding the BRICS+ format—Brazil aims to connect regional partners, such as Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, to the bloc. Leveraging its concurrent leadership in the G20 and COP forums, Brazil is positioning itself as a bridge between BRICS and broader global governance, revitalizing the group’s role in the Global South.
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 ASEAN-GCC-China Summit, held on May 27, 2025, in Kuala Lumpur, brought together leaders from ASEAN, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and China to discuss strengthening economic resilience and cooperation. The summit emphasized collaboration for regional and global economic growth, marking a significant new step in the global transition towards multipolarity.
I discussed the key goals of the event and its broader geopolitical implications with Dr. Warwick Powell, an Adjunct Professor at Queensland University in Australia and a senior fellow at Taihe Institute.
Reviving the Silk Road: A Strategic Convergence of China, the Gulf States, and ASEAN The recent summit marks a significant moment of geopolitical convergence, uniting China, the Gulf States, and ASEAN in a strategic partnership rooted in deepening bilateral ties. This alliance reflects immediate global shifts, including disruptions from U.S. policy changes, while also addressing medium-term development goals and long-term historical continuity. Trade and investment links between these regions have grown substantially, forming a foundation for shared economic trajectories. The collaboration echoes ancient connections from the Silk Road era, highlighting a renewed commitment to economic integration, cultural exchange, and regional stability amid a transforming global landscape. This event underscores a pivotal realignment in global power dynamics.
ASEAN, Multipolarity, and the Rejection of Great Power Rivalry Recent geopolitical developments underscore a shift away from U.S.-led unilateralism toward a more collaborative, multipolar world order. The increasing alignment between ASEAN, the Gulf States, and China signals a message to Washington and other global powers: sovereign nations can advance their interests through cooperation, rather than division and belligerence. The U.S. has pursued a strategy of isolating China through fragmented bilateral trade deals, but this approach is faltering as nations recognize the value of unity and interdependence. ASEAN, with its roots in post-colonial neutrality and the non-aligned movement, remains committed to consensus-building rather than taking sides in a perceived U.S.-China rivalry. This binary framing, often promoted by Washington, overlooks the growing agency of regional blocs like ASEAN, which seek to shape a stable, multipolar system rather than return to hegemonic dominance. For ASEAN, the real choice isn’t between competing superpowers, but between perpetuating centralized global control versus fostering a more distributed, cooperative global network. This emerging order requires new institutions and partnerships designed to manage complexity without relying on a single dominant power. ASEAN’s stance exemplifies a broader global movement toward balance, autonomy, and a reimagined structure for international stability and shared prosperity.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Larry McDonald is a New York Times bestselling author, a frequent writer for Bloomberg, Forbes, and CNBC, and the founder of an investment macro-trends newsletter - The Bear Traps Report.
Echoes of 2008: Watching the Warning Signs Reflecting on his 2008 crisis experience, Larry McDonald warns of rising debt risks today. As in 2007, similar concerns voiced across sectors signal potential trouble, especially in student loans, buy-now-pay-later, and tertiary lenders, though not yet at 2008 levels.
Confidence Shaken: America’s Fiscal Chaos and the Global Bond Reckoning Global bond investors have faced a whirlwind of challenges: nearly $1 trillion in U.S. deficit spending in late 2024, chaotic tariff announcements from Trump in April, and mixed fiscal signals from both parties. Bipartisan dysfunction in Washington and the growing market volatility (and unpredictability) have made the U.S. look increasingly like an emerging market. Rate cuts, AI-driven capital spending, and erratic policymaking have created a volatile environment. Investors are losing faith in the dollar, with many forced to reduce exposure. Treasury auctions have weakened, and inflationary risks are growing. The U.S. isn’t losing reserve currency status just yet —but decades of global confidence are unraveling, and the bond market may soon strike back.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Greetings, All!
It’s been a long and very eventful week. Let’s catch up on the latest top headlines, opinions, and recommendations.
In addition to the top headlines in economics, finance, and geopolitics, at the end of the Weekly Newsletter, there is a brand new section - Key Events This Week - to help you stay current on the most important upcoming dates.
I had a fascinating conversation with Dr. Nicolai Petro, a prominent political scientist and a leading expert on Ukraine and Russia. The interview was truly eye-opening, as was Dr. Petro’s book, The Tragedy of Ukraine.
The evolution of Ukrainian politics post-2014 reveals deep internal divisions shaped by historical, linguistic, and cultural differences. While President Poroshenko was democratically elected and initially recognized by Russia, his administration escalated tensions by redefining local unrest in Donbas as a war with Russia, abandoning early peace frameworks like the Minsk Accords. This shift coincided with the growing power of far-right nationalist movements, primarily rooted in Western Ukraine, which gained influence through foreign funding and the Maidan coup. These Western-funded groups promoted a narrow Galician identity and marginalized other Ukrainian identities, especially the predominantly Russian-speaking populations of eastern and southern Ukraine. Under President Zelensky, initially elected on a peace platform, media freedom and cultural pluralism have been severely restricted, further entrenching a hardline nationalist agenda. Independent voices and opposition media have been suppressed, while dissenting narratives are labeled pro-Russian. As the war continues, Zelensky’s legitimacy relies increasingly on nationalist factions who reject compromise. The result is a political environment hostile to the millions of Ukrainians identifying with the Malaros or Eastern Ukrainian identity.
We also discussed:
The origins of Ukrainian nationalism
The crisis of Ukrainian identity: Russia vs. Poland
Post-Maidan nationalist politics in Ukrainian politics
Contrary to popular belief and political rhetoric, particularly from former President Trump, the U.S. trade deficit is not caused by foreigners "ripping off" America. Instead, it results from Americans spending more than the nation produces (its Gross National Product). To balance this excess spending, the U.S. runs a trade deficit—an accounting necessity, not a sign of economic failure. The deficit is financed by capital inflows, as foreigners purchase American assets, such as bonds and equities. This inflow of capital makes the trade deficit sustainable and even beneficial in some ways.
The trade deficit is thus not a policy failure or threat, but a reflection of broader macroeconomic choices. Efforts to "fix" it through tariffs are misguided. Tariffs do not reduce the overall trade deficit; they only shift where imports come from, distorting trade patterns rather than correcting any imbalance. For instance, heavy tariffs on Chinese goods would reduce imports from China but increase them from other countries. Ultimately, the misunderstanding of basic accounting identities leads to unnecessary concern and harmful trade policies. The focus should be on smarter economic policy, not blaming foreign nations or relying on counterproductive tariffs.
We also discussed:
$500 Billion in Unrealized Losses on U.S. banks’ books
The impact of new banking regulations, specifically Basel III, on U.S. banks
How the decline in money supply impacts inflation
Those of you interested in taxes, personal finance, and small businesses might find my second YouTube channel, Behind the Numbers, interesting. I relaunched it this week, and moving forward, you’ll find weekly content dedicated to helping you become an entrepreneur, personal and business taxes, and finance. There will be interviews, too! You are welcome to subscribe (it’s free!) here: Behind the Numbers on YouTube.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
The House of Representatives passed Trump’s “big and beautiful” bill.
It proposes $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, including reductions to Medicaid and other social programs. As the bill moves to the Senate, there will be adjustments. However, the key takeaways are as follows:
Permanent Tax Cuts: It makes the individual and corporate tax cuts from 2017 permanent, including a 20% deduction for pass-through businesses and a reduced corporate tax rate.
Child Tax Credit: The child tax credit is increased to $2,500 through 2028, providing more relief for families.
State and Local Tax (SALT) Deduction: The SALT deduction cap is raised to $30,000 for taxpayers below $500,000, benefiting residents in high-tax states.
Healthcare Provisions: The bill adds work requirements to Medicaid, increases coverage fees, and prohibits Medicaid from funding gender-affirming care and abortion services.
US consumers' expectations about their financial situation over the next year dropped to an all-time low in May. According to the University of Michigan survey, consumer expectations are now lower than in 2008 and the late 1970s, when inflation was at 12-13%. 1 year ago, these expectations were 8 times higher at 2.5%.
The US Treasury said in a statement that by early next year, the country will stop circulating new pennies. Businesses will need to start rounding up or down to the nearest 5 cents. A penny currently costs 4 cents to make. Cutting production is set to save $56 million per year.
According to the CBO, the US debt-to-GDP ratio is set to reach 220% by 2055. By comparison, in 2020, the deficit hit 14.7% of GDP, only below World War II levels.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I had a fascinating conversation with Dr. Nicolai Petro, a prominent political scientist and Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island. Professor Petro has written a fascinating book, “The Tragedy of Ukraine: What Classical Greek Tragedy Can Teach Us About Conflict Resolution.” This is a must-read for anyone interested in the origins of the Ukraine-Russia conflict as well as the details of Ukraine’s politics for generations.
The conflict in Ukraine can be viewed through the lens of classical Greek tragedy, where individuals unknowingly author their downfall. Ukraine’s turmoil stems from deep cultural divisions, primarily between western and eastern regions. Western Ukraine, historically part of the Austro-Hungarian and Polish territories, has long fostered a distinct national identity, while eastern Ukraine, largely Russian-speaking, shares deeper ties with Russia. These divergent identities have struggled to coexist. Historically, Ukrainian nationalism emerged in opposition—first to Poland, then the Soviet Union—suggesting that the movement has often relied on defining itself through enmity. The tragedy lies in failing to recognize this self-perpetuated conflict.
Origins of Ukrainian Nationalism
Ukrainian nationalism, rooted in early 20th-century émigré thought and funding, sought to forge a unified national identity by creating a state where that monoethnic identity could exist. In Western Ukraine, the vision of a nation-state typically had excluded Russian-speaking, Orthodox populations of central and eastern Ukraine. Nationalist efforts prioritized a narrow definition—Greek Catholic, Ukrainian-speaking, western-rooted—while marginalizing others. Internal divisions, betrayals, and competing visions of identity have plagued Ukraine’s history, revealing a deep struggle to reconcile regional diversity with an imposed, singular idea of what it means to be truly Ukrainian.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
Ukrainian identity has long been shaped by its complex relationship with both Russia and Poland. Historically, many Ukrainians identified as "maloros" or "Southern Russians," especially in central and eastern regions, where the Russian language and culture predominated. Western Ukrainian nationalism, influenced by Austro-Hungarian and Polish legacies, promoted a narrow identity centered on language, religion, and region. Post-Maidan governments increasingly advanced this Galician-centric nationalism, marginalizing other identities and minorities. The 2014 Maidan movement, seen by some as a nationalist coup, disrupted legal transitions of power and deepened societal divisions. These tensions reflect Ukraine’s unresolved struggle to define an inclusive national identity.
Post-Maidan Ukrainian Politics
The evolution of Ukrainian politics post-2014 reveals deep internal divisions shaped by historical, linguistic, and cultural differences. While President Poroshenko was democratically elected and initially recognized by Russia, his administration escalated tensions by redefining local unrest in Donbas as a war with Russia, abandoning early peace frameworks like the Minsk Accords. This shift coincided with the growing power of far-right nationalist movements, primarily rooted in Western Ukraine, which gained influence through foreign funding and the Maidan coup. These Western-funded groups promoted a narrow Galician identity and marginalized other Ukrainian identities, especially the predominantly Russian-speaking populations of eastern and southern Ukraine. Under President Zelensky, initially elected on a peace platform, media freedom and cultural pluralism have been severely restricted, further entrenching a hardline nationalist agenda. Independent voices and opposition media have been suppressed, while dissenting narratives are labeled pro-Russian. As the war continues, Zelensky’s legitimacy relies increasingly on nationalist factions who reject compromise. The result is a political environment hostile to the millions of Ukrainians identifying with the Malaros or Eastern Ukrainian identity. Without political pluralism or avenues for peaceful negotiation, Ukraine’s internal divisions risk becoming permanently entrenched, threatening the long-term stability and inclusiveness of the Ukrainian state.
War sustains itself on hatred, but peace inevitably dissolves it, reopening human connections and long-held ties, particularly in Ukraine, where many have relatives in Russia. Over time, hostility fades, as seen in past conflicts like those between the U.S. and Mexico or post-WWII Europe. For Ukraine to prosper, reconciliation with Russia will likely be necessary. The current conflict stems not solely from Ukraine’s choices but also from NATO and EU policies that excluded Russia. A lasting peace may depend on Ukraine adopting a neutral stance, engaging both Europe and Russia independently, rather than aligning as an adversary. True sovereignty lies in balanced diplomacy.
Peace negotiations often appear stalled due to public posturing, but real progress happens quietly through back channels. Diplomatic theater—like symbolic disputes—masks ongoing bargaining. War and diplomacy coexist until both sides reach exhaustion or shifting interests favor peace. Ultimately, peace emerges when those profiting from war see more gain in its end.
Donald Trump’s trade war, especially with China, was a failed bluff rooted in economic nationalism and zero-sum thinking. Einar Tangen points out that the unilateral tariffs aimed to intimidate, but transparency in trade data revealed the U.S. had little leverage. Contrary to his claims, tariffs hurt American consumers, fueling inflation and deepening middle-class decline. Globally, erratic policies shattered trust in the U.S. as a reliable economic partner, destabilizing markets and raising doubts about the dollar's reserve status. Meanwhile, China positioned itself as a stabilizing force, favoring diplomacy and multilateralism. The episode highlights the perils of populist bluster over pragmatic, cooperative leadership.
President Trump reshaped regional dynamics in a dramatic Middle East tour with billion-dollar deals and controversial diplomacy. Starting in Saudi Arabia, he secured a $142 billion arms agreement and encouraged massive Saudi investments in the U.S. In Qatar, Trump oversaw a record $96 billion Boeing deal and major defense contracts. AI took center stage in the UAE with a landmark deal for Nvidia chips. Most shocking was Trump’s handshake with ex-terror ISIS/ al-Qaeda leader Mohammad al-Jolani, signaling the end of U.S. sanctions on Syria. While geopolitical tensions simmer, the military-industrial complex and tech giants emerged as clear winners in this high-stakes journey.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
In our conversation, Professor Ivan Katchanovski reveals the truth about the violent Maidan regime change in Ukraine, which enabled the West to use Ukraine as a proxy tool against Russia. Professor Katchanovski notes that after the brutally orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the West transformed Ukraine into a client state, whose political leaders were selected by the United States and other Western officials to further their geopolitical agenda in Eastern Europe.
May 9, 2025 marked the 80th Anniversary of the Allies’ Victory over Nazi Germany. I spoke with Dr. Brovkin about the key turning points in the history of World War II, the Eastern Front vs. the Western Front, and the Soviet offensive that broke the Wehrmacht. The conversation was truly fascinating (I love history!) and is a must-watch!
The U.S. economy contracted 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, and the Federal Reserve just warned of growing stagflation risks. In the meantime, President Donald Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.
The push for low interest rates and monetary inflation benefits Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. These policies disproportionately serve the wealthy by inflating asset prices, boosting disposable income for top earners, and rewarding those with significant debt and investments. Meanwhile, lower-income Americans, who own fewer assets and benefit less from such policies, face rising costs and minimal income gains.
Ryan McMaken notes that Fed Chair Jerome Powell's latest warning is a major red flag, as the Federal Reserve habitually downplays economic risks and misrepresents warning signs.
A massive shift in global finance may be underway as Asian nations, holding over $2.5 trillion in U.S. dollar reserves, consider moving out of the currency. Economist Stephen Jen warns that these unhedged dollar investments are increasingly vulnerable amid political tensions, particularly U.S. policies targeting China. With the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates and the dollar weakening, countries like China could repatriate large sums, triggering a broader selloff. This could lead to rising U.S. inflation, falling bond prices, and shifts toward emerging market currencies or digital assets. Meanwhile, BRICS+ nations, especially China and Russia, are accelerating de-dollarization in trade settlements. I further discussed the underlying causes in this new video.
Let’s move on to the week’s top geopolitics, economics, and finance headlines.
Markets Pause After Rally: The S&P 500, Dow, and Nasdaq ended the week down 0.3–0.5%, snapping a nine-day winning streak. Investors remain cautious amid ongoing U.S.-China trade talks and President Trump’s renewed tariff proposals.
Tariff Concerns Impact Earnings: Berkshire Hathaway reported a 14.1% decline in Q1 operating earnings. CEO Warren Buffett announced plans to retire by year-end and criticized proposed tariffs.
Remember to tune in to World Affairs in Context for more news, analysis, and upcoming interviews available on YouTube, Rumble, Patreon, Locals, and Spotify.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
Federal Reserve Holds Rates Steady: The Fed maintained interest rates, while Treasury yields remained flat. During my discussion with Ryan McMaken, economist and editor at the Mises Institute, Ryan noted that Fed Chair Jerome Powell's latest warning is a major red flag, as the Federal Reserve habitually downplays economic risks and misrepresents warning signs.
The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet runoff slows: The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet declined by $17 billion to $6.7 trillion since March 2025, the lowest since April 2020. In March, the Fed announced it would slow the average pace of Quantitative Tightening from $60 billion monthly to $40 billion. (If you’d like a refresher on how this works, Ryan McMaken did a great job explaining the basics here.)
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 U.S. economy contracted 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, and the Federal Reserve just issued a warning of growing stagflation risks. In the meantime, President Donald Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.
The push for low interest rates and monetary inflation benefits Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. These policies disproportionately serve the wealthy by inflating asset prices, boosting disposable income for top earners, and rewarding those with significant debt and investments. Meanwhile, lower-income Americans, who own fewer assets and benefit less from such policies, face rising costs and minimal income gains.
Ryan McMaken notes that Fed Chair Jerome Powell's latest warning is a major red flag, as the Federal Reserve habitually downplays economic risks and misrepresents warning signs.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
World Affairs in Context is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Dr. Brovkin served as a professor of History at Harvard University and a consultant to various US agencies. His recent book, “From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity,” examines how the Russian past influenced and shaped current politics, particularly the East–West divide.
As the 80th Anniversary of the Allies’ Victory over Nazi Germany is approaching, I spoke with Dr. Brovkin about the key turning points in the history of World War II, the Eastern Front vs. the Western Front and the Soviet offensive that broke the Wehrmacht.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
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 our conversation, Professor Ivan Katchanovski reveals the truth about the violent Maidan regime change in Ukraine, which enabled the West to use Ukraine as a proxy tool against Russia. Professor Katchanovski notes that after the brutally orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the West transformed Ukraine into a client state, whose political leaders were selected by the United States and other Western officials to further their geopolitical agenda in Eastern Europe.
Maidan Square, Kiev, Ukraine | February 2014
Following the Maidan coup, the politics of Ukraine have been dictated by foreign actors at the expense of the national interests of the Ukrainian population. The loss of sovereignty foreshadowed the destruction of Ukrainian statehood and regional peace and stability.
The Maidan Protests in Kiev, Ukraine | November 2013 - February 2014
Professor Ivan Katchanovski is a Ukrainian and Canadian scholar specializing in Ukraine's politics and conflicts. Professor Katchanovski spent 11 years researching one of the most pivotal events in the modern history of Ukraine, the Maidan massacre. His latest book, “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World," illustrates the origins of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the decisive role played in it by foreign actors. It’s available to be downloaded for FREE, and it's absolutely a must-read!
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
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+ alliance, under the chairmanship of Brazil, held a conference, "The Dilemmas of Humanity," in São Paulo, where the bloc’s members and partners discussed approaches to countering the tariff regime imposed by the Trump administration, a new financial architecture, and enhancing platforms to promote South-South cooperation.
Yaroslav Lissovolik attended the conference and shared recent updates with us. In our conversation, Yaroslav emphasized that President Trump’s tariffs are encouraging countries of the Global South to increase cooperation and establish joint commodity platforms, such as the BRICS+ Grains Exchange. With more than 30 countries expressing interest in joining the bloc, its expansion is an indicator of the global shift in power fueled by the economic and trade policies of the West.
To address the flaws in global economic governance, the BRICS+ advocates for establishing a regional governance layer between national economies and global institutions like the IMF and World Bank. This intermediate layer would include regional trade, financing, and development institutions, which already possess more combined resources than their global counterparts. While some progress has been made, a comprehensive system is still lacking. The Global South, with existing regional groups and financial institutions, is well-positioned to lead this initiative through integration and coordination.
Dr. Yaroslav Lisovolik is the founder of BRICS+ analytics, a valuable source of unbiased and professionally presented, highly detailed information on the BRICS+ economic alliance and its latest developments.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
Connexion
