Russia and Iran - Threatening the Role of the U.S. Dollar Reserve Currency

Russia and Iran have now officially paved the pathway to avoiding Western-based sanctions which have long been used, primarily by Washington, to punish pariah nations for what it deems "inappropriate behaviours.  This move may also ultimately lead to the end of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency and reduce the importance of the SWIFT global payments system which Russia was banned from using in February 2022.

  

Here is the announcement from the Islamic Republic News Agency:

 

...and from Mehr News:

 

 

The original MOUs were signed back in May 2022 as shown here:

 

 

As well, in a July 2022 meeting between the governor of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the head of the Central Bank of Russia, the two nations implemented MOU's on the development of relations in the financial and banking sectors:

 

Both nations have now taken measures toward avoiding the punishing restrictions that have been placed on their respective economies and, since they are using their national currencies to settle both trade and energy payments, are clearly moving to threaten role of the United States dollar role as the world's dominant reserve currency.  As well, putting the rising influence of the BRICS nations into the equation, the recent announcement that Egypt was joining the BRICs New Development Bank (NDB) as shown here:

 

...and the new nations seeking to join BRICS as shown on this graphic:

 

 

...it is increasingly appearing that the global sanctions regime that has been spearheaded by Washington has led to a situation which could ultimately impact the importance of the United States and the West in general in global geopolitics.

  

Imagine that, first-order thinking by the political leadership of the West is resulting in a cascading series of unintended consequences.

The Joint Declaration Between the EU and NATO - The Latest Threat to Russia

On January 10, 2023, the European Union and NATO signed a Joint Declaration in Brussels as announced here:

 

This is the third Joint Declaration that has been signed by the two parties with previous versions being signed in 2016 and 2018, however, given the current situation in Ukraine, this is by far the most critical.  Currently, 12 of 27 of the European Union's member states are already members of NATO with both Sweden and Finland moving toward membership.

  

Here is a quote from the NATO press release:

 

"The leaders resolved to address growing geostrategic competition, resilience issues, and the protection of critical infrastructures. Other priority areas of work will include emerging and disruptive technologies, space, the security implications of climate change, foreign interference and information manipulation. The Secretary General underlined that the Joint Declaration “recognises the value of a more capable European defence that contributes positively to our security and is complementary to, and interoperable with, NATO”.

 

Mr Stoltenberg stressed the importance of NATO-EU cooperation in the context of the changed security environment following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He further noted that the NATO-EU partnership “will become even more important once Finland and Sweden become full NATO members,” and that "with their accession, NATO will be protecting 96% of the citizens in the European Union, and a higher share of its territory than ever before.""

 

In other words, with the signing of Finland, NATO will now add to its shared border with Russia.

 

Here is the official text of the Joint Declaration which was signed by the President of the European Council Charles Michel, the President of the European Commission Ursula von Der Leyen and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Jens Stoltenberg with my bolds for emphasis:

 

1.) The NATO-EU strategic partnership is founded on our shared values, our determination to tackle common challenges and our unequivocal commitment to promote and safeguard peace, freedom and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic area. 

2.) Today, we are faced with the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades. Russia’s brutal war on Ukraine violates international law and the principles of the UN Charter. It undermines European and global security and stability. Russia’s war has exacerbated a food and energy crisis affecting billions of people around the world.

3.) We condemn in the strongest possible terms Russia’s aggression. Russia must immediately stop this war and withdraw from Ukraine. We express our full solidarity with Ukraine and reiterate our unwavering and continued support for its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. We fully support Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence and to choose its own destiny

4.) Authoritarian actors challenge our interests, values and democratic principles using multiple means – political, economic, technological and military.

5.) We live in an era of growing strategic competition. China’s growing assertiveness and policies present challenges that we need to address.

6.) Persistent conflict, fragility and instability in our European neighbourhood undermine our security and provide fertile ground for strategic competitors, as well as terrorist groups, to gain influence, destabilise societies and pose a threat to our security.

7.) As underlined by both the NATO Strategic Concept and the EU Strategic Compass, this is a key juncture for Euro-Atlantic security and stability, more than ever demonstrating the importance of the transatlantic bond, calling for closer EU-NATO cooperation.

8.) NATO remains the foundation of collective defence for its Allies and essential for Euro Atlantic security. We recognise the value of a stronger and more capable European defence that contributes positively to global and transatlantic security and is complementary to, and interoperable with NATO.

9.) Our mutually reinforcing strategic partnership contributes to strengthening security in Europe and beyond. NATO and the EU play complementary, coherent and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security. We will further mobilize the combined set of instruments at our disposal, be they political, economic or military, to pursue our common objectives to the benefit of our one billion citizens.

10.) Building on the 2016 Warsaw Joint Declaration and the 2018 Brussels Joint Declaration, which significantly expanded the breadth and depth of our partnership established more than twenty years ago, we have achieved unprecedented progress across all areas of cooperation.

11.) We have reached tangible results in countering hybrid and cyber threats, operational cooperation including maritime issues, military mobility, defence capabilities, defence industry and research, exercises, counter terrorism, and capacity-building of partners.

12.) As the security threats and challenges we are confronted with are evolving in scope and magnitude, we will take our partnership to the next level on the basis of our long-standing cooperation. We will further strengthen our cooperation in existing areas, and expand and deepen our cooperation to address in particular the growing geostrategic competition, resilience issues, protection of critical infrastructures, emerging and disruptive technologies, space, the security implications of climate change, as well as foreign information manipulation and interference.

13.) In signing this declaration we will take the NATO-EU partnership forward in close consultation and cooperation with all NATO Allies and EU Member States, in the spirit of full mutual openness and in compliance with the decision-making autonomy of our respective organisations and without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defence policy of any of our members. In this context, we view transparency as crucial. We encourage the fullest possible involvement of the NATO Allies that are not members of the EU in its initiatives. We encourage the fullest possible involvement of the EU members that are not part of the Alliance in its initiatives.

14.) We will assess progress on a regular basis.

You will note the repeated references to "strategic/geostrategic competition" to NATO which includes both Russia and China.

In response, here's what Maria Zakharova, Spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation had to say in response to the signing, again with my bolds:

 

"The Joint Declaration on EU-NATO Cooperation, which President of the European Council Charles Michel, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg signed in Brussels on January 10, 2023, has reaffirmed the EU’s full subordination to the bloc, which is a military instrument being used to ensure US interests. While proclaiming “the importance of the transatlantic bond” and “mutually reinforcing strategic partnership” between the EU and NATO, the declaration is promoting the tasks set out in the NATO Strategic Concept adopted at the bloc’s summit in Madrid in June 2022.

 

Contrary to all their OSCE obligations, they view security in the Euro-Atlantic area through the prism of standing up to Russia, increasing weapons and equipment supplies to the Kiev regime, enhancing military mobility in the European “theatre of war,” and continuing NATO’s expansion. The declaration’s provision on the secondary or, as the bloc’s strategists put it, complementary role of European defence to NATO has effectively cancelled out the EU’s claim for autonomy in this sphere.

 

A reference in the document to international law and the principles of the UN Charter is especially hypocritical in light of the bloc’s aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the bombing of Libya in 2011.

 

On the global stage, the EU is taking its partnership with NATO to the next level, which amounts to hence joining its geopolitical competition with China and efforts to ensure the bloc’s superiority in protecting critical infrastructures, space, the media and even the security implications of climate change.

 

The Joint Declaration is the latest accolade to the philosophy of Western superiority. It openly proclaims the intention of the EU and NATO to further mobilise the combined set of instruments at their disposal, be they political, economic or military, to pursue their common objectives to the benefit of their one billion citizens.

 

Therefore, they view the rest of the world as a hostile medium, which must be reformed with the use of these instruments. This is nothing new. EU High Representative Josep Borrell has already described the EU as a garden and the rest of the world as a jungle that might “invade the garden.”

 

In reality, it is not the jungle that is invading Brussels’ “garden,” but the EU and NATO that are stepping on the rake of the unipolar world again. The instability, conflicts and tensions on the NATO-EU periphery, which concern them so much, just like the food and energy security crises Brussels is blaming on Russia, are a direct result of NATO’s “humanitarian interventions” and the EU’s attempts to force countries to pursue the “correct” foreign and economic policies. Commenting on the latest developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina the other day, EU Lead Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Peter Stano openly said that the EU has a toolbox it can use “to make sure that [the EU] policies or standards are being followed.” Just like that, plain and simple.

 

It is clear that NATO’s and EU’s confrontational approach towards states that pursue independent foreign policies, and their attempts to divide the world into “us and them” will only hinder the peaceful settlement of conflicts and weaken international security against the persisting challenge of terrorism, which has been mentioned in the declaration.

 

The Americans’ motives are crystal clear. They want to pull the EU into the “geostrategic competition,” as it is described in the declaration, which Washington has launched so that Europe will play the role of America’s vassal, rapidly ceding its political and economic positions and hence becoming increasingly more dependent on the United States."

  

Moscow views the West's efforts to promote the war in Ukraine as just another development in its decades-long existential struggle to destroy Russia (aka the Soviet Union) and, in Washington's world, its leadership is more than willing to sacrifice Europe (and Ukrainians for that matter) to see its agenda for the preservation of America's role in a unipolar world protected.  Unfortunately for the American ruling class, China and Russia seem to have alternative plans for their collective roles in a rapidly evolving multipolar global reality, plans that could ultimately end up creating the unthinkable war that no one will win.  

I think that closing this posting with these recent and timely comments from Germany's Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock regarding the sending of Polish tanks to Ukraine is pertinent:

Pfizer and Directed Evolution of COVID Viruses - Why Are We Trusting Big Pharma?

Thanks to the journalists at Project Veritas we have a fascinating confessional from Dr. Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer's Director of Research and Development - Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning

  

As background and thanks to Brian O'Shea, here is some information on Dr. Walker:

  

1.) New York State licence:

 

2.) Profile on Doximity:

 

 

3.) UT Southwestern Medical Center Match Day 2018 webpage:

 

 

4.) University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Class of 2018 Academic Hooding Ceremony (found under Cary College/Andrian Salazar, M.D.:

 

 

5.) U.S. News Health website:

 

 

6.) C.V. noting the following:

Director, Worldwide R&D Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning (Pfizer, Oct 2019 - Present) 

 

7.) Apollo:

Here's the video from Project Veritas which has been Archived for posterity:

 

Let's look at some quotes:

 

PV - Pfizer ultimately is thinking about mutating COVID?

 

JTW - Well that's not what we say to the public. No.  We're exploring like you know, how the virus keeps mutating. Well, one of the things we're exploring is like, why don't we just mutate it ourselves so we could, we could create preemptively develop mew vaccines, right?  So, we have to do that.  If we're gonna do that though, there's a risk of like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating fucking viruses.  You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn't create something like, you know, goes everywhere."

 

PV - It sounds like Gain-of-Function to me.

 

JTW - I don't know, it's' a little bit different.  I think it's different. It's like this, it's definitely not Gain-of-Function.

 

PV - It sounds like it is, I mean, it's okay.

 

JTW - No, no, no.  But directed evolution is very different.  Well, you're not supposed to do Gain-of-Function research with the viruses.  They'd rather we not but we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can make them more potent.  So there is research ongoing about that.

A distinction without a difference.

 

At the 6 minute and 17 second mark, we find this exchange:

PV - What's the goal for Pfizer doing that (COVID mutations)?

JTW - So, part of what they want to do is try to figure out, to some extent, try to figure out like you know how there's all these new strains and variants that just pop up?   Why don't we try to like catch they before they pop up in nature and we can develop a vaccine prophylactically  before like new variants...so that if it comes out later on, in the public, then you already have a vaccine kind of working.  

PV - Oh my God, that's perfect.  Isn't that the best business model though?  Just control nature before nature even happens itself, right?

JTW - Who knows?  I mean either way it's going to be a cash cow.  COVID will probably be a cash cow for us for a while going forward."

Here is a link to the entire story from Project Veritas.

  

And to think that the vast majority of us trusted Big Pharma with its unprecedented and experimental response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Addendum:

Here is a tweet from Project Veritas' Twitter account with a video that shows a followup to the video that was posted in the first part of this posting:

Here is the video since Twitter's embedding code seems to not be working properly for me:

Here is the link to an archived version of the video.

And, here is an article co-authored by Jordon Walker entitled "The Near-Term Outlook for COVID-19 Therapeutic Treatments" from May 2020 showing that he is familiar with COVID-19 therapeutics:

Addendum 2:

Here is Pfizer's rather weak response which appeared nearly 48 hours after the "allegations" were made, noting that they say nothing about their employee (or former employee) Dr. Walker but plenty about their COVID-19 product line:

Trust us, we'd never lie to you.

Two Decades of Aggravating Russia - A Washington Pastime

A recent viewpoint by Branko Marcetic on the American Committee for US-Russia Accord entitled "Diplomatic Cables Show Russia Saw NATO Expansion as a Red Line" provides us with some important background on the current conflict in Ukraine that is rarely (if ever) discussed in the Western mainstream media.  Thanks to this article, we also gain an understanding regarding the importance of organizations like WikiLeaks whose mandate (in part) it was to shed light on the seedy and secretive underbelly of American politics.

  

Let's look at a selection of classified diplomatic cables from the United States Department of State that were released by WikiLeaks as part of its Cablegate program which began on November 28, 2011:

 

1.) In this April 2002 cable, U.S. Ambassador to Italy Melvin Sembler is relaying information from a meeting held with then Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi following the Prime Minister's meetings with Vladimir Putin in Moscow and Sochi.  In this cable, Sembler outlines Putin's belief in the importance of Russia being seen as part of the NATO family and that a new NATO-Russia agreement could be negotiated and signed in May 2002:

 

3.) This September 2005 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. officials and French officials in which they discussed NATO, Russia and Ukraine among other issues.  France's Presidential Diplomatic Advisor Maurice Gourdault-Montagne noted that France had developed a good working relationship with Russia which made it possible to discuss difficult subjects at a high level.  It notes that Moscow is sensitive to "an eventual Ukraine accession to NATO".  Interestingly, in a discussion about NATO, France's Director for Strategic Affairs Philippe Carre noted that "the U.S. has a tendency to seek military solutions to security problems, which could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.".  He also commented that France did not want to risk fallout in Ukraine by offering NATO membership:

 

Here is one additional interesting section in the cable which clearly shows Washington's agenda toward Russia:

4.) This February 2007 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to France Craig Roberts Stapleton and France's Political Director Gerard Araud.  In this meeting, the issue of Russia's reaction to Washington's missile defense initiative with Poland and Russia was discussed.

 

In order to keep this posting to a reasonable length, let's look at one final cable:

4.) This September 2007 cable from the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Ambassador William Burns outlines Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comments on the course of Russian foreign policy and how U.S.-led positions on key issues remain at odds with Russia, most importantly noting that the eastward expansion of NATO should be minimized.  It also notes that the Bush II Adminstration's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the delay of Russia gaining entry into the WTO "dashed Putin's hope" for rapprochement with Washington.  It also notes that "resurgent Russia is...seeking international recognition, particularly from the U.S., for its recovery from political, economic and social disrepair" and that Putin had hoped that relations between the two nations would improve after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Lavrov also noted that all parties, even those that are considered to be "undesirable" should have a seat at negotiating tables.

In order to keep this posting to a reasonable length, let's look at one final cable:

 

4.) This February 2007 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to France Craig Roberts Stapleton and France's Political Director Gerard Araud.  In this meeting, the issue of Russia's reaction to Washington's missile defense initiative with Poland and Russia was discussed which is important as it relates to NATO's expansion to the east.

 

There are other Department of State cables that clearly outline Russia's concerns about NATO expansionism that are available on WikiLeaks website which prove that Washington was well aware that Russia was concerned about its western flank, the same flank that proved to be extremely vulnerable during the Second World War as Nazi Germany expanded eastward in its move to destroy Russia's untermenschen.  So what has Washington done?  Here is a map showing NATO's expansion over the decades, particularly in the 1990s as former Soviet states acceded to NATO membership:

 

Other that Belarus and Ukraine, NATO member states now directly share common borders with Russia, making the nation feel vulnerable to an attack from the west.  Given this table which shows the estimated number of military and civilian fatalities due to the Second World War between the years of 1939 and 1945, Russia has valid historical reasons for being concerned about its security along its western frontier, an issue that only China can truly understand given its losses to Japan during the Second World War:

 

Banning Electric Vehicles

Western governments around the world are touting the "fact" that the best answer to slowing or stopping global climate change is to implement a complete and mandatory transition to electric vehicles.  Of course, you'll never hear about the potential negative environmental issues associated with this transition, however, one state in America has taken a completely oppositional approach to the issue.

 

Legislators in the State of Wyoming have proposed Senate Joint Resolution SJ0004 "Phasing out new electric vehicle sales by 2035".  The Bill is sponsored by Senator Jim Anderson (R) and co-sponsored by Senators Brian Boner (R), Ed Cooper (R) and Dan Dockstader (R) and Representatives Donald Burkhart (R) and Henderson.

 

As background, Wyoming is a fairly significant producer of oil:

 

...which puts it in eighth place overall among all states...

  

...and natural gas:

 

 

Let's take a detailed look at SJ004.  Here is a screen capture of the bill's first few lines:

 

 

Now, let's look at the reasoning behind the bill:

 

"WHEREAS, oil and gas production has long been one of Wyoming's proud and valued industries; and

  

WHEREAS, the oil and gas industry in Wyoming has created countless jobs and has contributed revenues to the state of Wyoming throughout the state's history; and

 

WHEREAS, since its invention, the gas-powered vehicle has enabled the state's industries and businesses to engage in commerce and transport goods and resources more efficiently throughout the country; and

 

WHEREAS, Wyoming's vast stretches of highway, coupled with a lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, make the widespread use of electric vehicles impracticable for the state; and

 

WHEREAS, the batteries used in electric vehicles contain critical minerals whose domestic supply is limited and at risk for disruption; and

 

WHEREAS, the critical minerals used in electric batteries are not easily recyclable or disposable, meaning that municipal landfills in Wyoming and elsewhere will be required to develop practices to dispose of these minerals in a safe and responsible manner; and

 

WHEREAS, the expansion of electric vehicle charging stations in Wyoming and throughout the country necessary to support more electric vehicles will require massive amounts of new power generation in order to sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles; and

 

WHEREAS, the United States has consistently invested in the oil and gas industry to sustain gas-powered vehicles, and that investment has resulted in the continued employment of thousands of people in the oil and gas industry in Wyoming and throughout the country; and

 

WHEREAS, fossil fuels, including oil and petroleum products, will continue to be vital for transporting goods and people across Wyoming and the United States for years to come; and

 

WHEREAS, the proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming's communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming's economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce; and

 

WHEREAS, phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035 will ensure the stability of Wyoming's oil and gas industry and will help preserve the country's critical minerals for vital purposes."

  

Here are the resolutions of the bill:

1.) That the legislature encourages and expresses as a goal that the sale of new electric vehicles in the state of Wyoming be phased out by 2035.

 

2.) That the legislature encourages Wyoming's industries and citizens to limit the sale and purchase of new electric vehicles in Wyoming with a goal of phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035.

 

3.) That the Secretary of State of Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, each member of Wyoming's congressional delegation, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the governor of Wyoming and the governor of California.

The Bill has been referred to the Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee for deliberation.  Given that the Wyoming House of Representatives is currently made up of 57 Republicans and 5 Democrats and the Wyoming Senate is made up of 29 Republicans and 2 Democrats, SJ0004 does actually stand a chance of becoming law.

  

It is pretty hard to argue with the logic of the reasoning behind SJ0004 from the perspective of any advantages to Wyoming's economy that a switch to electric vehicles will bring.  While it is highly unlikely in the current climate change fear-mongering environment, it will be interesting to see if other jurisdictions that rely on fossil fuels for their economic health will follow Wyoming's lead and, at the least, restrict the sale of electric vehicles now and into the future or at least until the environmental impact of EVs is better understood.