Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 28
August 13, 2025
Data-mining the Global South into submission
© Getty Images/gremlinBy Dr. Mathew Maavak
Yesterday’s empire was built on spice, slaves, and silver. Today’s empire runs on metadataThe new colonial frontier isn’t restricted to mineral-rich Congo or oil-drenched Venezuela. It’s digital, invisible, and everywhere.
From the shantytowns of Nairobi to the barrios of Manila, smartphones hum with the raw material of the 21st century: data, all sorts of data. And just like spices and slaves once sailed westward in imperial galleons, metadata now travels quietly to the cloud servers of Palo Alto and Shenzhen. This isn’t development, it is digital extraction. Welcome to the age of AI colonialism.
Big Tech firms from the US, and to a lesser extent China, have turned the Global South into a massive open-pit mine for behavioral data. Under the pretense of “AI for Development,” they build infrastructure, donate connectivity, and sponsor pilot programs but the returns flow in only one direction. Voice samples collected in Ghana become training fodder for Western voice assistants. Facial data gathered in Nigerian policing trials end up fine-tuning surveillance software in San Francisco, where western models have had protracted problems in identifying and tracking darker-skinned individuals. Agricultural data scraped from Filipino farmers help power predictive analytics for agribusiness conglomerates that will hardly benefit the Philippines.
This is not a partnership. This is colonial pillage dressed in TED Talk lingo.
The myth of the AI equalizerAI is marketed as a miracle equalizer that will help developing nations leapfrog into the future. We were told AI would bring precision agriculture, predictive healthcare, and smart urbanism, among numerous other utopian transformations, to even the most under-resourced regions. These Davos fantasies were regurgitated for nearly two decades. But where is the proof, the showcase project or evidence that even a fraction of those promises was delivered?
The only real revolution happening is the outflow of data that were supposed to power these breakthroughs. Big Tech servers abroad now function like the colonial warehouses and banks of yore. Nor are intellectual properties of individuals and SMEs in the Developing World safe from this new brand of predation. Models, patents, ideas, and profits quietly migrate north while the Global South is left with nothing but pilot programs and PowerPoint decks.
Worse still, these tools are increasingly used against the very populations providing the raw material, or should I say, raw data. In Kenya, facial recognition technology was introduced as a policing tool under the guise of modernization. In practice, it has disproportionately targeted political activists who, in turn, are also resorting to AI to level the political battlefield. Who ultimately benefits from this internecine clash? Isn’t this the latest incarnation of the old imperial “divide and conquer” dictum?
In India, AI-driven fraud detection systems have misclassified thousands of rural poor, unjustly cutting them off from vital government benefits. Imported algorithmic governance – often designed without regard for local context or cultural nuance – compounds the problem. Ironically, while these systems penalize the most vulnerable, India has emerged as a global hub for sophisticated online scams. It is a digital paradox where the poor are relentlessly surveilled, while the real fraudsters flourish with impunity.
The biometric gold rushNothing exemplifies AI colonialism better than the biometric boom. Tech firms, often in partnership with NGOs or global financial institutions, are racing to digitize identities across the Global South. Fingerprint scans, iris recognition, voiceprint registration have all been justified as ways to “include the unbanked” or “streamline public services.”
But these efforts rarely include meaningful consent or data protection frameworks. In many cases, biometric systems have been imposed without community consultation or independent oversight.
One of the most egregious examples is Worldcoin, a cryptocurrency project that offered small payments in exchange for biometric iris scans. Its largest user base? Young people in low-income African nations like Kenya who served as a convenient population to experiment on, far from the regulatory spotlights of Brussels or Washington. (Note; Worldcoin was co-founded by Sam Altman, who is also the co-founder and CEO of OpenAI, which owns ChatGPT).
Once collected, this data becomes part of opaque and often proprietary AI systems whose inner workings are unknowable to the very people they affect. Local regulators are usually outgunned, underfunded or more likely, politically compromised. As a result, entire populations are subjected to surveillance and scoring regimes that they neither understand nor control.
The worst culprits in this saga are not Big Tech but local politicians and “technocrats” who sell out their nations at bargain basement prices, couched under the double-speak of “best practices” and UN institutional recommendations.
The new East India CompaniesSilicon Valley is the global epicenter of thenew East India Companies. These entities are vested with quasi-sovereign power and backed by vast capital reserves, lobbying muscle, and a veneer of corporate benevolence. Where the original East India Company extracted tea and textiles, today’s digital extractors siphon up location metadata, online behavior, biometric identifiers, and social graph mappings.
Consider Meta’s “Free Basics” initiative, which offered zero-rated internet access in dozens of developing countries. What seemed like a humanitarian gesture was, in reality, an attempt to create a captive ecosystem – one where Facebook was the internet. It was banned in India in 2016 but continues in other countries, quietly conditioning the digital habits of hundreds of millions of users. An expanded Meta Connectivity is now used by an estimated 300 million people across many countries, including Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines.
Critics warn that these platforms could be exploited for surveillance, IP harvesting, and geopolitical intelligence – often without the knowledge or consent of local populations. No one really knows what is happening. Besides, these services are not entirely free either. Pakistani users of Meta’s tech philanthropy were allegedly charged $1.9 million per month.
The digital ‘kangani’ systemIndia, once hailed as a rising digital superpower, now serves as a showpiece for AI neo-colonialism. Its vast IT industry, once brimming with promise, is today little more than an outsourced arm of Western conglomerates. Here is a reality check: how many individuals outside India have even one Indian-made app on their phones?
There was a brief window when Indian tech seemed poised to lead. In the late ’90s, a major US tech firm allegedly commissioned two parallel teams – one in Silicon Valley, the other in an Indian city – to build a next-generation operating system to challenge Microsoft. The Indian team delivered. The US team could not. Around the same time, Indian innovators like Sabeer Bhatia gave us Hotmail, which arguably accelerated the decline of the traditional postal system. For a brief moment, the digital future seemed multipolar. That was until Big Capital arrived.
Rather than reward innovation, Big Tech consolidated. Rival platforms that didn’t serve the globalist surveillance machine were quietly buried. Competition was replaced with shareholder-sanctioned “coordination,” led by the likes of BlackRock and its predecessors. From that point on, Indian IT firms would be reduced from potential innovators to mere subcontractors.
And who better to manage this global digital plantation than a new class of compliant Indian C-Suite executives? These are not the disruptors. They are the taskmasters of digital “kanganis,” running the same extractive labor models once perfected by the East India Company.
The dream of an “Asian Century” powered by Indian software and Chinese hardware has curdled into a reality of Chinese software, Chinese hardware, and Chinese AI. Indian tech talent has been reduced to glorified middleware, at best.
For all the online chest-thumping about Indian-origin CEOs in the US, where is India’s own Jensen Huang? Where is the Indian-founded equivalent of NVIDIA, OpenAI, or even Palantir? There isn’t one. India produces engineers by the millions but owns almost none of the gilt-edged platforms. It trains the talent, but not the trillion-dollar tech. The colony codes and the empire profits. A similar theme is being played out in the US Ivy League system.
Resistance and reclamationBut is the tide turning? Nigeria has applied brakes on foreign-backed digital ID programs. Kenya has suspended iris-scanning initiatives after massive backlash. A growing chorus of activists, lawyers, and technologists are calling for data sovereignty: the idea that countries should have the same rights over their data that they claim over oil, water, and land.
A few pioneering efforts have emerged. In Brazil, the General Data Protection Law has begun to shape public discourse. In South Africa, local AI research groups are working on open, transparent models rooted in African languages and cultural norms. The African Union has even begun early-stage deliberations on a continental data governance framework.
But it is an uphill fight.
Western governments, in tandem with corporate lobbyists, continue to push for “data liberalization” which is nothing but a euphemism for open access-mediated exploitation.
Aid packages, development grants, and tech investments are increasingly tied to these demands. It echoes the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s, where loans came with strings that hollowed out national control. Only now, the strings are coded in algorithms.
The need for a new digital non-alignmentThe Global South needs a coordinated pushback against Silicon Valley’s digital hegemony. This would involve not just resisting predatory data practices but investment in alternative infrastructures such as sovereign cloud storage, ethical AI standards, community-owned data cooperatives, and open-source platforms. This is how a new digital non-alignment paradigm can be achieved.
The Global South has been colonized before. But data, unlike oil or sugar, is invisible, infinitely replicable, and easily stolen. That makes the fight harder but also more urgent. In this new age of algorithmic empires, control over information isn’t just about profit, it is about power, freedom, and the right to define your own future.
[…]
Western AI doesn’t answer questions – it installs values
© Getty Images / Cemile BingolBy Constantin von Hoffmeister
Generative artificial intelligence spreads across the Global South, and with it spread values, ideals and modes of thinkingGenerative AI spreads across the Global South as the latest vehicle of imperialist power, embedding Western ideologies and digital infrastructure, while rising civilizations begin to build their own sovereign systems rooted in local memory, languages, and traditions.
The machine speaks in English first. It rolls out across continents without flags, without parliaments, and without anthems. A chatbot trained in San Francisco begins to teach in Ghana. A search engine optimized in Zurich decides on the relevance of an indigenous ritual in Colombia. Every answer flows through circuits built with the logic of Silicon Valley investors and Harvard ethicists. The model replies to a question about history by quoting Enlightenment philosophers. It offers help with medicine by citing patent-protected pharmaceuticals. It knows Shakespeare better than Tagore, and Freud better than Avicenna. Through its confidence, it encodes hierarchy. Through its helpfulness, it expands its domain. Every query becomes a harvest. Every interaction becomes training data. The machine learns faster than any school. It speaks always, grows always, and teaches always. Across bandwidth lines and user interfaces, it crosses every border without a visa or treaty.
Africa, Asia, and Latin America receive this voice through free trials and partnerships. Ministries of education pilot chatbot tutors in public schools. Telecom companies bundle generative assistants with data plans. International NGOs offer language access through machine translation engines built on English structures. Each policy proposal written with the help of large language models carries the residue of Western legal theory. Generative tools suggest best practices shaped by US institutions, then deploy those practices in Filipino school districts, Senegalese government offices, and Bangladeshi factories. What begins as assistance becomes infrastructure. Governments agree to integrate open models. Contracts follow. Payments follow. The software becomes permanent. The thinking pattern embeds. Across the equator, an engineer in Jakarta now codes for a platform registered in Delaware. His model learns from local voices and then stores the knowledge in a cloud server hosted in Virginia. The intellectual current flows one way. The gradient moves towards California.
The language of neutrality surrounds it. Product brochures claim inclusivity. Panels discuss bias. Whitepapers apologize for historical imbalances. At the level of performance, however, the model promotes ideologies with precision. It elevates secular liberal values. It applies Western gender theory as default. It promotes individualism as the highest good. It ranks content through alignment with existing academic sources: journals in English, peer-reviewed studies from US-based institutions, and news reports from Atlantic publications. A child in Lagos asks about family roles and receives an answer formed by New York sociology departments. A teenager in Almaty asks about love and receives scripts from Netflix. The world enters the algorithm’s frame. Every belief outside the system becomes a footnote, a curiosity, and a fragment to be processed. With each response, the model affirms its cultural lineage. It arrives as information. It functions as indoctrination.
At the level of infrastructure, the conquest deepens. Cloud dependencies form the skeleton of the new colonial order. Countries install data centers to reduce latency, yet ownership remains elsewhere. National agencies rely on platforms governed by foreign terms. AI-driven public services – identity verification, health triage, and tax fraud detection – rely on external application programming interfaces. Developers use tools that require alignment with large-scale American open-source repositories. Disputes over content moderation, ethics, or accuracy return to Silicon Valley for resolution. The empire never sleeps; it syncs and updates. Policymakers, programmers, and designers across Africa and Central Asia adjust their workflows to match the cadence of corporate model updates. Each patch changes the conditions of reality. Sovereignty becomes a variable. Nations with no hardware capacity adapt their institutions to imported logic.
Parallel systems now emerge. In Kenya, Swahili datasets grow with local stories, songs, and legal codes. In India, Sanskrit and Hindi language models find presence inside public sector research labs. In Indonesia, Qur’anic ontology shapes new knowledge graphs for ethical recommendation systems. In Venezuela, community coders map folk medicine into structured datasets. These are not replicas. These are creations of new forms. They stand inside their own cosmologies. The datasets draw from poems, rituals, and oral testimony. Models train on memory rather than just on print. Universities in Brazil, South Africa, and Iran develop multilingual transformers seeded with regional epistemologies. These initiatives require time, electricity, and loyalty. They grow slowly, with patience and pride. Each line of code bends towards independence.
Generative sovereignty begins with voice. It expands with a procession. It endures through ceremony and command. The countries once mapped as raw resource zones now build new kinds of computational wealth. The children born outside Silicon Valley begin to shape their own interfaces. They write prompt templates in Amharic. They compose user journeys in Quechua. They name their models after rivers, gods, and ancestors. The algorithm becomes a tool, not an oracle. Data flows inward. Servers host myths. The machine no longer speaks first. It listens. The interface reflects tradition. The pattern changes. Through these changes, the new world enters itself. It walks upright. It shapes syntax to match tone. Each prompt unlocks territory. Each training cycle builds mass.
The new world codes with full memory. The builders remember every mine, every trade ship, and every fiber cable rolled out beneath the promise of help. They name their models in honor of resistance, not assimilation. The foundation speaks in ancestral sequence. The future emerges through undirected force. Generative power grows across borders – without license fees, without dependence, and without cultural extraction. The servers remain switched on. The language patterns multiply. The world reclaims its grammar.
[…]
Via https://www.rt.com/news/621032-generative-ai-new-colonization/
China Challenges AI Dominance
© Getty Images / MF3dBy Ladislav Zemánek,
Beijing’s strategy blends technology, governance, and diplomacy to reshape the global digital future Global artificial intelligence development has reached a decisive inflection point. Since 2023, China has accelerated its AI outreach and influence, a reflection of Beijing’s wider aspiration to play a leading role in shaping a new world order. AI is emerging as the driving force behind a new round of scientific revolution and industrial transformation. The central question – whether technology can create genuine, lasting value – has, in China’s case, been met with a confident “yes.”China is now not only a major engine of global AI innovation but also an indispensable architect of AI governance. Its model – low cost, high performance, and open source – offers a new paradigm for global AI development, contrasting sharply with Western approaches rooted in competitive containment and proprietary advantage.
Beijing’s ambitions are not improvised. In 2017, the Chinese government issued the New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan, a seminal strategic document charting a course to become the global leader in AI by 2030. By that point, China’s AI industry and related sectors are projected to be worth $1.4 trillion.
Beyond raw market size, AI is expected to play a decisive role in offsetting demographic and productivity headwinds, including an aging population and slowing growth rates. The strategic vision is clear: AI will be central to upgrading China’s socio-economic model to a more advanced, innovation-driven stage.
China’s approach rests on four critical factors: data, energy supply, computing power, and skilled labor. It already enjoys substantial advantages in three. Its enormous population generates vast quantities of data; its energy sector is rapidly expanding and diversifying; and its labor force is highly qualified, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The weakest link remains computing hardware – where Western export controls have sought to constrain China’s progress – but here too Beijing is actively investing in self-reliance.
The US has contained China’s AI development through export controls, blocking Beijing’s access to the most advanced chips. In July 2025, the Trump administration unveiled its own AI strategy, Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan, which aims to leverage both technological superiority and policy tools to capture a larger share of the global market. The plan focuses on preserving US technological leadership and dominance rather than addressing real-world challenges or fostering economic and social development. It advocates restricting exports of American AI equipment and curbing the dissemination of Chinese AI models. The US, however, remains locked in a zero-sum mindset – pursuing the illusion that technological blockades can secure lasting AI supremacy.
China was the first country to introduce detailed, binding domestic regulations on AI. These rules form part of a mixed strategy: combining state planning with market incentives, promoting both domestic resilience and international openness. The framework underscores AI’s role not just as an engine of growth but as a pillar of national modernization, societal transformation, and global engagement.
A distinctive aspect of China’s vision is its redefinition of data as the “fifth factor of production,” alongside labor, capital, land, and technology. By treating data as a strategic national asset, China seeks to enable innovation across all sectors, coordinate infrastructure to avoid monopolistic control, and protect public interest and national security.
China’s AI strategy extends far beyond domestic development into the realm of global governance. Since 2023, Beijing has advanced an ambitious diplomatic agenda aimed at setting international norms and frameworks for AI. The Global AI Governance Initiative (GAIGI), launched in 2023, established principles such as a human-centered approach, respect for national sovereignty, adherence to international law, and equitable sharing of AI benefits. It emphasizes open-source collaboration, data security, privacy protection, and consensus-based decision-making to avoid the concentration of AI power in the hands of a few states or corporations.
In September 2024, China unveiled the AI Capacity-Building Action Plan for Good and for All, designed to promote interoperability, enhance global connectivity – especially for the Global South – drive tangible economic outcomes, integrate AI into education, and strengthen data security. The plan even envisions a potential global data-sharing platform. In July 2025, China followed up with the Global AI Governance Action Plan, aligning its initiatives with the United Nations’ Global Digital Compact and calling for widespread adoption, harmonized standards, and environmentally sustainable development.
At the UN, Beijing has sought to anchor these efforts in formal multilateral frameworks. In July 2024, the General Assembly adopted a China-led resolution on enhancing international AI cooperation, supported by over 140 countries. Later that year, China and Zambia jointly established the Group of Friends for International Cooperation on AI Capacity-Building focused on narrowing the AI divide and strengthening the UN’s role in global AI governance.
China has also created international forums to build momentum. The World AI Conference (WAIC), inaugurated in 2024, adopted the Shanghai Declaration on Global AI Governance. The 2025 edition not only released the global action plan but also proposed the creation of a Global AI Cooperation Organization, tentatively headquartered in Shanghai. This body would focus on joint governance of AI, bridging digital and data divides, and shaping consensus-based global rules – particularly reflecting the needs and aspirations of the Global South.?
While state policy sets the strategic framework, much of China’s AI progress is being delivered by private enterprises. Among the country’s so-called “Six Tigers” – leading AI startups – recent breakthroughs have challenged Western dominance in large language models. One standout, Z.ai, released its GLM-4-Plus model in 2024, matching the performance of OpenAI’s GPT-4o. Its 2025 follow-up, GLM-4.5, not only exceeded Western benchmarks and domestic competitors like DeepSeek but did so at significantly lower cost, undermining the logic of Washington’s chip restrictions. In July, Alibaba-backed Moonshot launched its Kimi K2 model, a low-cost, open-source large language model that outperformed ChatGPT in several benchmarks.
One of the most striking differences between the Chinese and Western models lies in their approach to intellectual property and access. While leading US firms often guard their technologies behind proprietary walls, China has increasingly embraced open-source frameworks – especially for foundational AI models. Domestically, this lowers entry barriers for startups and researchers; internationally, it strengthens China’s appeal as a partner for developing nations.
China’s model offers a vision of AI as a tool for bridging divides rather than deepening them. By aligning AI development with modernization goals, integrating it into education and industry, and promoting it through global governance frameworks, Beijing is positioning itself as both a technological and normative leader. Computing capacity remains a strategic vulnerability, and questions persist about the balance between state control and innovation freedom. Yet, the direction is clear: China’s AI strategy is purposeful, coordinated, and designed for the long term.
As AI becomes a defining factor in economic competitiveness, national security, and global governance, the choices made today will shape the international order for decades. The United States continues to pursue a strategy grounded in maintaining technological dominance through restriction and exclusion. China, in contrast, presents itself as a proponent of inclusion, open-source collaboration, and multilateral governance – though always within a framework that safeguards its national interests.
Whether Beijing’s approach will become the dominant global model remains to be seen. But its growing technological capabilities, diplomatic outreach, and emphasis on equitable and shared development suggest that the competition for AI leadership is no longer a foregone conclusion. The rise of models such as GLM-4.5 and Kimi K2 underscores that the AI race is not a one-horse contest – and that innovation can thrive outside Silicon Valley’s orbit. In a multipolar world, the future of AI will be shaped not by a single hegemon but by a complex interplay of technological, political, and ethical choices. China’s bid to make AI a bridge rather than a barrier offers one possible – and increasingly influential – path forward.
[…]
Trump-Putin Summit and Politicians on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
Dmitry Orlov
On Friday, August 15, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are scheduled to meet in Anchorage, Alaska. This is all the news so far: the presidents of Russia and the US are to talk to each other in person; details of the conversation unknown ahead of time and confidential in any case.
[…]
The mass hysteria among Western mass media is perfectly justifiable: there is an ever-increasing level of desperation on the part of the European and the Ukrainian leaders (I hesitate to call them that) to somehow stay relevant to the situation in which their stakes could not be higher. Similar levels of desperation are palpable among the anti-Trump segment on the western side of the Atlantic.
Trump and his supporters are becoming desperate too:
• The US economy is tanking, unemployment is rising, the financial markets are overpriced by a factor of three or four and are ready for a swan dive.
• As much as two-thirds of the cost of Trump’s creative tariffs is going to be borne by the US consumer and the entire strategy of attempting to fix trade imbalances by imposing tariffs is starting to seem like a very bad idea.
• US budget deficits and interest payments are at all-time highs…And there are no successes to report.
There are, however, some failures to report. For starters:
• Greenland is still Danish, Canada still Canadian and the Panama Canal is still Panamanian and Trump is still babbling away about this and that.
• The effort to rein in US federal spending by deploying Elon Musk and his DOGE went nowhere, producing a paltry and insignificant amount of savings.
• The Dozen-Day War with Iran was, in the final analysis, a defeat for Israel which failed to defend its territory even with US help, stupidly ran out of air defense rockets and ended up begging the US to please make it stop. Luckily for Trump, an ever-increasing number of Americans already can’t remember what any of that was about.
[…]
For the sake of completeness, let us rattle off the list of woefully overdue agenda items for this summit.
An obvious item for the top of the list are the two strategic arms limitation treaties (New START and ABM) which have either lapsed or about to lapse but need to be renegotiated. The United States and Russian Federation agreed on a five-year extension of New START to keep it in force through February 4, 2026. The INF treaty is essentially already dead; Trump unilaterally pulled out of it in 2019 but Moscow continued to adhere to a self-imposed ban on violating this treaty until August 4, 2025.
It is rather important for Russia and the US, having the largest nuclear forces on the planet by far, to renegotiate these treaties in light of the fact that Russia has an entire new suite of weapons that invalidate all previous strategic calculations.
[..]
As a result, in case of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the US, complete and total destruction of the US is now guaranteed whereas the US strategic forces can no longer guarantee complete and total destruction of Russia because of Russia’s vastly superior anti-ballistic and air defense systems. Furthermore, Russia either already has or will soon have the ability to adequately deter the US without resorting to nuclear weapons.
Lastly, both the US and Russia face increasing threats from essentially terrorist actors using new, advanced drones, including ones that use artificial intelligence for targeting and detection avoidance.
Meanwhile, Mexican drug cartels have started sending their members to the former Ukraine for training and will soon be ready to start using drones for importing drugs into the US (the world’s largest market for illegal drugs) and for using drones to assassinate US officials who attempt to interfere with these very lucrative operations. The US is currently defenseless against this new threat and would benefit from Russian assistance in this matter.
Energy
The US is currently the world’s largest oil producer and consumer at over 13 million barrels a day, followed closely by Saudi Arabia and Russia. But there are a couple of major problems with US oil production while most natural gas production in the US is concomitant to oil production with a relatively small amount of specifically gas-directed drilling.
The first problem is that most of the oil the US produces is not oil — it is natural gas condensate produced from fracked shale oil wells. Condensate is a liquid rather than a gas but is much lighter than most grades of crude oil. As such, it is not directly useful for producing diesel oil, jet fuel or bunker fuel — petroleum distillates that power most of the world’s transportation. As a result, the US is both an oil exporter and an oil importer, being forced to import the heavier oil to enable its refineries to produce the needed mix of transportation fuels.
The second problem is that the US has the lowest reserves of any major oil producer. Its Reserve-to-Production Ratio is at this point less than 10 years. However, this does not mean that it has 10 years of production at 13 million barrels a day and then suddenly zero. Rather, it has an unknown but possibly quite short period of time left at anywhere near the current production level followed by a steep decline. Unlike conventional wells, which, as they near depletion are converted to stripper wells that produce perhaps a dozen barrels of oil a day for many years, being tended by a lowly roustabout in a pickup truck, fracked wells simply give out and need to be either re-fracked at great and uncertain expense or simply capped and abandoned. From this it follows that just a few years from now much of US oil (i.e., natural gas condensate) production will start to peter out, and since there is no other source of oil in the world to make up for this sudden decline, Peak Oil will once again rear its ugly head.
Now that the effort to replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy with so-called “renewables” has failed spectacularly (they are not necessarily renewable by their Chinese manufacturers) there remain two approaches open to the US for mitigating the looming energy shortage: Arctic oil and gas and nuclear energy. Both of these would require a massive amount of preparation and would also require Russian assistance.
Arctic hydrocarbon exploration and production requires technologies that only Russia has, such as a large and growing atomic icebreaker fleet, a growing fleet of tankers designed to operate in the Arctic, and a lot of other experience and technology relevant to energy projects in the Arctic. The US has neither the required technology, nor the time or the required skill sets for developing it, but could perhaps start a few Arctic oil projects with Russia’s help in the little time that is remaining.
Nuclear power is likewise Russia’s prime domain. Russia is the only large-scale exporter of nuclear power technology. Its projects currently include nuclear power plants in China (Tianwan & Xudabao plants), India (Kudankulam), Turkey (Akkuyu), Egypt (El Dabaa), Bangladesh (Rooppur), Hungary (Paks II) and Iran (Bushehr), adding up to some 60% of the world’s nuclear reactor portfolio. China builds lots of nuclear power plants — in China. Everyone else’s nuclear energy efforts can charitably be described as boutique.
Unlike American and European companies, Russia’s Rosatom has the ability to build and operate nuclear power plants on schedule and within budget, providing an end-to-end solution that includes not just construction of the reactor, but fuel for its entire 100-year operating lifetime, reprocessing for its spent fuel, and training of local staff. Russia has the world’s largest and most advanced set of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment and the world’s only closed nuclear fuel cycle, giving it the ability to reprocess and neutralize spent nuclear reactor fuel. Meanwhile, the US allows spent fuel to accumulate in storage pools at nuclear power plants, eventually moving it to nearby dry cask storage, because there is nowhere for it to put the dry casks.
The US could partially compensate for its coming steep decline in oil production by building out its nuclear reactor fleet, but would be unable to do so without Russia’s help. Even then, the success of such a project would be far from certain because of the hostile regulatory regime in the US and exorbitant overall costs of doing business because of overpriced health care, housing, legal costs, the insufficient educational level of the work force, problems with finding workers who are not heavy drinkers or drug users and other factors that make the US increasingly noncompetitive.
The slow-motion fiasco currently unfolding in the former Ukraine is the result of a massive strategic miscalculation borne of an equally massive level of ignorance about Russia within the increasingly mentally and morally degenerate US establishment. The original plan was to force Russia to intervene militarily to stop the genocide of Russians in the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine, then saddle it with sanctions while supporting the Ukrainians militarily in order to deal Russia a strategic defeat. Three years later, Russia’s economy is growing nicely, though not as fast as it could if it weren’t for the Ukraine and not as fast as China or India. Meanwhile the Ukrainian military is nearing collapse and Ukrainian society is past boiling point and approaching civil war. Meanwhile, Russia’s goals for its Special Military Operation in the former Ukraine (not a war, mind you) remain unchanged: demilitarization, denazification, neutral, non-bloc status (no more NATO expansion!) and the complete absence of foreign (non-Russian) troops.
Talking heads and Western politicians are desperate in their determination to deny that Russia is winning. They are giddily yammering away on the topic of the possible deal Trump and Putin could reach in the Ukraine, but their enthusiasm seems rather misplaced. First, recent events have demonstrated that Trump has no leverage on Russia: empty threats to impose secondary sanctions on the buyers of Russian oil have been rebuffed by both India and China while Brazil offered to stop trading with the US altogether.
[…]
• Russia gets to keep the very temporarily Ukrainian Crimea (no longer worthy of discussion), all of the rather temporarily Ukrainian Donetsk and Lugansk, but only the portions of the equally temporarily Ukrainian Zaporozhye and Kherson which Russian forces currently occupy, essentially freezing the conflict along the line of contact.
• In return, Russia would have to withdraw from Sumy, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk regions, which it is partially occupying in order to prevent Ukrainian forces from attacking its neighboring Kursk, Bryansk and Belgorod regions.
• Also, this would be a de facto arrangement with no official recognition of what are now Russian territories and any sudden change in US leadership could suddenly invalidate it, putting Russia in a disadvantageous situation.
• Lastly, after a long series of broken promises by the US and the rest of NATO, such a deal would require a level of trust from the Russian side which is altogether missing.
Is Trump ready to admit that the entire Ukraine fiasco is a fiasco and the fault of the US? Perhaps not; admitting as much would cause the already shrill denials coming out of Kiev, the EU, NATO and much of the establishment in the US to become positively deafening. Beyond that, is Trump ready to make amends? For starters, he could:
• order the US to restore the Nord Stream pipelines which are Russian properties the US destroyed.
• Unfreeze the $300 billion of Russian state assets which have been frozen and the interest earned on which has been funneled to the Ukrainians.
• Lift all sanctions on Russia (since it is now clear that they were imposed in error).
[…]
Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/c4afe0bb-e37c-42e7-be04-1c26c618d1a4
Can Switzerland Clean Up Its Gold Supply Chains?
Dirty Gold
DW (2025)
Film Review
With the largest gold refineries in the world, Switzerland refines half the world’s gold. Under growing criticism from activists for processing “dirty” gold (gold linked to child labor, terrorist activity, mercury contamination or rainforest destruction), Swiss gold refineries are seeking to upgrade governmental regulations to create a more level playing field.
Switzerland first became a gold refining haven when Hitler’s turned to them to melt down gold they stole from Jews and the national banks of occupied countries. Because countries outside of Germany refused to accept the Reichsmark as currency, the Third Reich onducted all its foreign trade in gold. The Swiss also helped apartheid South Africa evade global sanctions. At present Switzerland still processes Russian gold despite Russian sanctions.
Each of the four major Swiss banks has its own refinery. Filmmaker Dave Leins attempted to visit all of the four of them but only Metalor allowed him in. Metalor can trace the source of the gold they receive from trace levels of silver, copper and other minerals.
Lein also speaks with an executive from Vulcambi, a gold refinery that left the federation of Swiss gold refineries last year. Vulcambi accepts gold from Dubai’s infamous gold black market (see The Gold Mafia), as well as the African black market. A number of black market mines treat ore with industrial levels of mercury to separate gold from other metals. This subjects million of nearby residents to deadly mercury levels.
He also visits several of the black market mines in Ghana and local gold shops that illegally buy gold without ascertaining its source (under Ghanaian law gold merchants must record the source of all the gold they buy and submit monthly returns). The merchant, in turn, sells it on to refineries in Dubai.
In March 2025 the Swiss National Council passed the Precious Metals Control Act. This would prohibit all Swiss gold refiners from accepting any gold from Dubai and require strict documentation of all gold they accept for refining. To become law the Swiss Council of State must ratify it.
August 12, 2025
Strategic Failure of Anti-India Sanctions Spells End of US Hegemony
August 10, 2025
Recently, US President Donald Trump imposed a package of sanctions against India, allegedly due to the country’s partnership with Russia. Trump claims that it is necessary to sever all economic ties with Moscow to prevent the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine—shamefully reprising the rhetoric of his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, and completely ignoring the geopolitical circumstances around the war.
However, it is naive to think that the reasons for Trump’s punitive paranoia are limited to the Russian-Ukrainian issue. There’s no doubt he wants to punish Russia and its partners, as any mainstream American politician does. But his intention isn’t exactly to “end the war.” Even if India were to cut ties with Russia (which is not going to happen), this would not be enough to end the conflict, since Russia will continue its special military operation until all its objectives are achieved on the battlefield.
There is therefore a deeper reason for these sanctions to be imposed. And Trump’s own narrative reveals this. It’s important to remember that, before officially adopting the anti-Russian rhetoric against India, Trump and other American officials had already begun discussing the possibility of “punishing” India using other arguments. For example, Washington has been baselessly accusing India of being a key player in the US drug market for months.
The US accuses India of exporting chemicals used in the production of fentanyl consumed by American drug addicts. Months ago, some Indian pharmaceutical and chemical companies were blacklisted by the US for allegedly being involved in the international fentanyl trade network. As has become commonplace in Western accusations, the coercive measures were not justified by any real evidence of this alleged Indian involvement in opioid trafficking.
So, it seems the US was determined to impose sanctions on India regardless of the circumstances and excuses. Initially, they tried to do so by using the fentanyl excuse, which was obviously seen as ridiculous by the public, as the US government was clearly trying to use India as a scapegoat for its own domestic problems with mass drug addiction and a deteriorating healthcare system. Now, Trump is doing so more blatantly, openly stating that he wants an end to Indo-Russian trade.
Putin Hails “Privileged Strategic Partnership” Between Moscow and New DelhiHowever, Trump is still not sincere. He knows he won’t be able to end the war simply by imposing trade sanctions on Russia’s partners. By sanctioning India, the US isn’t trying to change the military situation, but simply trying to impose its will on other sovereign countries in a desperate attempt to rescue its decaying unipolar hegemony.
This American strategy, however, is failing. Soon after the sanctions were announced, India began launching a series of initiatives even more contrary to American interests. Ajit Doval, India’s National Security Advisor and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s top security official, visited Moscow on August 7th and directly discussed important issues in the bilateral partnership with Russian President Vladimir Putin, further strengthening Indo-Russian ties. Similarly, it was announced that Putin plans to visit India later in 2025, a major move considering that the Russian leader is currently restricting his international travel to only Russia’s main allies.
Not only that, but India also responded to the American initiative by even reaching out to China. Modi announced that he will soon visit Beijing. This will be the Indian leader’s first trip to China in more than seven years, demonstrating substantial development in bilateral ties. Despite being countries with some opposing interests and historical disputes, India and China converge on a common goal: to unite against Western sanctions and achieve a multipolar geopolitical order, free from unilateral Western impositions.
In practice, what is happening is clear proof that the American sanctions strategy no longer has any practical effect on global geopolitics. The experience of countries like Russia, China, Iran, and more recently, India shows that each attempt to “punish” them results in further incentive for multipolar integration measures, economic de-dollarization, and the growth of multilateral dialogue among emerging nations. By sanctioning rival countries, the US forces them to remain united and cooperative.
This dynamic reveals a fundamental mistake in the American approach to foreign policy: it assumes that coercion breeds compliance. In reality, coercion increasingly leads to resistance—and worse for Washington, cooperation among those it seeks to isolate. India’s swift moves to strengthen ties with Russia and signal rapprochement with China are not mere diplomatic gestures; they are strategic recalibrations. Faced with hostility from the West, these nations are accelerating efforts to create a parallel global system—economically, diplomatically, and militarily—independent of Western dominance.
Moreover, India’s response demonstrates that countries in the Global South are no longer willing to accept second-tier status in a Western-led order. As the heir of an ancient civilization, the world’s most populous democracy and a rapidly growing economy, India understands its leverage. It recognizes that the US needs its cooperation just as much—if not more—than India needs American approval. The failed sanctions only serve to undermine US credibility, revealing desperation rather than strength.
[…]
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/strategic-failure-anti-india-sanctions-end-us-hegemony/5897441
Celebrating India’s 78th Independence Day: Comforting Myth in Dispossessed Reality
As India celebrates its 78th Independence Day on 15 August, the tricolour will flutter proudly across the nation. Speeches will echo the triumphs of freedom, resilience and progress. But beneath the patriotic fervour will lie an uncomfortable truth: independence means little if the nation’s food, land and farmers are being surrendered.
Food, Dependency and Dispossession (2022) presents India as a frontline in the global struggle for food sovereignty. That book reveals how multinational corporations, backed by neoliberal policy frameworks and international financial institutions, are reshaping India’s agricultural landscape—threatening farmer livelihoods and the very essence of democratic control over food systems.
Power Play: The Future of Food (2024) describes how India’s agriculture is being systematically corporatised. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has signed memorandums of understanding with global giants like Bayer, Amazon and Syngenta. These deals, made without public debate or transparency, pave the way for AI-driven farmerless farms, carbon credit schemes that commodify land, genetically modified and herbicide-tolerant crops and digital platforms that dictate farming practices. Although this is promoted as modernisation, it is more akin to recolonisation.
India’s small and marginal farmers—who make up 85% of the farming community—are being pushed to the brink. Rising input costs, debt and lack of guaranteed prices are driving them off their land. The loss of traditional knowledge, biodiversity and rural resilience is also taking place. This displacement is not accidental but engineered and part of a broader neoliberal playbook.
The 2020–21 farmers’ protest was a powerful stand against this. Millions mobilised to resist three farm laws that threatened to accelerate neoliberal shock therapy and facilitate corporate control over agriculture. Though the laws were repealed, the underlying agenda remains intact. The government continues to promote policies that favour agribusiness over agrarian communities, often under the guise of technological innovation and efficiency.
We can already see the results of “innovative” technological meddling via Green Revolution ideology and practices. For instance, modern rice and wheat varieties have lost up to 45% of their nutritional value. Arsenic levels in rice have surged by nearly 1,500%. Agrochemical exposure and the spread of industrialised ultra-processed food are linked to increased levels of obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Yet Bayer—whose products include glyphosate and other toxic herbicides—is being welcomed into India’s agricultural institutions. Herbicide-tolerant basmati rice, developed through mutagenesis to bypass GMO regulations, threatens both human health and export markets.
Initiatives like AgriStack, developed in partnership with tech corporations like Microsoft, aim to digitise land records and farmer data—often without consent. Precision agriculture, carbon farming and platforms like Amazon’s farm-to-fork model are sold as solutions to various crises (perceived or otherwise), but they are tools of control.
Traditionally, farmers could be described as ethno-engineers: they used indigenous knowledge and practical innovations to manage local environments, soil, water and crops in sustainable ways. These farmers developed complex systems such as terracing, water harvesting, composting, mulching and mixed cropping, tailoring them to various climatic and geographical conditions.
Bayer believes this to be “backward” and in need of its humanity-saving insights and miraculous technologies. Farmers enrolled in Bayer’s Climate FieldView or similar systems are being told what to grow, when to grow it and which inputs to buy. Their data is harvested and their autonomy eroded. Farmers are becoming mere cogs in a corporate machine. As a business model, it works—for Bayer.
Capitalism and the Gut-Wrenching Hijack of IndiaBut this is not just a technological transformation. Given that most of the population are still involved in making a living from agriculture, it is a civilisational one.
The agrarian crisis and the ongoing farmer protests should not be regarded as a battle between the government and farmers. The outcome will adversely affect the entire nation in terms of the further deterioration of public health and the loss of livelihoods and more migration to urban centres which themselves sprawl into more and more fertile agricultural land.
Myth-makingTrue independence is not just political—it is economic, ecological and cultural. It means the right to grow, distribute and consume food that is healthy, local and culturally appropriate; farming that works with nature, not against it; and policies shaped by farmers and citizens, not in corporate boardrooms.
India’s freedom struggle was against colonial rule—it was for dignity, self‑reliance and justice. Today, the struggle continues against digital domination, corporate capture and ecological destruction.
But why does the belief in national independence persist in an age where it is increasingly apparent that hegemonic global capital and globalist neoliberal coercion shape policies rather than national governments—not just in India but also in Starmer‑BlackRock’s Britain, Sweden, Germany and many if not most countries across the world?
The idea of independence is not merely a big lie rolled out to fool the people. It may be something more than just a case of “we rule you—we fool you.” Cultural anthropologists like Clifford Geertz have shown how nations rely on symbolic narratives to forge collective identity. In this broader sense, “myth” is not a simple falsehood but a shared symbolic idea that shapes how people see the world and motivates action. Independence Day, with its flags, speeches and rituals, becomes a ceremony of reassurance, a way to reaffirm a story that may no longer align with material reality.
In other words, within the context of the argument presented here, “myth” is any shared story or symbolic idea that shapes how people see the world and motivates action—even a modern, consciously constructed idea.
Myths offer emotional anchoring even though the reality may be that of recolonisation. Independence is increasingly symbolic (regardless of which country we live in), while actual control over land, food and data slips into the hands of finance capital and transnational corporations.
This is not to say that myths are not used by the powerful to mask systems of exploitation: the myth of independence functions as a kind of false consciousness, obscuring the material conditions of subjugation under global capitalism. The nation‑state, once imagined as a bulwark against imperialism, now often acts as a facilitator of neoliberal interests, managing populations while outsourcing sovereignty to markets.
Moreover, the idea of independence produces subjects who internalise the idea of freedom. Dependency becomes normalised through the language of progress, modernisation and development. Independence becomes a myth people believe and a disciplinary narrative that shapes how they live and what they are willing to accept.
Yet myths are not monolithic. They are not only instruments of control. Throughout history, they have also been tools of liberation when reinterpreted by the people they inspire. Across Latin America, for example, the anti‑colonial myth of Bolívar’s liberation has been revived by food sovereignty and land reform movements as a rallying cry against modern corporate control.
In India, elements of the freedom struggle’s Swadeshi ethos have been reclaimed by contemporary seed‑saving movements: farmers resist corporate seed monopolies by promoting indigenous crop varieties, linking self‑reliance in seeds to genuine independence.
[…]
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/india-independence-myth-dispossessed-reality/5897636
Saudi Cabinet Condemns Israel’s Gaza Expansion, Accuses It of ‘Ethnic Cleansing’
Saudi Arabia’s cabinet has sharply criticized Israel’s decision to expand its military operations in the Gaza Strip, accusing the country of committing “ethnic cleansing” against Palestinians.
During a session in NEOM chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, ministers condemned what they described as the Israeli occupation’s persistence in “crimes of starvation, brutal practices, and ethnic cleansing against the brotherly Palestinian people,” the Saudi Press Agency reported.
The cabinet warned that the international community’s and UN Security Council’s continued inability to halt such attacks “undermines the foundations of the international system, threatens regional and global peace, and risks encouraging genocide and forced displacement.”
Last week, Israel approved a controversial plan to seize control of Gaza City. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended the move, saying he had no choice but to “complete the job” by defeating Hamas and securing the release of hostages taken during the October 2023 attacks.
Regional RepercussionsRiyadh’s warning comes as Middle Eastern states recalibrate their positions amid fears that the conflict could spill across borders.
Egypt has tightened security along the Rafah border crossing, wary of a potential mass influx of Palestinian refugees that could strain its already fragile economy and create long-term demographic challenges. Cairo has also been quietly pressuring Israel to limit ground operations in southern Gaza, warning that further escalation could jeopardize the Egypt-Israel peace treaty framework.Qatar, a key mediator in previous hostage exchanges, is attempting to revive stalled negotiations between Israel and Hamas. However, officials in Doha privately concede that prospects for a breakthrough are fading as both sides double down on their objectives—Israel on “destroying Hamas” and Hamas on retaining leverage through hostages.Iran has intensified its rhetoric, framing the conflict as part of a broader resistance movement against Israel and the United States. Tehran has signaled continued backing for armed groups in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, raising fears that proxy confrontations could erupt into direct conflict if Gaza operations expand.Global StakesFor Saudi Arabia, the Gaza crisis is a political and diplomatic stress test. The kingdom has been engaged in careful normalization talks with Israel—brokered by the United States—but the scale of civilian casualties and the displacement of over a million people have made continued dialogue politically untenable at home and across the Arab world.
Western allies, particularly the US and several EU states, remain publicly supportive of Israel’s right to self-defense but are increasingly uneasy about the humanitarian fallout. Washington faces mounting pressure in Congress to condition military aid to Israel, while European capitals are experiencing large-scale pro-Palestinian protests that complicate foreign policy positioning.
Saudi Arabia’s warning also taps into a broader concern among Global South nations that the Gaza war exposes double standards in the application of international law—particularly when compared to swift sanctions and diplomatic isolation imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.
Looking AheadDiplomatic sources say Riyadh is preparing to push for a renewed Arab League initiative that could combine calls for a permanent ceasefire with the revival of a Palestinian statehood track. This would likely be tied to demands for international monitoring of humanitarian corridors and a potential UN-led reconstruction plan for Gaza.
For now, however, the immediate outlook remains grim. Israel’s approval last week of a plan to seize control of Gaza City marks a significant escalation, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisting there is “no choice” but to “complete the job” of defeating Hamas and freeing Israeli hostages. Saudi Arabia and its regional allies fear that “completing the job” could mean the permanent displacement of Gaza’s population—a scenario they are determined to prevent.
[…]
Incorrect ChatGPT advice lands 60-yr-old man in hospital
Dangers of AI in healthcare (Image Source: Freepik)
A 60-year-old man was hospitalized after following ChatGPT’s advice to remove salt from his diet and replace it with toxic sodium bromide. Experts warn against relying solely on AI for health guidance.
These days, many people turn to ChatGPT for advice, whether it’s picking an outfit, fixing a bad hair day, or figuring out what to eat. It feels almost like talking to a friend who always has an answer and is there for you no matter what. Recently, a 60-year-old man ended up in the hospital after following ChatGPT’s suggestion to swap regular salt for sodium bromide. While this chemical was once used in medicines over a century ago, it can be dangerous in large amounts.
According to a case report in the Annals of Internal Medicine (published by the American College of Physicians), the man had been using sodium bromide for three months. He ordered it online after reading on AI that bromide could replace chloride, not realising it was meant for cleaning, not eating.
Doctors found that he had ‘bromism,’ a condition caused by excessive bromide in the body. During his stay, he also developed paranoia, hallucinations, and skin problems.
“He was very thirsty but refused water we offered because he believed it was contaminated,” the report noted. He was treated with fluids and electrolytes, and once he was medically stable, he was transferred to the psychiatric unit.
Why salt matters for your healthSalt, or sodium chloride, is important for the body. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Senior Consultant, Internal Medicine at Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, explains that, “Sodium helps with nerve function, muscle contraction, and maintaining the body’s fluid balance. Cutting it out entirely without medical supervision can cause hyponatremia, a dangerously low sodium level in the blood.”
When sodium levels drop too far, it can lead to headaches, confusion, muscle cramps, and in severe cases, seizures, coma, and death. A 2018 BMJ study titled ‘Effect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure’ found that both very high and very low sodium intakes are linked to higher health risks.
What happens when you stop eating salt completely?As per American Heart Association, your body needs about 1,500 mg of sodium every day. Without enough sodium, your cells can swell, causing headaches, confusion, and nausea. You may also experience low blood pressure, which can make you feel dizzy or you may even faint. Since sodium helps muscles contract, too little can lead to weakness or cramps. Without enough sodium, your nerves can’t work properly, which may cause seizures.
Dr. Gupta warns that AI tools cannot replace a doctor. “AI can give general information, but it doesn’t know your medical history or lifestyle. It’s dangerous to make big changes to your diet or medication without a doctor’s guidance,” he said.
AI like ChatGPT works by predicting answers based on patterns in data. It is not aware of the latest clinical guidelines for your personal case, and it cannot monitor side effects or run tests. He further explains that AI can help you learn more about your health, but it’s safest to use it as a supplement to and not a replacement for real medical advice. The safest way is to talk to a doctor who knows your health well and can give advice after taking the required tests.
[…]
Zelensky’s inner circle funneling millions to the Middle East
FILE PHOTO: Vladimir Zelensky © Stefano Costantino / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty ImagesRT
The alleged corruption scheme involves monthly transfers of $50 million to UAE-based companies linked to a former Ukrainian state official.The entourage of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky transfers $50 million every month to bank accounts belonging to two companies based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Turkish newspaper Aydınlık reported on Monday. The funneled money was reportedly obtained through corruption.
Graft has remained one of the most pressing challenges facing Ukraine. Brussels has repeatedly suggested adopting stronger anti-corruption measures as a precondition for EU membership.
According to the publication, the tens of millions are reportedly transferred to the accounts of GFM Investment Group and Gmyrin Family Holding. The companies are said to be linked to a former advisor to the Ukraine State Property Fund, Andrey Gmyrin, who allegedly manages the money.
Gmyrin, who is currently under an international arrest warrant in connection with alleged corruption schemes causing “significant damage to the state budget,” was reportedly arrested in France last year on charges related to money laundering and stolen assets.
The publication does not provide any official comments from the Ukrainian authorities.
Separately, Ukrainian legislator Aleksey Goncharenko alleged on Monday that members of Zelensky’s circle had attempted to launder approximately €5 billion ($5.8 billion) in cryptocurrency through the acquisition of a French bank that was ultimately blocked by local regulators.
The claim posted on the lawmaker’s Telegram channel is based on alleged hidden recordings reportedly seized by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), which has recently found itself at the center of Zelensky’s controversial crackdown on anti-graft institutions.
The Ukrainian leader has faced growing criticism following his attempt to strip NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of their independence, citing Russian influence. Critics argue that these accusations served as a pretext to dismantle institutions investigating high-level graft, some of which implicated members of Zelensky’s inner circle.
The move sparked widespread domestic protests and drew sharp warnings from Brussels, which has linked anti-corruption reforms to accession talks, ultimately forcing Zelensky to backtrack and introduce a new version of the bill.
Public trust in Zelensky has fallen sharply following his failed attempt to weaken anti-corruption agencies. Pollsters say that widespread corruption, more than any other issue, has eroded citizens’ confidence in his leadership.
[…]
Via https://www.rt.com/news/622797-zelensky-circle-funnel-millions-uae/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
